There’s a movie review site/portal called RottenTomatoes.Com that (among other things) gathers up snippets from and links to reviews of different movies.
One of the unique features of this site is its ratings system, which judges films "fresh" or "rotten" based on how many reviews of them are positive or negative. If a review of the film is generally positive, it will have a fresh tomato next to it, and if the review is generally negative, it will have a rotten tomato next to it.
These results are then aggregated together into something known as "the Tomatometer" (pictured above) that shows you what percentage of reviews are positive vs. negative. If a movie gets a minimum of 60% positive reviews then it’s judged a "fresh" film; otherwise it’s a "rotten" film.
Why 60% instead of 50%? (Everyone asks that.) In the words of the guys who run the site, "We feel that 60% is a comfortable minimum for a movie to be recommended."
Those critics who get their reviews counted toward the Tomatometer are
known, appropriately enough, as "Tomatometer critics." (And our own SDG
is one of them.)
The above is an image capture of where the Tomatometer was for The Da Vinci Code last night when I was writting this post: Only 6% positive, making the film rotten. There were sixteen Tomatometer reviews posted, only one of which (from the New York Post) was positive.
But the Tomatometer won’t stay that way.
Yesterday, when the first Tomatometer reviews were posted, the film was 100% rotten. Now it’s only 94% rotten. As more critics post their reviews, the percentage will further change.
HERE’S THE LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK WHERE THE TOMATOMETER IS NOW.
I’ll be interested over the next few days to see what the Tomatometer does regarding this film. I’m sure that the percentage of freshness will increase, but I’m dubious that it will get over the magic 60% to turn The Da Vinci Code into a fresh film.
My money would be that it’ll stay rotten, though by how much I can’t say.
I saw that in the message board on RottenTomatoes they were having a discussion of what the final freshness figure for the movie would be, with people betting (not for money) where they thought the meter would end up.
Anyone care to take a guess?
“34” (the number of cantos in Dante’s Inferno for those of would seek to crack my code…)
I checked out the review “Over the Hedge,” the family-friendly alternative being released the same weekend as the “DUH-Vinci Code.” It’s decidely “fresh” with a 69% favorable rating.
I know what I’m going to see this weekend. And I’m taking th wife and kids!
I guess it was as bad as LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Which if you get past the profain material & judge it stricktly on It’s merits as a film was just plain awful.
Hmm, the same website lists “The Passion” as rotten, albeit with a higher percentage.
Oh, but they give “The Princess Bride” 100%!
Oh, but they give “The Princess Bride” 100%!
They better!
I say it’s at least as fresh as the Gnostic heresy.
6% is not “rotten”; it’s PUTRID!
Right now it’s at 20%.
Currently it stands:
Da Vinci Code: 20%
Over The Hedge: 69%
This movie is proabably going to have a big opening although as the screenwriter William Goldman wrote, “nobody know anything.” Of course we have the recent experience of Mission Impossible which seemed to have everything going for it including strong reviews and a proven franchise but no one accounted for how the US public got tired of Tom Cruise’s antics, his approval rating is in Dubya territory. The book has sold 40 million copies so if say 33% of those who read the book see the movie and brings along a friend or spouse thats 27 million tickets or around $190 million in box office. Other items I have read:
1: Sites like fandango.com report strong online sales for Da Vinci with one site claiming the movie is selling 10 times more tickets than Mission Impossible was a few before its release.
2: Just like with the run up to Chronicles of Narnia there has been a spike in sales of the paperback version of Da Vinci. I read 3.5 million paperbacks have been sold in the past few weeks.
3: Da Vinci has strong tracking numbers which means when surveyed a large percentage of respondents claim they will see the movie. Poseidon had horrible tracking numbers although Mission Impossible had strong tracking numbers.
Sony can claim victory if the movie opens with a $70 million weekend. If you want this movie to fail you hope to see a Mission Impossible like opening of around $50 million.
Where the bad reviews and hopefully bad word of mouth can come into play is the second weekend. If Da Vinci drops by more than 50% from its opening that would be bad news for Sony. Although bad reviews seems to have not affected RV which has experience mild drops in box office performance.
The benchmark for a blockbuster like Da Vinci is topping $200 million in domestic box office. The other factor is international box office, for example one bright spot for Mission Impossible has been int’l sales, around $130 million. Sony to make a profit on the theaterical release needs total box office to probably top $400 million maybe $500 million.
BTW. Visit “The Curt Jester” for a picture of Silas the albino monkey assassin. He’s quite cute.
One positive review…
“Opens the door for many spiritual seekers to think afresh about Jesus, sexuality, the Sacred Feminine and the great mysteries that cannot be contained in dogmas.”
Click for Full Review
— Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, SPIRITUALITY AND PRACTICE
Whew… No agenda there…
Mike, I saw that, too. Made me laugh out loud.
That quote only left me with one question…
What is Frederic Brussat’s maiden name?
Of coarse there’s the catch 22 part of all this. If it does well, expect to hear people at the office (mine especially, I work with many atheists) lauding it for telling the truth or commenting that if Christians hadn’t made such a big deal, it wouldn’t have sold as well.
If it does poorly, then will come the “see, you were making it a bigger deal than it was” type of comments.
It’s noticeable that most of the positive reviews seem agenda-based, rather than based on the objective merits of the film.
For example, Brandon Judell’s review for the “New York Theater Wire” fairly spews hatred of religion and Christianity in particular.
Unfortunately Roger Ebert has given it a good review (three stars out of four) and Mr. Ebert usually has a good sense of what people like. His review is good for us in the sense that he totally discounts all the claims of Mr. Brown’s books:
“Dan Brown’s novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard’s movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown’s fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane”.
More comments from the review:
“The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as “maso-chastity,” not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.”
“Opus Dei works within but not with the church, which also harbors a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (the pope and most other Catholics apparently don’t have backstage passes).”
“These men keep a secret that, if known, could destroy the church. That’s why they keep it. If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago.”
“But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that’s why movies like “The Da Vinci Code” are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in “The Da Vinci Code” really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for “repairs.” A likely story.”
Like most of Mr. Eberts reviews I enjoyed his comments. I certainly liked his review and its obvious that he actually looked into some of the claims that the book (which he obviously read) and found them absurd. I think he views it like a theological “National Treasure”; the facts are made up but it is a good roller coaster ride.
42…
Although the review over at USA Today, says that the movie (which she gave 2 stars) is “lifeless,” “pedestrian,” and “unintentionally comical,” there is an underlying sentiment that wishes it weren’t so. The reviewer seems almost depressed that the blasphemous elements are missing. Without them, the movie “borders on tedium.”
Claudi Puig laments that the movie “soft-pedals its provocative premise” and that “some of the elements that have sparked protests among Christians — questions about the divinity of Jesus Christ and his lineage — have had their edges smoothed.”
Additionally, Puig finds it noteworthy that “The movie also avoids the book’s graphic depiction of a sex rite,” as though maybe it should have been added.
I didn’t get the sense that Puig has any particular axe to grind. It just seems that her sentiment is like that of a lot of people: give me anything, as long as it titillates.
I noticed Roger Ebert gave the DVC a ‘fresh” rating.
His review is basically in the “hey, it’s just fiction” mode, but at least he really believes what he says. He makes light of the controversy on both ends, saying,
“Dan Brown’s novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard’s movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them.
I know there are people who believe Brown’s fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.”.
So, he gives it 3 out of 4 stars. Well, he and Mary Hart agree, at least.
Tim:
Are you referring to Mary Hart from ET? I wonder if she ever gave a movie a bad review. I was flipping through the channels last night and caught one of the those vapid entertainment shows The Insider doing a story about the Cannes premiere of Da Vinci. I thought to myself this is going to be cool how will they spin the attendants were laughing and catcalling. They never mentioned the audience response instead they had a clip from the one good review at the time from the New York Post and another clip from the BBC which claimed the movie will be a hit. The BBC article was about how the movie was bullet proof from critics because it the book sold 60 million copies and will be a commercial hit. The actual review said the movie stunk. Shows you how shows like ET and The Insider are worse than the good old days of Pravda and Izvestia.
Wow, Hartmeister beat me to it.
I can only add that if Mr. Ebert is correct, and no one of sound mind could possibly believe Dan Brown’s load of hooey, it makes me worry about the number of my fellow Americans that are, apparently, not of sound mind.
Actually, Ebert’s positive review might serve as a wake-up call for people who are STILL eager to see the film, despite the bad press.
Picture this: You are one of the unfortunate people who is under the delusion that DVC is a great book. You have been waiting for this movie for a long time, as you have been tired of hearing from “conservative Christians” telling you not to watch the movie, that Mary Magdaline and Jesus were not married, that Dan Brown is an idiot, etc. You think, “Gosh darn it, why are they making such a big deal about this movie? It is only fiction. Besides, everyone KNOWS that the Church has been hiding these secrets for centuries!”
Then the word gets out: the film is a flop! The critics hate it. Distressed that your beloved book (and soon to be beloved movie) is taking an undeserved beating, you scurry over to Rottentomatoes.com to assess the damage. You think, “Well someone has to agree with me that this is a great movie!”
Then you see it! The bright red shiny fruit next to Celebrity Critic Roger Ebert’s name! Yes, all these nobodies disagree with you, but at least the only critic you’ve heard of liked the movie.
So you click on the link, and in the review Ebert rips the novel, belittles anyone who even entertains its premises, tells you the movie is stupid and absurd, but at least serves as a nice diversion from anything even vaguely approaching reality or quality, except for perhaps Ron Howard’s using the idiocy of the novel to his benefit.
I can forgive Ebert on this one.
Ebert has gone way, way too PC for me, some time ago. Now, it’s only SG (and me, of course).
DVC:18%
OTH:64%
Any bets whether DVC will top Poseidon, 29% tomatometer? 🙂
Ebert is definitely a flaming liberal, but his Catholic roots run deep. He’s usually quick to defend Catholicism from (serious) attacks in film. I don’t think he felt that in this case it’s worth the trouble.
His sidekick Roeper wrote a nice column a couple years ago around the time the Passion of the Christ came out. It basically illustrated how the alleged anti-semitism in the film paled in comparison to all of the negative portrayals of Catholics and Catholicism in the movies over the past few years.
DVC is now at 18%. I’m thinkn’ we’re gonna see it fluctuate like a score at Coors Field for a bit. Should stabalize tomorrow.
I’d guess it’ll end up no higher than a 32%. I just don’t think there are that many critics with pro-DVC or anti-Christian agendas like Ms & Mr Brussat (shudder). Could be as low as 25%. That would be cool.
“Puig finds it noteworthy that ‘The movie also avoids the book’s graphic depiction of a sex rite,’ as though maybe it should have been added.”
Sounds as if Puig wouldn’t be happy just settling for all the book’s blasphemy appearing on screen, she wants it to be porn, too!
Pardon me, I think I’m going to meet my lunch again.
18%? fine, as Elliot Garfield would say, “Admit it! I was capital P, capital U, capital TRID.”
Even Long Island Newsday (which The Catholic League For Religious And Civil Rights called “the most anti-Catholic newspaper in America”) panned it. If that anti-Catholic rag couldn’t manage to like it, it must really be a stinker. (Yes, I am indulging in Schadenfreud–however it’s spelled!)
Not to get everyone off the tomatometer topic, but I just have to comment on how much I love the phrase “Sacred Feminine.”
Normally, when you put an adjective in a sentence in the place where a noun would usually go, it causes problems–such as the sentence no longer making sense.
HOWEVER, if you put TWO adjectives together and CAPITALIZE them, it makes for a perfectly grammatical construction! It’s a Linguistic Wonderful!
The da vinci code’s future home: badmovies.org
It will be something that future kitsch lovers will laugh over like classics such as plan 9 from outer space. Have you seen Battlefield earth’s Amazon.com reviews? The only positive ones talk of it as a movie to see because it’s so bad it’s hilarious.
I wouldn’t worry so much about Roger Ebert’s review. Looking over his website, he gives three stars to what, 90% of the movies he’s seen?
Your Mary Hart sounds like our Molly Meldrum. He was supposed to be a music reviewer on our Hey Hey it’s Saturday show but he was really just a promoter. I never heard him say a negative word about any band, performer or album. I only once ever heard him say a bad thing about a celebrity. He said Helen Hunt was a bitch. She must have done something really bad to ellicit such a response from mr perennial boot-kissing lapdog.
Ry,
Well, adjectives can be used substantively (i.e., as nouns).
Is the “Tomatometer” much of an indication of how it will fair monetarily and how audiences will react? After all, remember what they gave “The Passion of the Christ”… “Cream of the crop” only gave it 39% … And, how about “The Last Temptation of Christ”…78% …
CatholicSphere,
Good points. I think a lot of people are jumping the gun in assuming that bad reviews mean that DVC will likely be a flop at the box office.
There are a lot of reports that it is presold out for the entire weekend at many theaters. No telling how many of those will wonder why they paid good money for a movie that the studio held back from being reviewed. Suckers! But, it will be huge opening weekend.
We need another category besides fiction and non-fiction. The Duh-Vinci Code is worse than “just fiction”, it’s maliciously anti-factual.
+J.M.J+
As fun as all the negative reviews are, I think the movie will be a hit for the first weekend. I say this not because I like the Duh Vinci Code, but because of the large fan-base. I also think it may not do as well for the second weekend, as word-of-mouth gets around that the film is rather boring.
Another prediction: If it turns out to be a hit for opening weekend, gloating trolls will come to this and other Catholic blogs saying, “See, you guys got all excited over the bad reviews, but the DVC was a big hit anyway! Nyah, nyah-nah, nyah, nyah.”
So I just want to be on the record as saying beforehand that I fully expect it to do well, in the beginning at least. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’ll be proven right.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie, You’re right. I don’t believe for one moment that the bad reviews will stop the codeheads from going to see the movie, but, like you, I think that once word gets around that the movie is dull, then the numbers will dwindle.
There is also the factor of the upcoming soccer World Cup, which in soccer-mad countries, such as here in England, will be a much bigger draw than the Duh Vinci Cod.
“Ebert is definitely a flaming liberal, but his Catholic roots run deep. He’s usually quick to defend Catholicism from (serious) attacks in film…”
True enough. He did the same thing with his review of Stigmata a number of years ago (I remember it from his “I Hated, Hated, _HATED_ This Movie” book, if memory serves).
“HOWEVER, if you put TWO adjectives together and CAPITALIZE them, it makes for a perfectly grammatical construction! It’s a Linguistic Wonderful!”
I thought this was a wonderful insight into a common linguistic abuse. It inspired me to think up some proper adjectivial ways to refer to the The Da Vinci Code, such as the “Blasphemous Egregious,” the “Quasi-historical Erroneous,” and the “Outrageous Specious.” ; )
Just as I expected it appears Da Vinci is having a huge opening overseas and in matinees on the East Coast:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/first-bo-reports-on-da-vinci-code/
Where the bad reviews and probably bad word of mouth might come into play is whether this movie has any momentum after this weekend.
WOW
DVC: 16%
OTH: 73%
Othercott, guys. Othercott. Go see Over the Hedge.
While the critics might not like it, the Users at Rotten Tomatoes give it a 73% rating.
While the critics might not like it, the Users at Rotten Tomatoes give it a 73% rating.
Unlike the critics (who must be established to have their review included) it is easy to stuff the user’s ballot box. Even studios can have people create multiple accounts to vote early and often for their own films.
Last night here in Lafayette, LA, we held a prayerful protest (as did many other communities) outside the cinemas for the opening night of DVC. Then my wife, my daughter, and I went to see Over the Hedge.
I have a few remarks:
1) The protest was not as big as I’d hoped and expected;
2) In a telling example of the different mindsets, while we were peacefully engaged in prayer, we received vulgarities and obscenities from the Pro-DVC crowd: to be expected, but remarkable nevertheless;
3) The first six viewings of the evening for DVC were completely sold out, so I expect a BIG opening weekend – let’s hope for huge drop-off;
4) Over the Hedge was good, not nearly as good as any thing Pixar comes up with, but unobjectionable family entertainment. For a better review, I suggest taking a look at Steven Greydanus’ site, http://www.decentfilms.com. (In fact, bookmark that site, because it is the tops for great reviews.)
“…we received vulgarities and obsceneties from the pro-DVC crowd…”
Bigotry and self-control are usually incompatable.
Friday box office estimates, per BoxOfficeMojo.com:
Da Vinci Code $29.5 million
Over the Hedge $10.95 million
MI 3 $3.39 million
Poseidon $3.05 million
See No Evil $1.65 million
Thus you can see Duh Vinci made more on Friday than the rest of the top 5 combined. Over the Hedge was beaten by a nearly 3-1 margin — but that may be due in part to kids being in school during the Friday afternoon showings.
It occurred to me that tickets for children may not count as much as tickets for adults. Does anyone know how this works?
Also, a lot more tickets are being GIVEN away for the DaVinci Load. In fact, most stores are selling DVDs with free tickets for the movie, though I presume they are not instantly redeemable (like the author of the book).
I am afraid the on-the-street protests will only backfire. Knowledge is the only way to fight this and let’s face it — the 60’s are long dead and buried. That type of social activism just does not work anymore. People have been protesting so much for so long, that everyone has become too acclimated for them to have any effect.
The real method now will be the media itself. About a month ago, Pope Benedict said we must fight this ugliness with beauty. DVC appropriates Catholic beauty, but it cannot steal it. The classics, the masters, and even the new pioneers are all Catholic.
The only thing that can stem this tide is a second Renaissance. The Second Dark Age needs to end.
When I talk about St. Thomas Aquinas to people who have never heard of him before, many times the reaction I get is one absolute surprise.
For a long time now, schools have fed us Voltaire and Machiavelli when they wanted to show us what philosophy is like. This is because all the good philosophers are Catholic and universities are desperate to avoid any religious association with the concept of enlightenment.
But as Peter Kreeft says, choosing not to have a philosophy is NOT an option. It is time to show more people what the system has been hiding from them.
It is time for an army of writers and singers and artists who can be religious and still appeal to the masses through the univesality of the Truth. We need an army of Tolkeins and Lewises.
We can start by putting more of their work on film to inspire new generations.