Thou wilt be condemned into everlasting redemption for this

29 May 2006


Auto blog post while I’m away #1

Wherever you go at the moment you can’t avoid seeing references to the Da Vinci Code. It is everywhere. The past few years have been bad enough with the book appearing in commuter hands all across the country, but now with the film being released the whole hysteria has creeped up a notch.

And I’m ever so bored of it. Ever so.

I haven’t read the book. I tried, it was crap, I tossed it. I haven’t seen the film. The trailers put me off. they’ve been showing for how many generations now? Every time I’ve gone to the cinema over the past 10 years it seems like I’ve seen that trailer. At first the teaser trailer was okay, fine, and I even thought that maybe the book could make a good film. I’ve heard it is a thriller-type and often not-so-good books make great films. The Godfather anyone? but then it was on again, and again, and again. And then they started showing the real trailer. This was back in 1066 or so. They really wanted to build publicity you see.

And ever so quickly I grew ever so fatigued with it[1] With its pointlessness and overhyped music and proclamations that it would shake the very foundations of humanity.

Honestly, do you really think that anything possibly could shake the foundations of humanity? Human belief systems, yes that could happen. But a theory shaking the actual foundations of humanity. Chance’d be a fine thing.

So I decided I wouldn’t go. Not unless I was stuck for something to see and wanted to waste some time. But then the reviews started coming out from Cannes. Reports of critics laughing at pivotal scenes. I got curious. See, I don’t actually read reviews before I see a film. But I’ll skim headlines and, in all fairness, it is pretty hard to miss hearing how much the world either hates or loves the Da Vinci Code. And then I read FM’s review.

I’ll have to go, it sounds so terrible it may just be watchable. Popcorn will be required. But I think I’m going to give it a go, it’ll be hanging around in the cinemas for ages anyways, won’t it. So I’ve plenty of time.

I still haven’t seen MI:3 either. I’ll have to increase my kino-ing.


  1. I’m dashed if I know why I’m using the expression ever so, I just am

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. anne says:

    I didn't really want to go see it, and then I thought, at least I'll know what I'm bashing, and then I thought, och, I don't need to know to bash, now, do I, and then a friend said "oh yes, we're going to see that, aren't we." Period, not question mark. So apparently I'm going too. And I'm a bit scared of losing 2 (and a half!!!) hours of my life.

    Anyway. Your RSS feed seems to have given up on us.

  2. Mal says:

    It's really not that bad…it has at least one good quotation in it. "You hate history? Nobody hates history. They hate their own history".

    I hope I haven't ruined it for you now.

    It's true, what Fencicles says about sensational truths not shocking the world. I think if we found life on Mars tomorrow it wouldn't change anything. It probably wouldn't knock Brad and Angelina off the first page.

  3. Ann says:

    Saw the movie last night and it was absolutely excruciating. the most boring thing I have ever sat through and I went to law school for a year and a half. We saw it in an amazing art deco theatre in Amsterdam, which is very good. I'd have paid 10 euro to see the inside of that theatre. I'd be pissed if I'd paid 10 euro to only see that steaming pile of trash film.

  4. weenie says:

    I've read the book (which wasn't that bad) and watched the film over the weekend. I have to say that whilst the film's not brilliant, it was enjoyable, they had good actors playing the characters and it was a pretty faithful adaptation of the book. That could be its problem – adaptations are usually different, often given a blockbuster/Hollywood makeover, eg LotR, but this didn't have much deviation.

    Cracking conspiracy theory anyway.

  5. Alan says:

    Having been forced to read the steaming pile of doggy-doo by a friend who kept raving over it, nothing, not a sense of irony, not wild horses, not the promise of seventy virgins in the afterlife, would drag me into a cinema to have to live the whole horrifying experience over again.

    Ooh, but getting the chance to pour vitriol on it in a review might!

  6. Carl V. says:

    Didn't read the book or see the film…the book is something I wasn't interested in mainly because my book snobbishness came out once everyone started raving about it. Same reason I've stayed away from Harry Potter to be honest with you.

    Since you don't have to waste any money on it you might as well see it…then again I'm sure you have many other movies, books, etc to fill your time with.

    Great quote at the top of the post!

  7. Fence says:

    Looks like people either kinda liked the film, or absolutley hated it. Can't see anyone raving about great it was.

    Carl I have the same dislike of stuff that everyone has raved about. Kinda anyways. If something is really really popular then I tend to avoid it, I started the HP books before the hugely took off cause the brother had them. But it is more the fact that so many people raving about something makes me expect something great. And in a majority of cases nothing can withstand great expectations.

    Anne, I don't think you need to know to bash generalities. But if you wanna get into specifics…

    And as Alan said, pour real vitriol on it.

    Ann, see your desciption of it being so terrible makes me wanna go see it. I mean, it must be pretty bad to be that bad :)

    Weenie, I tried the book once, but just found it poorly written. But I wouldn't write off the film (or the germans) just because of a bad book.

    Mal, Jolie and Pitt? What papers are you reading :)

  8. banzai cat says:

    "And then they started showing the real trailer. This was back in 1066 or so. They really wanted to build publicity you see."

    Heh. That got a snort out of me.

    Though I haven't read the book nor watched the movie, I kinda formulated a theory on why the movie was reportedly boring. Since it was based on a book (and a rather talky-book at that), being faithfully adapted won't do it good unless you've got some pretty good visuals.

    Now consider Harry Potter: it's faithfully adapted but since you've got all these sights and sounds of the wizard school, the games, the what-not all translated on screen, then you've got your payback.

    But since DVC is reality-based, what's so exciting about a talky-crackpot conspiracy theory, right?

    But that's just my two cents.

  9. Fence says:

    That's the thing when making a film based on a book, you gotta know what to change. People will complain, people always complain, but books are very different to films.
    I think that the last two HP films were better than the first two, because they changed certain bits.