The weekend will tell how well its received at the box office!
For heaven's sake -- pointed reference intended -- why are so many people desperate to have "The Da Vinci Code" flop? Get a grip. It's only a movie. Why such alarm over dreck, printed or celluloid, rising to the top at the expense of "true art"? It was ever thus. If "The Da Vinci Code" attracts the public, it is for many reasons -- the hype and curiosity as well as its contents and how they are depicted. If the contents (of either book or movie) attract, that is at least in part because credulous people find therein something satisfying that they don't find in what "The Da Vinci Code" supposedly attacks or counters or argues against. Or, perhaps, what is lacking in that "opposite" is how it has been presented to the public. The good news -- pointed reference intended -- is that in discussing all this we throw only verbal bombs, not literal, deadly ones as in the uproar over the Danish cartoons.
I don't care whether it flops or not and rather suspect it won't. I figure everybody who read the book will want to see the movie. But I also think it has inspired some delightful commentary - Quinn's being especially good, I thought. That, to me, is the good news. Moreover, I actually saw the movie.
I have not read the book, but I will see the movie for an entirely individual reason. I will watch any movie with Tom Hanks (with or without a strange 'do). I like even the crappy movies he's made, and he's made some. Don't tell me that's brainless. I know it is. But I find him pleasureable to watch in the same way I find Jimmy Stewart. He's just hard not to like. Not everything needs to be cerebral.
That was maybe the most disappointing thing of all. I like Tom Hanks, too. I even liked Turner and Hooch. Actually, I liked it a lot. But even Hanks can't do anything with the material - or lack of it - that he has to work with. Only Ian McKellen acquits himself respectably - and that's by shamelessly camping it up.