Movies of 2009

Post by **EricJ** » May 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

eddievalient wrote:I think the major difference between A&D and DVC is that in the former, Dan Brown just wanted to tell a good story and in the latter he was trying to prove something (within a fictional context, but still) and it didn't translate to film as well as it should have. As far as what he was trying to prove, my feeling is that any evidence that would conclusively prove or disprove his claims is long gone, lost forever. All that's left are ideas and if the church feels so threatened by an idea, it makes me wonder if they really are trying to hide something and maybe Dan Brown figured out what that something might be.

Or, whether he was just another lapsed Catholic who tantrumed his complaints out into goofy Conspiracy theories like just about every other lapsed Catholic (Sinead O'Connor, anyone?

), got most of his facts overenthusiastically goofy/wrong, and happened to hit a lucky zeitgeist bell with wishful-thinkers who wanted to believe there really was some "anti-feminist agenda" in the Vatican that would make them feel more progressive.

As annoying Little-Known-Fact Police smartypants, used to love needling DVC true-believers with research fact checks...You should've seen their faces whenever they would lose the "Uh, Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute" bets.

Post by **eddievalient** » May 18th, 2009, 11:55 am

She wasn't a prostitute. The Vatican retracted that accusation decades ago (according to The History Channel), which to my mind only helps Dan Brown's argument.

Post by **Ben** » May 18th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Of course, Dan had also been reading a lot of <I>other</I> peoples' books too...

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » May 18th, 2009, 3:25 pm

You're talking about "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," Ben?

I used to own that book.

Got rid of it a while ago.

It's just not backed up by any kind of authentic history...

Brown stole all his main ideas from that book. I know a court ruled in Brown's favor AGAINST the lawsuit brought on by one of "Holy Blood's" co-authors but since we all know many lawyers and judges (like all nice little bureaucrats) live in their own little world (separate from reality) the ruling doesn't hold much stock with my own opinion on the matter.

Brown definitely borrowed from the earlier book without notifying the original authors. It's called plagiarizing/stealing whether courts recognize that fact or not.

It's so, so easy and convenient to scapegoat the Catholic Church for everything considering what the Church hierarchy did throughout pre-20th Century history but I'd still consider a lot of the "Da Vinci accusations" borderline heresy and almost definitely bigotry (specifically against Catholistic Christianity) disguised as "research."

Now, I'm not opposed to the idea of Mary Magdalene as an intimate friend of Jesus and possibly his wife but the rest of "Holy Blood" is basically an excuse for monarchism and justification for rule by divine right.

Again, nonsensical conjecture not backed up by any reputable historical record.

It's like all the Templar stories anybody who does any in-depth reading hears. You can come up with all kinds of theories but when somebody has to back up their claims they always point to cryptic writings and half-worn out symbols and engraving on some church or ruins as "evidence" of a grand Templar conspiracy that the Church tried to hide. Of course, the only person who understands the "clues" is the person who came up with the idea in the first place!

Historical research is like science -- if another individual can't repeat the experiment consistently you basically have rubbish. If people can't find the historical clues and repeat the results of historical research independently, a historical theory doesn't hold any more water than cold fusion.

This postulating is all very interesting but it is still mostly nonsense.

FYI, I'm speaking as someone with more than a slight interest in history.

I did graduate with a double major/bachelor's of science in history and biology. My historical underbacking is mainly American Civil War and beyond (with an emphasis on World War II and beyond) but I have read a lot about and taken courses in Medieval and post-Medieval Europe as well a little bit of many other things...

Post by **Rodney** » May 18th, 2009, 8:41 pm

I watched A&D this weekend. It was definitely better than the first movie. I always preferred A&D over TDVC mainly because I just liked the story better. The new movie has a much quicker pace than TDVC which was appreciated.

Post by **eddievalient** » May 24th, 2009, 10:42 pm

I saw Terminator Salvation today and I'll tell you that for fans of the series, this one's a winner. While it doesn't reach the highs of T2, it's better than T3 in every way. I read somewhere that Christian Bale wouldn't do the film unless the script was in good enough shape that it could be read on stage without the special effects and still be a compelling story. I think there must be some truth to that, because the story is compelling and raises some philosophical questions about what it means to be human. It definitely seems like part one of a new trilogy (as it has been reported to be), so I hope it does well enough for the filmmakers to do the other two parts. If they do, I think it would be appropriate for part three to end with John Conner sending Kyle Reese back in time to set everything in motion. It's too bad the TV series got cancelled just as it was getting really interesting, but a new trilogy would be a swell consolation prize, dontcha think?

Post by **Dacey** » May 25th, 2009, 12:13 am

(Don't we have a thread for this movie somewhere?)

Anyway, haven't seen "Salvation" yet, but I've been hearing *very* mixed things about it, so I'm going to try to keep my expectations restricted for whenever I see it next week.

But why does everyone seem to dislike T3 so much? It struck me as solid, action-packed entertainment, which is what these movies have always been about.

Post by **eddievalient** » May 25th, 2009, 10:10 am

I didn't say that T3 was bad, I just said that Salvation is better. It's got a better story and the action is more spectacular. You should see it.

Post by **Dacey** » May 29th, 2009, 11:38 am

I really, really, really want to see "Drag Me to Hell" now. It's currently 95% fresh at RT, which is almost unheard for the genre!

Post by **eddievalient** » May 29th, 2009, 12:37 pm

My feeling is that it's impossible to make a PG13 horror film. Thriller, yes. Horror, no. Horror films are rated R, period. They have to be to have the level of intensity required by something like Saw or The Devil's Rejects (which is one of the most intense movies I've ever seen). But I like Sam Raimi, so maybe I'll give it a shot on dvd.

Post by **Rodney** » May 29th, 2009, 4:36 pm

I think the difference between R and PG-13 has to do with blood. However, a horror movie can still be horrific and scary without blood. It just needs to be scary.

Post by **eddievalient** » May 29th, 2009, 9:16 pm

The only case where PG13 horror has worked, I feel, was 1408, but that's more because the original story was creepy to begin with. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre has very little bloodshed, but it's still rated R due to the intensity of it and that's the point I was trying to make.

Post by **Dacey** » May 29th, 2009, 10:47 pm

But from what critics are saying, "Drag Me to Hell" is supposed to be pretty funny, too. That's one of the reasons I want to see it.

And PG-13 horror is fine for me, but I scare pretty easily, so maybe I shouldn't be one to comment.

American_dog_2008 · Post by **American_dog_2008** » May 30th, 2009, 8:08 am

I'm looking forward to Drag me to Hell too.

Post by **eddievalient** » June 13th, 2009, 10:15 am

I saw "Land of the Lost" last night. It's not bad, but I can see why it flopped. 1. It's based on a show that's barely remembered and 2. it goes back and forth between genuinely funny and just plain dumb. As someone who doesn't like Will Ferrell at all, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure if I'd recommend it to people.