DA VINCI CODE: The Real Turkey of 2006?
-
Carlson2005
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35777
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
No no, I enjoyed GODZILLA and APES -- I'm just saying those were movies people went to see in decent numbers but nobody really liked (except for, well, you and me and maybe someone in Topeka). This movie may be the same type of thing, with a huge opening and then a fast crash.Carlson2005 wrote:And dammit, I enjoyed the last half of Godzilla with all those Babyzillas (and Jean Reno doing his Elvis impersonation). I even liked the end of Planet of the Apes - though not much else of it. But I'm with you all the way and back again on The Flintstones.
-
Carlson2005
From the reaction I've heard so far, it's definitely going that way. Although they've opened it out with over-literal flashbacks, people who read a novel made up of conversations in libraries and almost completely devoid of action are strangely surprised to find that the film is largely made up of conversations in libraries and almost completely devoid of action for some reason.
In the UK, the film only appears to have got one good review from a critic on the Daily Express who called it a masterpiece, but got so many plot details wrong it's pretty obvious he missed the preview altogether and probably wrote his review in the pub. Still, I loved the reaction of one Church of England Bishop who saw it and said "I was looking forward to being outraged, but instead I was just bored."
In the UK, the film only appears to have got one good review from a critic on the Daily Express who called it a masterpiece, but got so many plot details wrong it's pretty obvious he missed the preview altogether and probably wrote his review in the pub. Still, I loved the reaction of one Church of England Bishop who saw it and said "I was looking forward to being outraged, but instead I was just bored."
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35777
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
The early reports are that Da Vinci Code has taken in $224 million worldwide its opening weekend, $77 million of that in the States. No flop here. Still not interested in seeing it.
M:I3 has broken the $100 million mark domestically. Not up to studio expectations, I'm sure, but it's not going to lose any money when all is said and done.
Yes, Andy, I'm starting to see some positive reviews for X3, too. I sooooo want that to be good! I guess we'll see soon enough.
Mark
M:I3 has broken the $100 million mark domestically. Not up to studio expectations, I'm sure, but it's not going to lose any money when all is said and done.
Yes, Andy, I'm starting to see some positive reviews for X3, too. I sooooo want that to be good! I guess we'll see soon enough.
Mark
-
Carlson2005
Well, Variety was very unimpressed - rushed, lacking in gravitas and clumsily directed, they compared it to Return of the Jedi: - and not in a good way:
The third time's not the charm in "X-Men: The Last Stand." Taking over the reins from Bryan Singer, helmer Brett Ratner delivers a wham-bam sequel noticeably lacking in the pop gravitas, moody atmospherics and emotional weight that made the first two Marvel comicbook adaptations so rousingly successful. Robust action, the usual top-of-the-line visual effects and massive fan-ticipation worldwide all but guarantee a super-powered opening when 20th Century Fox releases the pic May 26, though less-than-Marvelous repeat biz means "Stand's" legs may fall short of the $405 million grossed internationally by "X2: X-Men United." Ancillary biz will be appreciably huge.
Taken as a trilogy (despite the door being left open, inevitably, for an "X4"), the "X-Men" pics most closely resemble the original "Star Wars" movies in their qualitative trajectory. Just as the second film in each instance repped a substantial elaboration of its predecessor's storytelling, visual richness and thematic depth, so "X-Men: The Last Stand" suffers from the same coarsened writing, diminished imagination and occasional bursts of self-parody that plagued "Return of the Jedi."
The result, though it delivers only in fits and starts, is still sharper and more inventive than most comicbook-adapted fare, and eventually gets the job done as far as action buffs are concerned. But don't expect pic to win any new converts or satiate those fans for whom the pleasures of the franchise went beyond the purely visceral.
That's a shame, considering the tale cooked up by scribes Zak Penn (who collaborated on "X2") and Simon Kinberg, plus the portentous title, will have viewers stoked for the most cataclysmic showdown yet between mankind and mutantkind.
Equipped with powers as thrilling to behold as they are potentially destructive, the mutant race is once again divided into two factions led, respectively, by the wise, wheelchair-bound Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and megalomaniacal, metal-controlling Magneto (Ian McKellen).
Story opens 20 years before the events of the previous film, when both men, then allies, paid a visit to a young girl named Jean Grey (Haley Ramm) and persuaded her to harness her staggering telekinetic ability.Pic then returns to the present-day setting of Professor Xavier's elite school for mutants, with lupine Logan, or Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, as testosterone-driven as ever), and weather girl Storm (Halle Berry) serving as second in command. Scott Summers, aka Cyclops (James Marsden), has been broody and out of sorts since the supposed death of girlfriend Jean (Famke Janssen) at the end of "X2."
Dialogue early on betrays a weakness for expository quips ("Not everyone heals as fast as you, Logan"), while the poignant quandary of Rogue (Anna Paquin), who can't touch b.f. Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) without sapping his life force, here plays more like adolescent soap opera.
Meanwhile, all is not quiet on the mutant front, thanks to the recent invention of an antibody that suppresses the "X gene," thus rendering explicit the previous pic's subtext equating mutation with homosexuality. Magneto responds by mobilizing a mutant army to terrorize the public until the so-called "cure" is destroyed.
Situation grows even more complicated with the sudden reappearance of Jean, seemingly alive and well. Yet sinister psychic undercurrents lead Professor Xavier to believe Jean (chillingly played by Janssen) is in fact possessed by her fiery and ultra-powerful alter ego, Phoenix. This strand of the story -- necessarily but disappointingly watered down from the comicbook's darkly compelling Phoenix saga -- should have purists in a lather.
Where Singer brought a lingering resonance to even the series' quietest moments, Ratner seems primarily concerned with breadth and speed. (At 105 minutes, pic is a half hour shorter than its predecessor.) There's a rushed, disorganized feel to the narrative, which drops and picks up subplots at random, and has no compunction about bumping off veteran characters while introducing a host of new ones.
Most important addition to the X-Men's ranks is the peaceable Dr. Hank McCoy, aka Beast (a blue-furred Kelsey Grammer), whose physical actions are almost as nimble as his intellect. Perhaps the prominence of this blue giant explains why Mystique, the similarly hued shape-shifter played by Rebecca Romijn, gets so little attention this time around.
Past complaints that the series boasts too many personalities to be accommodated within a barely two-hour feature are right on the money here, with the proliferation of new mutants like Angel (Ben Foster, beautiful enough to give Emma Thompson a run for her halo) and Jimmy (Cameron Bright), a boy with the ability to dispel mutant powers.
Only during the climax, a huge faceoff staged at Alcatraz, does pic begin to get an inventive groove on, wittily exploiting the mutants' various powers and playing them against each other. Yet even here the film feels at a loss to convey that anything truly momentous is at stake.
Visual effects supervisor John Bruno and stunt coordinators Wade Eastwood and Mike Mitchell keep the action at a reasonably high level, though without rivaling the digital polish or martial energy of "X2." Similarly, Dante Spinotti's widescreen cinematography and overall look seem brighter and flatter than their previous incarnations. Print screened at Cannes was intermittently out of focus.
The third time's not the charm in "X-Men: The Last Stand." Taking over the reins from Bryan Singer, helmer Brett Ratner delivers a wham-bam sequel noticeably lacking in the pop gravitas, moody atmospherics and emotional weight that made the first two Marvel comicbook adaptations so rousingly successful. Robust action, the usual top-of-the-line visual effects and massive fan-ticipation worldwide all but guarantee a super-powered opening when 20th Century Fox releases the pic May 26, though less-than-Marvelous repeat biz means "Stand's" legs may fall short of the $405 million grossed internationally by "X2: X-Men United." Ancillary biz will be appreciably huge.
Taken as a trilogy (despite the door being left open, inevitably, for an "X4"), the "X-Men" pics most closely resemble the original "Star Wars" movies in their qualitative trajectory. Just as the second film in each instance repped a substantial elaboration of its predecessor's storytelling, visual richness and thematic depth, so "X-Men: The Last Stand" suffers from the same coarsened writing, diminished imagination and occasional bursts of self-parody that plagued "Return of the Jedi."
The result, though it delivers only in fits and starts, is still sharper and more inventive than most comicbook-adapted fare, and eventually gets the job done as far as action buffs are concerned. But don't expect pic to win any new converts or satiate those fans for whom the pleasures of the franchise went beyond the purely visceral.
That's a shame, considering the tale cooked up by scribes Zak Penn (who collaborated on "X2") and Simon Kinberg, plus the portentous title, will have viewers stoked for the most cataclysmic showdown yet between mankind and mutantkind.
Equipped with powers as thrilling to behold as they are potentially destructive, the mutant race is once again divided into two factions led, respectively, by the wise, wheelchair-bound Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and megalomaniacal, metal-controlling Magneto (Ian McKellen).
Story opens 20 years before the events of the previous film, when both men, then allies, paid a visit to a young girl named Jean Grey (Haley Ramm) and persuaded her to harness her staggering telekinetic ability.Pic then returns to the present-day setting of Professor Xavier's elite school for mutants, with lupine Logan, or Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, as testosterone-driven as ever), and weather girl Storm (Halle Berry) serving as second in command. Scott Summers, aka Cyclops (James Marsden), has been broody and out of sorts since the supposed death of girlfriend Jean (Famke Janssen) at the end of "X2."
Dialogue early on betrays a weakness for expository quips ("Not everyone heals as fast as you, Logan"), while the poignant quandary of Rogue (Anna Paquin), who can't touch b.f. Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) without sapping his life force, here plays more like adolescent soap opera.
Meanwhile, all is not quiet on the mutant front, thanks to the recent invention of an antibody that suppresses the "X gene," thus rendering explicit the previous pic's subtext equating mutation with homosexuality. Magneto responds by mobilizing a mutant army to terrorize the public until the so-called "cure" is destroyed.
Situation grows even more complicated with the sudden reappearance of Jean, seemingly alive and well. Yet sinister psychic undercurrents lead Professor Xavier to believe Jean (chillingly played by Janssen) is in fact possessed by her fiery and ultra-powerful alter ego, Phoenix. This strand of the story -- necessarily but disappointingly watered down from the comicbook's darkly compelling Phoenix saga -- should have purists in a lather.
Where Singer brought a lingering resonance to even the series' quietest moments, Ratner seems primarily concerned with breadth and speed. (At 105 minutes, pic is a half hour shorter than its predecessor.) There's a rushed, disorganized feel to the narrative, which drops and picks up subplots at random, and has no compunction about bumping off veteran characters while introducing a host of new ones.
Most important addition to the X-Men's ranks is the peaceable Dr. Hank McCoy, aka Beast (a blue-furred Kelsey Grammer), whose physical actions are almost as nimble as his intellect. Perhaps the prominence of this blue giant explains why Mystique, the similarly hued shape-shifter played by Rebecca Romijn, gets so little attention this time around.
Past complaints that the series boasts too many personalities to be accommodated within a barely two-hour feature are right on the money here, with the proliferation of new mutants like Angel (Ben Foster, beautiful enough to give Emma Thompson a run for her halo) and Jimmy (Cameron Bright), a boy with the ability to dispel mutant powers.
Only during the climax, a huge faceoff staged at Alcatraz, does pic begin to get an inventive groove on, wittily exploiting the mutants' various powers and playing them against each other. Yet even here the film feels at a loss to convey that anything truly momentous is at stake.
Visual effects supervisor John Bruno and stunt coordinators Wade Eastwood and Mike Mitchell keep the action at a reasonably high level, though without rivaling the digital polish or martial energy of "X2." Similarly, Dante Spinotti's widescreen cinematography and overall look seem brighter and flatter than their previous incarnations. Print screened at Cannes was intermittently out of focus.
-
MikeSkerritt
I tried to read DA VINCI but couldn't get beyond Brown's unbelievably clumsy prose, which makes Crichton looks like Dickens by comparison, so I'm actually looking forward to seeing the movie in the hopes that it raises the book's material up a few notches. Roger Ebert, who I often agree with, said as much.
About the score, I just picked up the album and it's one of the better listens by Zimmer in a while, though I can see why the term "over-insistent" might be used. If nothing else, you can usually tell when Zimmer feels engaged by the film he's scoring, and this time he was.
X3, however, I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
About the score, I just picked up the album and it's one of the better listens by Zimmer in a while, though I can see why the term "over-insistent" might be used. If nothing else, you can usually tell when Zimmer feels engaged by the film he's scoring, and this time he was.
X3, however, I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35777
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
MikeSkerritt wrote:I tried to read DA VINCI but couldn't get beyond Brown's unbelievably clumsy prose, which makes Crichton looks like Dickens by comparison, so I'm actually looking forward to seeing the movie in the hopes that it raises the book's material up a few notches. Roger Ebert, who I often agree with, said as much.
About the score, I just picked up the album and it's one of the better listens by Zimmer in a while, though I can see why the term "over-insistent" might be used. If nothing else, you can usually tell when Zimmer feels engaged by the film he's scoring, and this time he was.
X3, however, I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
Really Mike? You're more interested in seeing DA VINCI -- one of the most poorly reviewed blockbuster films of this or any year, with Ebert & Roeper being two of the only major critics who liked it -- than X-MEN 3, which is actually getting a few positive reviews now that they're starting to trickle out? I can understand if you hate comic book movies but other than that you'd have to pay me to see DA VINCI CODE right now.
Now, I'm no Brett Ratner fan, either, but I am going to give X3 a fair shot -- the complaints that the movie "looks ridiculous" from the Aint It Cool crowd and Marvel fanboy nation are ridiculous themselves. It IS a comic book film, after all...I find it absurd people are passing judgment on the movie because it doesn't adhere to some story line precisely as it was written in 1983. Something tells me whether it's entertaining or not is the bottom line, and most viewers will judge the movie on its own merits and not whether or not it pleased XMenMovieFanz06's test screening review on the AICN page.
Forgive me if I'm overly animated but I don't trust Harry's "correspondents" at all...that website has become increasingly reliant on studio plant reviews and the presence of "cinematic payola" wouldn't surprise me any, sad to say. Which is why X-MEN 3 may be pretty decent, in spite of the trashing it's taken on that page over the last few months.
-
MikeSkerritt
I have no interest in seeing X3 because I didn't like either of the first two movies. They're handsomely made but I wasn't emotionally engaged by either of them. Same with both SPIDER-MAN movies so far. It's not necessarily a comic book thing (I saw HELLBOY for the first time the other night and loved it), it's just my level of involvement with the characters.
Now, I may hate DA VINCI, but it's not the third in a series of movies I didn't like, so I'm willing to give it a shot.
Now, I may hate DA VINCI, but it's not the third in a series of movies I didn't like, so I'm willing to give it a shot.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35777
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Hear ya loud and clear my friend, I totally get where you're coming from.MikeSkerritt wrote:I have no interest in seeing X3 because I didn't like either of the first two movies. They're handsomely made but I wasn't emotionally engaged by either of them. Same with both SPIDER-MAN movies so far. It's not necessarily a comic book thing (I saw HELLBOY for the first time the other night and loved it), it's just my level of involvement with the characters.
Now, I may hate DA VINCI, but it's not the third in a series of movies I didn't like, so I'm willing to give it a shot.
-
MikeSkerritt
I have a friend who just never got into X-MEN and hasn't seen any of the movies and has no desire to see X-3....I, on the other hand, am looking forward to seeing it.
DAVINCI CODE doesn't appeal to me- though this could be Ron Howard's second "failure" in a row (though the box-office take of TDC certainly outshined CINDERELLA MAN)....inasmuch as critics didn't really like either film. Let's see how it does next week.
DAVINCI CODE doesn't appeal to me- though this could be Ron Howard's second "failure" in a row (though the box-office take of TDC certainly outshined CINDERELLA MAN)....inasmuch as critics didn't really like either film. Let's see how it does next week.
Actually, CINDERELLA MAN was a critical success. Many critics thought it would have been up for a Best Picture nomination if the box office hadn't been so weak. I personally thought it was one of the better films of last year.mkaroly wrote:DAVINCI CODE doesn't appeal to me- though this could be Ron Howard's second "failure" in a row (though the box-office take of TDC certainly outshined CINDERELLA MAN)....inasmuch as critics didn't really like either film. Let's see how it does next week.
I may have to give DA VINCI a chance myself, after all. I've heard from a number of friends and acquaintences (people whose opinion I respect) that they rather enjoyed the film. And most of them had read the book, too. I'm starting to wonder if many of the critics weren't gunning for this in the first place, and taking their cues from the reaction at Cannes (which, to be honest, isn't always the most unbiased audience).
So, has anyone here actually seen DA VINCI? I would appreciate hearing some comments that were more than just opinions based on other peoples' opinions.
Mark
-
Carlson2005
Well, apparently the critics in the States thought differently. Just curious: What did you think of it?Carlson2005 wrote:Not in most of Europe. In the UK it was one of the worst reviewed films of the year, rating 2/5 from most critics.["MarkB"]Actually, CINDERELLA MAN was a critical success. Many critics thought it would have been up for a Best Picture nomination if the box office hadn't been so weak.
Mark