May 19th, 2006
The Da Vinci Code, Roger Ebert and four word reviews
After posting a Da Vinci Code review earlier this week, I went trawling to see what other people were saying about the film. I can’t believe Roger Ebert, one of the world’s best known and esteemed film critics actually likes it. He even calls it “preposterously entertaining”. Were we at the same film? A dedicated Da Vinci review blog has also been set up to track every Da Vinci review that’s blogged.
Given the universal panning (Roger excepted), my advice is to not waste your time reading lengthy critical pieces that are all saying the same thing. In that spirit, I give you the ultimate in economic reviews, courtesy of www.fwfr.com (four word film reviews) - The Da Vinci Code reviewed in four words:
“Mary Magdalene = Mrs Jesus!”
“Louvre/hate relationship blossoms.”
“McKellen: Knight and Dei.”
“Grandpa: Tattoo’d. Grandaughter: Tautou’d.”
“Hanks hunts holy harlot.”
and my personal favourite:
“Hanks: You’ve Got Grail.”
May 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Ah four word review site is deadly! Thanks Sinead
May 19th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Pity Dan Brown didn’t adopt the same technique when it came to the book. I thought the film was unbelievable shite..although I loved the moment when everyone laughed as Tom Hanks put it all together…
May 19th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Saw it today, and this one, I think, is very apt.
“Opus Dei whacko: relentless.”
May 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Apart from that, what did you think Kevin?
May 19th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
i like metacritic’s ranking system
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/davincicode
May 19th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
I thought parts of it were rather patronising; when Amelie remarks, “…an anagram!” after Hanks explained what an anagram is, for example. Similarly, a name would be dropped, say, Da Vinci, followed by a 30 second soundbite on Da Vinci’s life and works. Perhaps these not-so-subtle explanations are necessary nowadays, but they really shouldn’t be.
Also, I think the book might host just a little too much information to suit a movie. I see the NY Times called it inoffensive. I’ll add to that to make it, “officious, yet inoffensive.” As a film, its form lacks the capability to create cliff-hangers in the way a book with its chapters can. This, I thought, was partly responsible for the boredom of which everyone has spoken. Like this comment, the film lacked a sense that it was going anywhere definate. It just seemed to drag along. As someone who hasn’t read the book, I thought the film was over when Teibing was arrested and our hero revealed that he had indeed cracked the code. I sensed a great anti-climax and, I suppose, was relieved to find the film continuing beyond that. However, the climax at the actual end seemed missing also. I’m not sure. I didn’t go in with very high hopes, left satisfied that the film hadn’t been good - which is bad, I know - and should really get some thoughts in order before I pontificate like this. That said, I’m still posting this diatribe, it’s taken a good 6 minutes or so to write!