![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zdashamberI saw "The Da Vinci Code" tonight, and it was bad. 2.5 hours of bad, boring, pointless, stupid story about gutless lackwits who speak in exposition and never heard about being protagonists. Music that exists only to smack you in case you're missing what's going by at nigh-snail speeds. Lemme put it to you like this:
Jean Reno was the only good thing about Godzilla the American version. Godzilla the American version was the worst movie of the last millenium. In the Da Vinci Code, even Jean Reno sucks.
There is no reason you should see this movie, and if you haven't read the book, you have the chance to save three hours of your life from horrible sucking blithering. So there's no reason whatsoever I should cut this for spoilers.
Yeah, so we have a police officer, right? And there's this ancient cripple loosely holding a gun on a guy while supporting his entire weight on a pair of crutches that you have to actually be careful not to brush, they're so close to you.
...Let's think, here. Hm. Still thinking... There was an example earlier of someone charging a guy with a gun... And you know from experience how hard it is to shoot someone dead... And you come from a culture where cops carry assault rifles in the airports... And the doddering cripple is intensely distracted and paying you no attention at all...
...Gee, I dunno.
If a movie doesn't want to be compared to "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" it shouldn't have people following clues to get to the holy grail. Because it makes the moral rot of the main character really obvious, when he doesn't have the balls to let the grail slip out of his grasp to save his fellow man.
Oh, Sophie, you're holy because of your blood! It's not anything you have to do, or anything. What luck! It's like you were born rich! Speaking of which, I don't support affirmative action for the rich. See, when you encourage people to pass on obscene sums of money to their children by not taxing it murderously, it means that totally unqualified people take the spots that could go to someone who worked hard for that wealth. The achievements of worthy rich people are buried, because everyone assumes that the rich person they see blew their brains out with coke by age 20 and doesn't grasp the difference between "lacking Prada" and "lacking shoes". Sure, the rich had some troubles in the past, but that's all history, and I think we can all agree that these days they have a level playing field to start on.
Also, will someone stick some rebar into Tom Hank's face? It literally looks like it's about to slide off his mulleted head into a slimy pile.
The movie is so boring you find yourself noting tiny details, which are uniformly irritating. She didn't bring her purse, did she? Where is she finding the makeup to keep her lips so outline-y in that ugly shade of plum? Does London ever get warm enough for her to be walking around with her blouse open to the ribcage? Couldn't she stop by a kiosk and buy some shoes she could run in?
Since when is a 4' x 3' x 2" stone slab heftable with the same apparent weight as painted styrofoam? With all the stairs they went down, where is the sunlight coming from? What fools would store 2000-year-old scrolls in a humid room full of sunlight, anyway? What the hell do they imagine DNA will prove? I'd just like to point out for the cretins in the audience that it only takes 50 generations back before every human on Earth is related to every other... Which puts us at 500 AD.
It's hard to say if the movie was stupider than the book. Only thing that didn't suck donkey balls: Alfred Molina. And he was merely good, not particularly interesting or redeeming. If you go to this movie thinking "Oh, Ian McKellen, at least that won't be too bad!" you are due to be sorely mistaken.
I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes, but when I would look back, each shot kept on keepin' on for another dreary quarter-minute. Except for the one action scene, the car chase at the beginning when they did the cheap, assy 500-cuts-and-no-niftiness thing.
It's really, really bad.
Jean Reno was the only good thing about Godzilla the American version. Godzilla the American version was the worst movie of the last millenium. In the Da Vinci Code, even Jean Reno sucks.
There is no reason you should see this movie, and if you haven't read the book, you have the chance to save three hours of your life from horrible sucking blithering. So there's no reason whatsoever I should cut this for spoilers.
Yeah, so we have a police officer, right? And there's this ancient cripple loosely holding a gun on a guy while supporting his entire weight on a pair of crutches that you have to actually be careful not to brush, they're so close to you.
...Let's think, here. Hm. Still thinking... There was an example earlier of someone charging a guy with a gun... And you know from experience how hard it is to shoot someone dead... And you come from a culture where cops carry assault rifles in the airports... And the doddering cripple is intensely distracted and paying you no attention at all...
...Gee, I dunno.
If a movie doesn't want to be compared to "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" it shouldn't have people following clues to get to the holy grail. Because it makes the moral rot of the main character really obvious, when he doesn't have the balls to let the grail slip out of his grasp to save his fellow man.
Oh, Sophie, you're holy because of your blood! It's not anything you have to do, or anything. What luck! It's like you were born rich! Speaking of which, I don't support affirmative action for the rich. See, when you encourage people to pass on obscene sums of money to their children by not taxing it murderously, it means that totally unqualified people take the spots that could go to someone who worked hard for that wealth. The achievements of worthy rich people are buried, because everyone assumes that the rich person they see blew their brains out with coke by age 20 and doesn't grasp the difference between "lacking Prada" and "lacking shoes". Sure, the rich had some troubles in the past, but that's all history, and I think we can all agree that these days they have a level playing field to start on.
Also, will someone stick some rebar into Tom Hank's face? It literally looks like it's about to slide off his mulleted head into a slimy pile.
The movie is so boring you find yourself noting tiny details, which are uniformly irritating. She didn't bring her purse, did she? Where is she finding the makeup to keep her lips so outline-y in that ugly shade of plum? Does London ever get warm enough for her to be walking around with her blouse open to the ribcage? Couldn't she stop by a kiosk and buy some shoes she could run in?
Since when is a 4' x 3' x 2" stone slab heftable with the same apparent weight as painted styrofoam? With all the stairs they went down, where is the sunlight coming from? What fools would store 2000-year-old scrolls in a humid room full of sunlight, anyway? What the hell do they imagine DNA will prove? I'd just like to point out for the cretins in the audience that it only takes 50 generations back before every human on Earth is related to every other... Which puts us at 500 AD.
It's hard to say if the movie was stupider than the book. Only thing that didn't suck donkey balls: Alfred Molina. And he was merely good, not particularly interesting or redeeming. If you go to this movie thinking "Oh, Ian McKellen, at least that won't be too bad!" you are due to be sorely mistaken.
I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes, but when I would look back, each shot kept on keepin' on for another dreary quarter-minute. Except for the one action scene, the car chase at the beginning when they did the cheap, assy 500-cuts-and-no-niftiness thing.
It's really, really bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 03:31 pm (UTC)But I saw the trailers, from which I believe I can divine much of the plot: Putting the figure of a woman on the painting of the Last Supper is a bit of a giveaway for anyone who knows a little about weird medieval heresies.
The real purpose of this message, though, is to get you to mail me, since I have no idea what your current address would be.
Wow
Date: 2006-05-21 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 08:41 pm (UTC)Following your advice, though, I think I shall let this one slip past me, and thus lose gloating rights but keep my sanity. Thanks for your review.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-23 04:49 pm (UTC)