Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Da Vinci Code

Even an idiot will admit a film is in trouble when one of the lead stars, in this case the great Ian McKellen says it's bad. Mind you, this didn't stop millions of people, some of them fanatical Catholics and such, from filling the theatres and putting yet more cash into the pockets of Dan Brown and ol' Ope. To throw in my two cents I empathise with scripter Akiva Goldsman. There was just too much material to squish into two hours and I thought he did a fine job of the task at hand. As for all of the theology and such, most of it is wrong but who cares, it's a fine yarn. If you want to take a closer and "possibly" more serious look at the subject read THE HOLY BLOOD AND THE HOLY GRAIL. I say possibly because these guys sued Brown for the dreaded "P" word which is odd as their book is supposed to be true which would have one question why historians world wide aren't suing authors everyday. What is true is Tom Hanks was burdened with one serious bad doo which can rival that of Kevin Costner's in THE BODYGUARD. The other major problem I had was with Silas, the bug-eyed albino psycho monk. Everytime I watch this movie and he comes on screen all I can think about is how much more fun it would have been to have Marty Feldman, were he alive, play the role and while this may seem silly...well...this is the point....THE DA VINCI CODE is silly, but good fun just the same.


Anonymous CJ said...

Acccchem...sorry had to clear my throat. ok, the book was wonderful. Couldn't put it down. I was soooo disapointed when I found out about Tom Hanks doing the movie. Perhaps it was too close to the time of reading the book and I didn't have the proper amount of time to erase my own images of each character. This should have been played by an unknown. Totally killed the movie for me. Entertaining yet well i don't much was just "off". Needless to say I will be going to the next instalment by Ol Ope. Its been long enough since I have read that book...I hope.

10:19 PM  
Blogger Candy Minx said...

I really enjoy this movie. In fact, you know how there is "comfort food" for me this is in the category of comfort movie.

I love Tom Hanks in the role (and his har hair, HAR!) I love the locations and set direction. I also love the premise.

I think that a lot of people don't understand why this novel and movie would touch a nerve with so many people (it has made moe money than "Passion of Christ")'s because many many people could never reconcile their faith with the sexism of the church and dogmas. Along comes a story where goddess worship is respected and rejuvenated...this touched a nerve with millions of people.

If we can see the struggle for social and financial equailty between the sexes (and minorities) at long last...we can see that women are also spiritually equal to men. They are not usually. So so many people left their churches or could not reconcile their faith with the seism of churches...and ehre it is reconciled.

You know we also assume that feminism has accomplished all of it's goals...but we still have a lot of women who believe they need a man or have to chase men in order to have their own identity...and this is very sad. There are still some women who believe that their life and success is defined by a their love lives and by their physical attributes...and those women are so sad in their obsession with men.

Yippee for a movie that is feminist and shows hat women are not "soiled" for religious life and are "pure and equal to men!!!

We still have much work to do on gendered spaces in literature, public buildings and houses...

Here are some cool web sites and links about gendered spaces:

10:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home