The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and the new film version from director Ron Howard are serving as inspiration for bloggers: the blogosphere is absolutely on fire about both. The posts have been increasing in the lead-up to the film's opening today. Not everyone is excited about the film. The film has been criticized by the Catholic Church and other religious groups. Opus Dei even started a blog to battle errors they believe are found in the book and film.

The controversy about some of the elements in the book -- especially about Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene -- are part of what is driving the blog posts. As anyone who has ever moderated a web forum or blog comments will tell you, there is nothing that starts flame wars like religious discussions. People also love the codes and secrets contained in the mystery novel.

Permalink | Subscribe | | | Comments (View)

Early Reviews Mixed for Da Vinci Code

Columbia Pictures did not provide advanced screenings for the Da Vinci Code but some film critics were lucky enough to watch The Da Vinci Code premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. Many of them have already have filed their reviews. Here is a collection of a few of these early reviews.

Roger Friedman at Fox News gives Da Vinci Code a positive review: "Is 'The Da Vinci Code' the best movie of 2006? Probably not. But it's a good movie, solid entertainment with much to recommend it. The only people who could be unhappy with it are Opus Dei, which is fairly well attacked as represented in excellent performances by Paul Bettany, Jean Reno and Alfred Molina."

Roger Ebert gave the film three stars and a Thumbs Up. He writes, "They say The Da Vinci Code has sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining."

Four Stars from The New York Post: "Ron Howard's splendid 'The Da Vinci Code' is the Holy Grail of summer blockbusters: a crackling, fast-moving thriller that's every bit as brainy and irresistible as Dan Brown's controversial bestseller."

The Hollywood Reporter hated The Da Vinci Code, saying the film exposes the book's "flaws and nightmares of logic." The reviewer also claims that the film's plot "is driven not by its characters but by solutions to puzzles, the breaking of codes, interpreting covert references in works of art and a dazzling display of historical knowledge, all of which works terrifically in the novel but puts the brakes to all screen action."

Salon's review seems to indicate that you might learn something in an un-fun kind of a way: "What has the world of culture come to, when religious people are warning you off a picture that only makes you feel as if you're trapped in a schoolroom to begin with?"

The Seattle Times loved it, saying that the film is even better than the book: "On the other hand, the film has an exciting visual texture that gives body to Brown's bestseller-ese prose, and uniformly strong performances that give dimension, depth and interest to characters that the author never entirely brought to life. In this sense, I found it much more entertaining and satisfying than the novel."

The Miami Herald gave it a bad review but the reviewer clearly clearly didn't like the book either: "It's not entirely fair to say that the makers of The Da Vinci Code have completely flubbed this most eagerly awaited of book-to-film adaptations. It is probably more accurate to state that this laborious, talky, fleetingly engaging, ultimately silly picture is about as good a movie as anyone was ever going to wring from Dan Brown's inescapable bestseller."

Kenneth Turan at the L.A. Times gave Da Vinci Code a so-so review and said the script had "paint-by-numbers qualities of a Classics Illustrated comic book." Turan finds predicting the box office talley a mystery: "The Hollywood mystery of the moment is whether it's going to pay off."

Other reviews can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Of course, no negative reviews -- or warnings from Vatican officials -- should stop you from seeing the film for yourself and coming up with your own opinion, if you're so inclined. Director Ron Howard said that the film is meant to be "entertainment, not a documentary" and that people who might be offended by the film shouldn't go see it. Ah, Ron, using a bit of the old negative sell, eh?

More information about the film can be found at IMDB.com, Rotten Tomatoes and on the official website.

Posted on May 18, 2006
Permalink | Subscribe | | | Comments (View)