Doomlock Holmes wrote:
Doomlock Holmes wrote:
At any rate, the idea that we should be surprised that the movie adaptation of a book which sold 40 million copies makes a lot of money on its opening weekend, and that therefore the success should be attributed solely to the controversy, is really not a very strong argument.
Phil Donahue was on CNN on Friday. He predicted that the movie would do very well opening weekend b/c it has a huge built-in fan base & b/c of the controversy. He thinks it will do pretty well during the long Memorial Day weekend but that sales will fall drastically in June once people realize how bad the movie is.
I expect that the b.o. will fall at least 50% next week, both because the movie is awful and because of the opening of the highly anticipated XIII, then later in June is 'Superman Returns', another film which is highly anticipated, and which should be a much better film, IOW, this movie faces some VERY tight compettion very, very soon. I don't expect it will go much higher than the $100 mark, certainly not as high as $200 million.
Don't count on it...movies like this are profitable for a long shelf-life at the dollar theater, video, and cable syndication. I don't think it was a bad movie so much as it was terribly formulaic. I felt like I was watching "National Treasure," as it was NEARLY IDENTICAL in several scenes. Instead of the actual Declaration of Independence (in the former movie), it was actual documents from the Knights Templar. Instead of the John Voight guy as the historical expert in "National Treasure," dropping lemon juice on the Declaration, we get Ian McKellen from LOTR and X-Men as the historical expert. Instead of a treasure hunt for clues hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence, we get clues hidden in DaVinci paintings. Zero chemistry (and none even implied) between Nicholas Cage and his female counterpart; ditto for Tom Hanks and his co-star. When you consider that very little of the movie was actually *about* Christianity but more about a routine Hollywood thriller, it makes all the boycott nonsense all the more puzzling. Did anybody bother to protest "The Celestine Prophecy" that's currently also showing in theaters? Now, *that* movie is about Christianity. "DaVinci Code" isn't. That's a facade.
I can see why it got panned at Cannes. It's a very mainstream, Hollywood studio "product" that doesn't take any point of view. Does Ron Howard agree with Dan Brown's book? Does he disagree with it? I don't see the point of the Tom Hanks character disputing Ian McKellen's contentions about the Council of Nicea, e.g. Is it tell the audience, "Ok, we understanding this is controversial source material, and we'll give you some cop-out dialogue so you're not uncomfortable?" That would be like if, in "Last Temptation of Christ" (a far superior movie, IMHO), Martin Scorcese stopped and paused every other scene to ask the audience, "Is it ok I talk about this?" Could somebody who's seen the movie tell me- WHAT THE HECK WAS RON HOWARD TRYING TO "SAY"???