The Shrine

Just out of sheer curiosity, who here is looking forward to seeing this movie or will be dragged by their significant other to go see it?

Personally, I'm in the latter category.

My gf and I were planning on seeing it, but the reviews have been mediocre at best. We've both read the book, so it's not exactly like we're missing anything.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing it, the book kicked serious ass; easily the best thriller I have ever read. This could very well be the movie of the year if done right.

Ian Mckellan playing Teabing, I am really looking forward to that performance. Jean Reno is the PERFECT person to play Bezu as well. As for Langdon, Tom Hanks could do a good job, but I think David Duchovny would have done a much better job.

I know the plot, now it is a matter of seeing how they adapt it to cinema. I am not seeing it Friday as I have something else already planned, Wednesday I can get in for free; likely I'll see it then and save my $10 =)

My girlfriend is going to see it tomorrow I believe. She's taking a friend since I'm back in da lou now.

I'm going to see it, not kicking and screaming. I'm looking forward to it.

Yeah really, what the fuck is up with you getting dragged around by a woman? You're a disgrace to mankind, a traitor! Fuck the sacred femminine!

The Seeker wrote:I'm very much looking forward to seeing it, the book kicked serious ass; easily the best thriller I have ever read. This could very well be the movie of the year if done right.

Ian Mckellan playing Teabing, I am really looking forward to that performance. Jean Reno is the PERFECT person to play Bezu as well. As for Langdon, Tom Hanks could do a good job, but I think David Duchovny would have done a much better job.

I know the plot, now it is a matter of seeing how they adapt it to cinema. I am not seeing it Friday as I have something else already planned, Wednesday I can get in for free; likely I'll see it then and save my $10 =)

yeah the book totally kicks ass. especially if you consider mediocrity to kick ass

Chris Hansbrough wrote:yeah the book totally kicks ass. especially if you consider mediocrity to kick ass

Bwahahahahaha!

Chris Hansbrough wrote:yeah the book totally kicks ass. especially if you consider mediocrity to kick ass

Well, we all have our own opinions. I can understand you not liking the book, but I would question your sanity in how you could possibly label what is possibly the most successful book in decades, saleswise and awardwise, as mediocre? I am sorry, but that just sounds like plain foolishness to me.

A lot of really popular things are mediocre. People have poor taste.

The Seeker wrote:

Chris Hansbrough wrote:yeah the book totally kicks ass. especially if you consider mediocrity to kick ass

Well, we all have our own opinions. I can understand you not liking the book, but I would question your sanity in how you could possibly label what is possibly the most successful book in decades, saleswise and awardwise, as mediocre? I am sorry, but that just sounds like plain foolishness to me.

'
it's the purest example of controvercy selling a book. the guy is the epitomy of a mediocre writer. The fact that he was sued for plaguarism is even better. Dan brown is not a talented writer. He's someone that profited of controvercy. the same with bill oreily.

The writing was mediocre, the story however was way above average.

Chris Hansbrough wrote:

The Seeker wrote:

Chris Hansbrough wrote:yeah the book totally kicks ass. especially if you consider mediocrity to kick ass

Well, we all have our own opinions. I can understand you not liking the book, but I would question your sanity in how you could possibly label what is possibly the most successful book in decades, saleswise and awardwise, as mediocre? I am sorry, but that just sounds like plain foolishness to me.

'
it's the purest example of controvercy selling a book. the guy is the epitomy of a mediocre writer. The fact that he was sued for plaguarism is even better. Dan brown is not a talented writer. He's someone that profited of controvercy. the same with bill oreily.

Explain what exactly is mediocre about it? Explain why he is the "epitomy" of a mediocre writer? I really want to see how you answer both of these questions in order to back your criticism, especially in light of all the awards and praise that the book as received. Lewis Perdue (author of The Davinci Legacy, which I happened to read a few months ago) lost the case in two courts; how would this even factor into your argument anyways? Lastly, I would rather argue that the book sold on the principle that the book was very interesting, and also that recommendation passed on through word of mouth.

I was recommended it by a history/classics professor (An Oxford graduate) sometime (a fairly significant amount of time) after handing my essay exploring the evidence of the strong influence which the Roman Cult of Sol Invictus had on the Christian Church. The book touches on that story in its background information; but doesn't go into any depth. Rather I came to enjoy the book as a great thriller, I don't even remember the last time I read a book where I literally HAD to keep reading until I finished the book just to "see what happens next." Usually in thrillers, there are several lulls which will cause me to put the book down for the night. With the Danvinci Code these did not exist, I had to read it all in one sitting. The only real criticism I have seen of the book is that it is "poor history" but even then it was still called a "great thriller" by the very same critics. Of course, it is obviously not history: there are no solid historical records that can even prove the existance of Jesus Christ in history; let alone that he had descendents. Why people even bother to criticize it as a historical work baffles me, it is clearly a fictional thriller.

Ok honestly. I do have to give him credit. the book itself is intriguing. it did have a great basic plot. I just don't find that it was told with any style or use of the writing craft. Maybe that's my problem in that I expect the writing quality to be on par with the plot but witrh the da vinci code that wasn't really the case. an intruiging idea was brutalized by akward prose and didactic passages masquerading as (bad) diologue coming from cardboard characters. Brown just isn't much of a storyteller. His grasp of the craft just isn't there. yeah he can plot but he really can't write that well. So I give you that. the story had an interresting idea. It was just brutalized by mediocre writing. Maybe if he took some more writing clases then rewrote it he would do a better job of it but to me it was hard to get through all the pitiful mistakes in gramatical usage, diologue, and character

I actually am interested a bit in seeing the movie now that I think about it more. mainly because of Ron Howard and the actors involved. I thinlk there abilituies will do far more justice to dan browns intruiging idea than dan did.

I haven't seen it yet, going tommorow night. Good news for the producers, worldwide: the movie broke the world record by grossing 147 million dollars over the weekend.

I saw it and enjoyed it. Greatest movie ever? No. Worth your money? Yes.

Oracle wrote:The writing was mediocre, the story however was way above average.

Haha, my wife kept saying the same thing as she read the book, "The story is good, but this author writes like a 5th grader and i can hardly stand it!"

I felt the movie was fairly average actually. It does not capture the spirit of the book at all. For example, this movie is clearly focussed on the adventure of the grail hunt, it sacrifices most of the thriller aspects of the book which is what I felt that really shined in the original story.

A lot of liberties were taken, and in this case it seemed they were all bad. Much of the way the story unfolded in the movie didn't seem logical to me; and those were all based around the liberties that they decided to take. Seriously, the Shadow Council?

Teabing and Silas both played good parts in my opinion; Ian MacKellan, and the dude who played the announcer in Knights Tale (did a very surprisingly good job); in fact, acting wasn't even the problem, all of the actors did a very good job with their parts. It was the script that failed. Bezu Fache's character got slaughtered; for example. But given the right script, Reno is easily the best actor for the job.

It's not the movie I enjoyed the least amount of those I have seen in the past year, but it is certainly just as far from being my favourite (which right now is The Constant Gardener).

The movie wasn't bad. Nothing special, but not great either. It was worth the $6.50, but not much more

Let's see Friday if Ratner makes my $10 worth it for X3 after what was one of the worst non-Matrix endings EVER in Red Dragon.

I kinda liked X3 zeus....it wan't amazing but it was good. the ending 30 second scene after the credits is also a must stay for

Chris Hansbrough wrote:I kinda liked X3 zeus....it wan't amazing but it was good. the ending 30 second scene after the credits is also a must stay for

I have hope, but I'm being guarded due to Ratner's past. I liked the Rush Hour films, but they were popcorn. It was really Red Dragon that put a sour taste in my mouth as far as endings are concerned. They spent an hour and a half making the Ralph Fiennes character into an excellent tragic villian and then they ruin it with the twist ending. His role should have been over when the house burned down, period. Like the end of the Matrix (the original - the other endings were bad too, but it's not like the films were spectacular), it was an extremely disappointing ending to an otherwise excellent film.

I read about that today. Didn't realize it was after the credits, so I'll make sure to stay for it, thanks.

Heh, I agree the ending to Red Dragon seemed kind of out of place and cheesy, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.