A brief summary of The Da Vinci Code (no spoilers)

[Orrex]

I watched this small, petty film last night, and the only reason I wasn't disappointed is that I had very, very low expectations of it. In case you've been hiding under a rock for the whole of Dan Brown's mysterious success, Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a superduper brilliant "symbologist" who's implicated in a cryptic murder in the Louvre and thereafter stumbles upon the ultimate coverup.

But in typical "dumbest common denominator" fashion, the story can't make Langdon too smart, or the anesthetized brain cells in the audience will find him off-putting, so they make him faux smart instead. Here are a few paraphrases of the kind of deeply intellectual exchanges you can expect if you decide to waste two hours on the movie (or an hour and a half on the insipid book):

Langdon: We have to stop the car here.
Sofia: How do you know this?
Langdon: That red, eight-sided sign there is a common symbol for "stop" in many cultures.
Sofia: Amazing!

Langdon: It's midnight.
Sofia: How can you know this?
Landgon: The two strips of metal in my wristwatch are pointing to the 12.
Sofia: Amazing!

Lee: A cup is commonly used as a drinking vessel.
Langdon: Not if it's empty.
Lee: But if it's full, what then? Then you can drink out of it.
Sofia: How can you know this?
Lee: Why, Robert is drinking from a teacup even now.
Langdon: Oh, come on. There's no empirical proof of that.
Lee: My dear boy, look at your hand. You're holding that cup, and you are drinking out of it, are you not?
Sofia: Amazing!

And on and on.

I don't need every moviegoing experience to be a deep exploration of the nature of humanity, but a film that's billed as an intellectual thriller should, at the very least, be either intellectual or thrilling.

Anyone else have a similar take on this drab and wholly uninteresting piece of celluloid?

[LynneSin]

1. The book was brain candy, I expected the same from the movie

Going in with that attitude I ended up enjoying both immensely

[MrCoffee]

2. Ron Howard's gonna option that for the sequel if you're not careful

BRILLIANT!

[Orrex]

3. Have his people call my people

I'm sure that we can come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.

Orrex: I'll sign my name to this contract now.
Ron Howard: How can you do this?
Orrex: This device in my hand puts forth a thin line of ink when I press it to paper.
Ron Howard: Amazing!

[LynneSin]

10. Actually they are making a 'sequel' with Angels & Demons

Although A&D happened before 'The DaVinci Code' they'll do the script so it would come afterwords movie-wise

[ghostsofgiants]

11. It'd be a step up from Howard's usual crap.

:evilgrin:

[Orrex]

13. See, there I disagree

I like Howard's directing, for the most part. He's had a few clunkers that do nothing for me, but overall I enjoy his choices and style.

Maybe this is my complaint: when I view a film or read a book in which several of the main characters are purported experts in their various esoteric fields, it's my hope that at least one of them will reveal some tidbit of knowledge not already part of the popular consciousness.

Sofia: I have three quarters and three dimes in my pocket.
Langdon: That's more than a dollar.
Sofia: How can you know this?
Langdon: Three dimes make thirty cents, and three quarters equal seventy-five cents. Altogether that's $1.05.
Sofia: Amazing!

[johnnie]

4. I didn't mind the book

I don't know if I will see the movie, but I will approach it like I do most things like that... it's just entertainment. If people are looking to fiction for some sort of enlightening, mind blowing experience, then they will be let down more times than not.

Maybe it would be better not to take Hollywood fluff too seriously. :shrug:

[Orrex]

5. Well, sure

Again, though, the film (like the book) is endlessly billed as an intellectual thriller. If it had been marketed as "an entertaining piece of Hollywood fluff," then my complaint would vanish.

Also, the failure to hold Hollywood to any standard of quality means that we have no basis to complain when any piece of crap hits the screen. Let's reflect upon that when Pauly Shore's next film makes its debut, shall we?

:rant:

[johnnie]

6. I doubt that any marketing people would bill their movie as "fluff"

That wouldn't make for a good campaign for selling the movie to the audience.

I guess people can hold Hollywood to some sort of standard, but to me it's just entertainment and some I like and some I don't, but there is a reason for all of it. Without a Yin you have no Yang.

[Orrex]

7. I don't know about that yin/yang stuff

It's a mistake, I think, to define a thing only in terms of its relation to its perceived opposite. A thing can be accepted or rejected on its own merits/shortcomings without appealing to a specifically contrasting counter-sample.

For example, if you ate a plate full of charcoal, I think that you'd know that you disliked it even if you'd never eaten tasty ice cream.

[johnnie]

8. But it is too what extent you disliked it

If you had a choice, you would probably eat the ice cream, but if the choice was between a plate of charcoal and a plate of mud, then you would have to make you decision based on what you already know is your likes and dislikes. The Yin/Yang of those choices are based off of your own experiences.

Yin and Yang isn't necessarily a universal concept all the time, a lot of our lives are based on our personal Yin and Yangs and that's more to what I meant. If you didn't have other movies to compare to this one, you probably wouldn't have minded it so much.

[Orrex]

9. Well, I agree that nothing's in a vacuum, but where does that leave us?

It isn't even necessary to compare The Da Vinci Code to any other film; one can view the film and say "this or that opportunity was missed," or "that plot device is hackneyed and unbelievable." These are assessments drawn from one's experience of life and needn't be appeals to previous films or books.

The whole "in terms of the other" mindset is, of course, the misbegotten progeny of postmodernist over-reaching. A thing can stink all by itself, sez I, and The Da Vinci Code is an example of this...

[Flaxbee]

12. holy crap, it was a horrible movie.

I was soooo disappointed. I'd read reviews, heard that it was awful, but I occasionally enjoy movies for 'entertainment' value even if the story isn't very deep/coherent/good - if there's good scenery, or some decent actors (and there were excellent actors in this movie, all wasted)... . But this total clunker wasn't even escapist entertainment, it was just pure drivel. Actually, it pissed me off it was so bad. I felt sorry for everyone involved - Audrey Tatou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina and a tiny bit for Tom Hanks, whom I usually like.

All that aside, I still want to know who designed Audrey Tatou's skirt/jacket. They were extremely well tailored...