|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Da Vinci Code
|
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 05-22-2006 02:30 AM
Regal Perimeter Point 10. Screen#8 their biggest screen. Used to be a good auditorium, but the projection is just getting worse each time I visit this screen. The movie itself was dark, but the dim bulb just made it worse. Even the previews were kind of dim. And it is important not to have this problem for a dull movie.
First hour, I struggled to stay awake. The controversy is overblown. I was expecting some major controversial stuff and there were only some mild ones. They even took the trouble to show a good Opus Deis character. The final Scene actually made me laugh.
Audrey Tatou gets on my nerves. She was great in Dirty Pretty Things, Amelie. But when she has to play a normal character, she sucks.
Hans Zimmer's first hour score was annoying.
Ron Howard should have taken directing tips from Darren Aranofsky who made potentially dull theories about PI interesting.
Akiva Goldsman - the guy who brought you Batman and Robin wrote the screenplay. This guy must have compromising pics of a lot of industry folk to have actually won an Oscar.
As someone who is not religious, I appreciate the alternate theories(stuff we used to discuss in high school for fun, so it's not exactly genius stuff on part of the writer). But this is the best they could do? I think I will pass on the book if the ideas just focus on the not so novel idea of a relationship between Jesus and Magdalene.
Oh yeah, and this. National Treasure was a lot more entertaining than this movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-24-2006 01:40 PM
quote: Matt Fields
By the way, this "Jesus wasn't really the Son of God but just a really great guy" theory doesn't hold water. Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter. If you don't believe in him, feel free, but that means you think he's a quack, because normal people don't go around and call themselves God.
Actually (and I am only talking semantics here, not religion) Jesus doesn't say his is God, only that he is the Son of God, which, if you look at it literally, is what everyone says....we are all children of God, therefore, we are all sons and daughters of God. Nothing nutty about it, only the interpretation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-30-2006 12:01 PM
The car reminded me of Weird Al's car in UHF. When they went to make their getaway in that thing, I couldn't stop laughing the whole time.
I agree that a lot of religious types have way over reacted to this movie - and the book too for that matter. If anything, the movie serves as an invitation to start conversations about Jesus Christ, which most religions should consider a good thing. So I don't get it. To me, they don't neecssarily seem insecure in their own beliefs, but they seem worried that their flock is too stupid to tell the difference between fact and fiction, which strikes me as condescending and insulting. The irony in all of this is that when the religious leaders stand up and say "Don't believe it! It's not true! It's a bunch of lies! etc..." they end up making the film's story seem that much more plausible. I wonder if they even realize that.
Anyway, I thought Tom Hanks was perfect in his role. But maybe that's because I read the book knowing that Tom Hanks was playing the part in the movie. The "wooden" quality that a lot of critics are applying to Tom should (in my opinion) be applied to the Langdon character. Throughout the book, I thought he was a pretty wooden character. I spoke to a couple of people who also read the book and they agreed with me on that. I'm curious to hear what others here think about it.
The eight track sound mix was ok, but it was way too quiet. Our SDDS (which normally plays around -2.0) had to be cranked up to +3.0, and a friend of mine complained that the theater where he saw it played the volume too low. I guess the projectionists at that theater never go down and listen to the movie.
I didn't notice any focus problems on either of our prints, but some of the unsteady camera work was really annoying. There's a shot at the end where there's absolutely no reason at all for the camera to be shaking, yet it is.
As to the pacing, I felt that they could have shortened some scenes, and extended some others and made the movie better. In the book, just about every chapter was between 2 and 4 pages long, and each one was a cliff hanger. I suspect that that's somewhat difficult to translate to the screen.
** SPOILERS AHEAD **
There were a few things missing that I would have enjoyed seeing in the movie. The second cryptex was one. Sophie's brother was another.
All in all, I enjoyed the movie, and the book. The theories are interesting, and if it ever turns out that parts of the conspiracy outlined in this story are true, I wouldn't be very surprised. Nor would my faith be shaken.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler
Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 06-08-2006 10:58 PM
With some questioning the focus here are some comments about the production from DP Salvatore Totinio as disccussed with writer Patricia Thomson:
American Cinematographer
quote:
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Super 35mm 2.35:1
Arricam Studio, Lite; Arri 235
Cooke S4 lenses
Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229;
Vision2 200T 5217, 100T 5212;
Vision 250D 5246
Digital Intermediate
Printed on Kodak Vision 2383
quote:
Da Vinci Code was not expected to be a compact production. Working in Super 35mm 2.35:1, Totino planned to use at least two cameras on every setup; his main package included two Arricam Studios, two Arricam Lites, and a lightweight Arri 235, all mounted with Cooke S4 lenses. “I really loved the S4s on The Missing, so I went out and bought my own set,” says Totino. The cameras would be constantly moving, affixed to sundry dollies, jib arms, Steadicam rigs, or Technocranes (50', 30' and 15') with Scorpio stabilizing heads.
Naturally, the Louvre wanted to safeguard its priceless art against accidental damage by man or machine. The administration also did not want filming to impinge on the flow of visitors, especially because the shoot took place at the height of the summer tourist season. Shooting was allowed only after hours, and the galleys had to be pristine by the time the crew cleared out at 6 a.m. Nothing could be pre-rigged or left behind, not even outside the museum. Lights could not be pointed directly at artwork. And, of course, no blood was allowed on the parquet floors.
By the third tech meeting, it was clear to the filmmakers that portions of the Louvre would have to be replicated onstage. For starters, there was the matter of the huge glass ceiling that stretches the length of the Grand Gallery and lets in light at daybreak. “The Louvre people weren’t interested in us getting up there and controlling the light,” says British gaffer Perry Evans. So the Grand Gallery was ultimately re-created on the 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios (one of 12 stages used there and at Shepperton Studios). The Louvre murder was filmed there, as was all the action around the corpse and in the Grand Gallery.
quote:
Setting the film’s mood in the Grand Gallery, Totino kept things dark and shadowy. “I thought it was better to keep the lights off,” he says. “It added a lot more mystery and depth. Your eye wants to see into the shadow.” Evans notes, “All the way through, Sal kept saying, ‘I’m going to be right on the edge.’ I’d say, ‘Sal, are we going to be okay here?’ and he’d say, ‘It’s okay, we’re on the edge.’ It became a running joke.”
Because half of Da Vinci Code takes place at night, Totino relied heavily on Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229. He preferred this to Kodak’s Vision2 500T 5218 because “it has a little less contrast and a nice softness. I wanted to be able to work in low light and not worry about losing detail in the blacks. I wanted the latitude and gave myself more range to play with. Later, I built some of the contrast up in the digital intermediate [DI].” He used Vision2 100T 5212, Vision2 200T 5217 and Vision 250D 5246 for daytime scenes.
Totino, who operates on all his films, was often shooting wide open. “The poor focus pullers, John Conroy and Simon Hume!” he marvels. “What a fantastic crew they were. I tried to approach this film with longer lenses because I wanted to draw the viewer’s eye into the frame in a different way. It was an intuitive thing. I wanted to compress the backgrounds and have them a bit more out of focus.” He also used Mitchell A and B diffusion filters throughout the film. “I wanted to take the edge off, just ever so slightly. The Mitchell softens the image without lightening the blacks or taking away from shadows.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic