May 20, 2006

My one word review of the DaVinci Code.....

Crappy.

Okay, why?

So Google was nice enough to take us all out to the movies, which is fun regardless of the movie we choose, but this movie was kind of a dud. It was laughably bad at parts, with Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon doing his best South Park imitation of Jeff Goldblum. It was all tell and no show.

Redeeming factors:

Ian McKellen: He could make a yogurt commercial enjoyable.
Audrey Tautou: She was radiant, but even she emailed in this performance.

Other bits:

Lord I was bored. I was also too close to the screen, headache city. Maybe if I had been further back, maybe, say, at my sisters house in San Jose where I would've watched a good movie, I would have enjoyed it. What did you think, oh blog readers?

How do you take these actors and make a cruddy film? Who knows. It'll probably pass a billion in receipts.

10 comments:

Rakesh said...

I had almost the same experience when I went to see the movie last night. I was sitting too close to the screen and, separately, I thought the movie sucked.

And then I read this review of the movie in the New York Times this morning and it almost made it worth watching so I could truly chuckle along:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/movies/18code.html

Funny excerpts:

"When a cryptographer and a symbologist get together, it usually ends in tears."

""The Da Vinci Code...is one of the few screen versions of a book that may take longer to watch than to read. (Curiously enough Mr. Howard accomplished a similar feat with "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" a few years back.)"

and the quote that hits it on the head for me:

"In any case Mr. Howard and Mr. Goldsman handle the supposedly provocative material in Mr. Brown's book with kid gloves, settling on an utterly safe set of conclusions about faith and its history, presented with the usual dull sententiousness."

zeruch said...

The best thing Tatou has done is "Dirty Pretty Things" with Chiwetel Ejiofor. I have little faith in the need to use her in a lousy film made from a laughable book taken seriously by far too many people.

Vytas said...

I am not sure if I could add something to your opinion.
The film was boring and depressing. At first, the facts are just thrown in the viewer's face and then you are forced to watch all that catch-me-if-u-can stuff.
That said, I am still a fan of A. Toutu, I enjoyed every minute of her performance in 'Amelie'.

Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman said...

IMHO, Tom Hanks was not *acting*. And oh God, the ending... I wanted to stand up and leave. Terrible movie.

Rob said...

I haven't seen it yet. I wasn't even interested until I heard Toutu was in it. Amelie was a fantastic movie - she'd be the real draw for me.

amorson said...

I haven't seen it yet and by looks of it, I won't. I've yet to hear on person who liked it.

paul said...

yes, so slow in some parts. Mediocre movie at best. The whole foundation for the book's argument isn't that thought provoking either. Yawn. maybe google should have waited and taken us to x-men 3. More nerds at google would have enjoyed that more, anyway!

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen the movie, but this doesn't superize me after reading the book.

snooze

I'll wait untill it comes out on video if I decide to watch it.

SiouxZQue said...

goodness ---- if you read the book and take it for what it's worth --- it's an enjoyable intelligencia FICTION novel. If you take it for gospel... well then you got problems. The movie --------- well I won't see it. I detest Tom Hanks in anything other than BIG. I won't see the movie even thought Ian Mckellem is awesome and .. you're right and a funny comment-- he could make a 'yogurt commercial enjoyable.' Nice.

medvegonok said...

By the way, Spanish journalists found the new interpretation for the Holy Grail :) The Holy Grail = the World Cup.
Look at Nostradamus vs. Dan Brown