Tom Hanks to star in "Da Vinci Code" movie.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

According to this (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=7198).

Ron Howard will direct.

I thought the book was ridiculous but the fact that it annoyed fundies was a good thing in its own way. And even though none of the theories in the book were especially credible, I think it's a good thing just to get something besides a purely literal interpretation of the Bible into the popular imagination.

So, is this movie risking the wrath of a backlash from picketing Christians or will it be a hit?

[roger thornhill]

One plus is that the movie's got to be better than the book.

[Marley23]

One plus is that the movie's got to be better than the book.
It sounds like the book was written to be a movie, but I'm not sure this is true.

[roger thornhill]

It sounds like the book was written to be a movie, but I'm not sure this is true.
Probably was. Isn't this the way with best-selling authors these days?

Wish I was one.....

[Marley23]

Probably was. Isn't this the way with best-selling authors these days?
Not all of them, but it seems to be the way with Dan Brown.

[BrainGlutton]

Director Ron Howard and producer Brian Grazer, the duo who helped make Hanks a star with their 1984 comedy Splash and rehired him 11 years later for Apollo 13, cast Hanks as the globe-trotting scholar Robert Langdon, a decision based partially on the cerebral (riddle-solving, code-cracking) nature of the action in "Da Vinci."

WTF? Tom Hanks? I hear "Tom Hanks," I don't think "intellectual," I think "everyman." Maybe you meant to say "Russel Crowe"? As in, A Beautiful Mind?

And . . . Ron Howard? Come on, Ron Howard? Little Opie Cunningham? The guy who directed Willow, Apollo 13, Edtv, and How the Grinch Stole Christmas? I don't think so. This project should be directed by somebody who can do real creepy, disturbing, reality-is-not-what-seems, conspiracy-theory flix -- maybe David Cronenberg (eXistenZ, Naked Lunch, Videodrome). Or Alex Proyas (Dark City). Or Richard Donner (Conspiracy Theory). Or Mark Pellington (The Mothman Prophecies). Or David Lynch (pretty much his entire ouvre except for Dune).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Brainglutton, I'm surprised you forgot the king of conspiracy, Oliver Stone.

Seriously, with a property like this, they want to remain mainstream and safe. Tom Hanks and Ron Howard is about as safe as it gets. Crist only know what David Lynch would do (but it would probably be an improvement on the book).

[BrainGlutton]

Seriously, with a property like this, they want to remain mainstream and safe.

Why? Because the fundies are going to picket the opening? That'll happen anyway, and there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Although, I must admit, considering the nature of Dan Brown's plot, the general tone of the book was actually rather, well, tame. A typical thriller -- a lot more like John Grisham than, say, Robert Anton Wilson or Thomas Pynchon. Maybe Ron Howard and Tom Hanks aren't bad choices. :rolleyes: Damn, so much more could have been done with the "Grail Blood" premise!

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Well, I thought the book was great, but I would never have picked Tom Hanks for the role. :dubious:

[blowero]

Well I'm looking forward to it, so there. I'm not so much bothered by the choice of Tom Hanks, but Ron Howard??? Doesn't really seem like his style.

Hey, at least it's not Will Smith.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

DavInci Code = inexplicably popular crappy book
Tom Hanks = inexplicably popular crappy actor
Ron Howard = inexplicably popular crappy director

Colour me unsurprised.

Predicted result = inexplicably popular crappy film

[buttonjockey308]

Ah crap. I liked the book, such as it was. Hanks will turn the film into bubblegum.

Crap.

[Liberal]

I thought the book was ridiculous but the fact that it annoyed fundies was a good thing in its own way.Was that necessary? What do you want, like twelve straight years of Republicans or something? My sister is a "fundie", and she isn't annoyed by the DaVinci Code. It's because of the kind of crack you made that it is hard to muster sympathy when hand-stabbers are annoyed by things like the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Typo Negative]

Tom Hanks = inexplicably popular crappy actor

5 Oscar nominations for best actor
2 Oscar wins for best actor
3 American Comedy Awards (Funniest Actor in a Motion Picture)
American Film Institute's Lifetime Aceivement Award
3 BAFTA (British Oscar) Nominations
and scads of other stuff....

Could it be that your opinion of him is just a tad harsh?

[Marley23]

Could it be that your opinion of him is just a tad harsh?
I've got no problem with Tom Hanks, but when you consider how popular and beloved Forrest Gump was (I'm sure the bulk of those awards came from there), and how totally stupid Forrest Gump was, I can't really blame Tapioca.

[Typo Negative]

Tom Hanks awards (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000158/awards)

[Marley23]

Tom Hanks awards (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000158/awards)
Okay, not the bulk, but a bunch. It was still a vastly overrated movie, and awards don't prove you're a good actor.

[Liberal]

Okay, not the bulk, but a bunch. It was still a vastly overrated movie, and awards don't prove you're a good actor.Maybe not. But then what does prove that you're a good or bad actor? Or that a movie is overrated? I think Spooje was just pointing out that there is considerable evidence that some people do indeed consider him to have been a good actor in good movies. Personally, I think he's a fine actor, sort of the James Stewart of our age.

[Marley23]

Maybe not. But then what does prove that you're a good or bad actor? Or that a movie is overrated?
I don't think anything does.

I think Spooje was just pointing out that there is considerable evidence that some people do indeed consider him to have been a good actor in good movies.
Yes, that much is indisputable.

[Typo Negative]

Okay, not the bulk, but a bunch. It was still a vastly overrated movie, and awards don't prove you're a good actor.
Multiple Oscars for Best Actor pretty much does prove that.

:D

[Agrippina]

The book was rather crappy, so I'm surprised the movie isn't being directed by Joel Schumacher.

I've never had a problem with Ron Howard or Tom Hanks. Possibly because I don't automatically dislike things that are popular.

[WordMan]

Count me in as one who will be staying away from the Cineplex when this opens. I have yet to see a Ron Howard film worth watch, other than maybe Splash. (A Beautiful Mind was ruined for me because I read the book beforehand and could only look at the film as a crime perpetrated on the man's actual history).

As for Hanks, I am struck by his assertions during his Polar Express junkets where all he says is "I pick films because they are interesting" I could see PE being picked because of the attempt at innovation, but Da Vinci Code? Please. Admit it Tom, you want a bankable film series....

[Humble Servant]

I'm skeptical that the movie will annoy "fundies." I read the book more as an attack on the RCC (Whore of Babylon), which doen't always bother so-called "fundies."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Apollo 13 was a good movie. That was Hanks and Howard.

I think that Forrest Gump was overrated in some ways but that is was watchable solely because of Hanks' performance. He found a way to play a retarded character in a totally unique way. He created a genuine, indelible character that wasn't just a catalogue of acting tics and mimicry of retarded people. The writing sucked and the direction was saccharine but that wasn't Hanks' fault. I thought he made a bad movie watchable with an inspired characterization.

He was pretty good in Saving Private Ryan as well.

And Ron Howard has done a couple of thrillers before, hasn't he? Didn't he do Ransom with Mel Gibson and there was some other movie with Tommy Lee Jones last year. I haven't seen either movie, are they any good?


Lib:

"Handstabber?" Me?

How about if I just say that I get a little kick out of the fact that the book annoyed the kind of people who would get annoyed by a book like this? People who have any genuine faith and brains are not going to let piece of fiction by a hack novelist get their panties in a bunch.

[fusoya]

Weird, I heard a while ago that Russell Crowe (as BrainGlutton mentioned) would be playing the title role. I thought that was poor casting until I heard this Tom Hanks thing.

My first (and pretty much only reaction) to the book is that it reads like a movie screenplay, not a book. It was so incredibly overrated that I wish it would just go away.

I also felt for a long time that Tom Hanks himself was incredibly overrated as an actor, but he restored my confidence when I watched The Terminal this weekend

[Tenebras]

WTF? Tom Hanks? I hear "Tom Hanks," I don't think "intellectual," I think "everyman." Maybe you meant to say "Russel Crowe"? As in, A Beautiful Mind?

And . . . Ron Howard? Come on, Ron Howard? Little Opie Cunningham? The guy who directed Willow, Apollo 13, Edtv, and How the Grinch Stole Christmas? I don't think so. This project should be directed by somebody who can do real creepy, disturbing, reality-is-not-what-seems, conspiracy-theory flix


Don´t forget Ron Howard´s other recent movie, A Beautiful Mind...

[Astacey]

I think Tom Hanks is an excellent choice, actually.

He even looks like I pictured Langdon in my mind. Weird.

I'm looking forward to it!

[furlibusea]

Re-watch Philidelphia Story and see if you still think Tom Hanks is a hack.

[Governor Quinn]

Re-watch Philidelphia Story and see if you still think Tom Hanks is a hack.

He isn't in that film. Some rule about not being in films made years before you were born....

[Neurotik]

I don't get where people get this whole "Tom Hanks is a hack" thing. He's one of the best actors out there. At least he doesn't play himself in every role he's had for the past 10 years like Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson or freaking Sam Jackson. Look at the differences he's brought to various roles in Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, A League of Their Own, Road to Perdition, etc.

Is he as good as Johnny Depp or Russel Crowe? No, of course not. But if everyone who isn't as good as them is a hack, then we've got some impossible standards for 99% of the actors out there to live up to.

[Trunk]

It shouldn't suprise ANYONE that Ron Howard is directing this movie.

The book isn't an interesting, alternate bible interpretation that is about exposing a conspiracy.

The book is a pop fiction, basically an action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies driving the plot. It's Goonies.

Ron Howard is the most by-the-book pop director out there. Some of his stuff is watchable, but make no mistake, this is a fluff book with an appropriately fluffy director.

Go see "National Treasure" and you'll be getting the same thing: action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies. One's digging for gold. One's digging for the Grail.

Now, it doesn't suprise me that Hanks would do it because he does a lot of big budget, big studio stuff.

-------
Aside: anyone who thinks Hanks can't act is a fool. This guy has more range than Nick Cage, Bob De Niro, Al Pacino and Russell Crowe put together.

You want some real hacks, see Neurotik's post: Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson and Sam Jackson.

There are few people who can inhibit so many different characters so completely as Tom Hanks. VERY FEW. Not to mention, his ability to do drama, comedy (slapstick, satire, and goofball), and tragedy all equally well.

[interface2x]

Weird, I heard a while ago that Russell Crowe (as BrainGlutton mentioned) would be playing the title role.


And Russell Crowe as .... THE DAVINCI CODE! :D

[Tapioca Dextrin]

If this abomination has to be made into a movie, then:

Director: Terry Gilliam, second choice Tim Burton
Prrofessor dude: Johnny Depp, second choice Brendan Fraser

[blowero]

The book isn't an interesting, alternate bible interpretation that is about exposing a conspiracy.

Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn't supposed to be a true story. It's fucking fiction for crying out loud.

The book is a pop fiction, basically an action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies driving the plot.

Did anyone claim it was something else?

It's Goonies.

Nonsense. You seem to think that Da Vinci Code is entirely fanstasy invented out of whole-cloth, like Lord of the Rings or something. Da Vinci was a real person; the works of art referred to in the book are real works of art; the secret societies are real secret societies; the locations and buildings are real and are accurately described. The story, however, is quite obviously fiction. It's actually quite clever how he takes real historic events and objects and uses them to tell a fictional story. It's not fucking "Goonies", and it's not "Harry Potter" for that matter. If you guys want to criticize the writing style or the character development or things like that - fine. But if you're going to trash something, could you at least have a valid reason for it?

Geez, you guys act like you don't understand what the genre of fiction is. You seem to think a movie has to either be a documentary, or complete fantasy.


Go see "National Treasure" and you'll be getting the same thing: action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies. One's digging for gold. One's digging for the Grail.

Yeah, because everyone knows you're only allowed to make one movie on any given topic. :rolleyes:

[C K Dexter Haven]

I thought the book was ridiculous but the fact that it annoyed fundies was a good thing in its own way.
Moderator Hat On: Look, Dio, you been around long enough to know that this is not an appropriate comment in this forum. I know, I know, it's hard to draw the line between art/entertainment and political opinions sometimes, but I don't think this is one of those times.

You want to lop around insults aimed at particular political or religious groups, hop over to the forum called BBQ Pit and be my guest. Here, we refrain. Good manners and common courtesy are essential for any discussion about the arts and entertainment.

:: Moderator Hat Off

....and I think they should cast Julia Roberts as Da Vinci.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It shouldn't suprise ANYONE that Ron Howard is directing this movie.

The book isn't an interesting, alternate bible interpretation that is about exposing a conspiracy.

The book is a pop fiction, basically an action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies driving the plot. It's Goonies.
Blowero beat me to this, but the book isn't supposed be anything but adventure fiction. The "conspiracy" is presented merely as the premise for a story. It's just entertainment.

It amazes me that I've seen so many books out claiming to "debunk" the DVC, as if a made up story can be debunked. They might as well "debunk" Raiders of the Lost Ark on the grounds that there is no historical evidence that the Nazis found the Ark of the Covenant.

I personally though the book was an overrated, 2nd rate potboiler but necessarily because of the theories that were used (and maybe the fact that I was already familiar with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail theory took away that element of surprise for me and contributed to my "meh" opinion of the book) but because I thought it was largely predictable and that the characters were overbroad and implausible.

[rjung]

I guess Tom Hanks felt his career wasn't sufficiently destroyed after doing The Polar Express.

Hey, I like Hanks, but his choices lately have been real "WTF?" fodder...

[Marley23]

Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn't supposed to be a true story. It's fucking fiction for crying out loud.I was under the impression the author said (and the book was marketed) otherwise.

I do like Tom Hanks. Apollo 13 was terrific, he made Castaway almost worth it with some great work, etc. When somebody's that popular there are bound to be people who think he's overrated.

[Jervoise]

Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn't supposed to be a true story. It's fucking fiction for crying out loud.

Did anyone claim it was something else?

Nonsense. You seem to think that Da Vinci Code is entirely fanstasy invented out of whole-cloth, like Lord of the Rings or something. Da Vinci was a real person; the works of art referred to in the book are real works of art; the secret societies are real secret societies; the locations and buildings are real and are accurately described.No, they're not.

The problem is that Brown claims:"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."This is simply not the case. Just as one example of inaccuracy--and there are dozens of errors and distortions--Brown claims the pyramid over the Louvre has exactly 666 panes of glass, a number with symbolic resonance. According to the Louvre (and a mathematician who recently did the calcluations) it's actually 673, a rather more prosaic number. There are many, many factual errors with Brown's description of art, secret societies, the origins of the bible and buildings. He gets dates wrongs, describes art inaccurately and distorts historical fact to tortuously weave a conspiracy.

That's perfectly okay in a novel--just don't claim that the details described are accurate. Our issue with Brown isn't that he's written a work of fiction--it's that he's written a work of fiction and passed off its many fictional supporting details as fact, and (more gallingly) that thousands of credulous readers read what they believe.

Also, his writing style is dire.

[blowero]

I was under the impression the author said (and the book was marketed) otherwise.

When did Brown say it wasn't fiction? And who marketed it as something other than fiction? And even if they did, it's beyond obvious to anyone who reads it. You didn't think Robert Langdon was a real person, did you?

[C K Dexter Haven]

They might as well "debunk" Raiders of the Lost Ark on the grounds that there is no historical evidence that the Nazis found the Ark of the Covenant.
With due respect, I think that's a good analogy although slightly faulty. The bottom line is that the Ark of the Covenant did exist (presumably), while Jesus running off to marry Mary M. is pure fantasy.

And the thing with RAIDERS is that the bad guys were Nazis, and it's OK to make them out as meanies and to stir up anti-Nazi sentiments. For Brown, the bad guys are the Catholic Church, the Masons, et al. and it's NOT OK to stir up anti-Catholic feelings, anti-Mason sentiments.

[Marley23]

When did Brown say it wasn't fiction? And who marketed it as something other than fiction? And even if they did, it's beyond obvious to anyone who reads it. You didn't think Robert Langdon was a real person, did you?
I haven't read it. As long as we're splitting hairs, you're correct that the story is marketed as fiction. But it's fiction that the author claims is solidly grounded in fact - that is, the conspiracy is real, the clues in the paintings are real, just the people in the story are made-up.

[blowero]

No, they're not.

Yes, they are.

The problem is that Brown claims:This is simply not the case. Just as one example of inaccuracy--and there are dozens of errors and distortions--Brown claims the pyramid over the Louvre has exactly 666 panes of glass, a number with symbolic resonance.

But there is a Louvre, and it does have a pyramid over it, and the pyramid is a pagan symbol, right? The point is, it's not about magical beings travelling to mystic lands to fight mythical creatures invented by the author, which a lot of people seem to think. I question whether some of you have even read the book.

According to the Louvre (and a mathematician who recently did the calcluations) it's actually 673, a rather more prosaic number. There are many, many factual errors with Brown's description of art, secret societies, the origins of the bible and buildings. He gets dates wrongs, describes art inaccurately and distorts historical fact to tortuously weave a conspiracy.

Such as? I mean, if that's your best example of the supposedly overwhelming number of factual inaccuracies, color me unimpressed.

That's perfectly okay in a novel--just don't claim that the details described are accurate.

I really don't think that the author's claim is that important. I don't believe he said he was superhuman and incapable of error. The point is that there is a great deal of stuff in the book that is based on actual history, which is enough to make it a compelling story.

Our issue with Brown isn't that he's written a work of fiction--it's that he's written a work of fiction and passed off its many fictional supporting details as fact, and (more gallingly) that thousands of credulous readers read what they believe.

I just don't see it that way. I read the book, which was very obviously a work of fiction. I assumed that it was all made up, and was actually quite surprised to find out how much of it is based on reality. Only having a passing familiarity with The Last Supper, I looked it up and was pleasantly surprised to see that the details used in the book are in fact in the painting. You can disagree with the interpretation, but I don't see how you can deny that the ideas, even though they are fantasy, are compelling. The book is full of stuff like that. I think you are demanding too much from it; of course it's not the perfect book. Just because it was over-hyped doesn't mean it's completely without merit. That's fine if you want to criticize it; I just get so sick of hearing people say: "Gee, I found one factual error, therefore there is nothing in the book that has anything to do with real art or history."

Also, his writing style is dire.
But is that an issue for a screenplay?

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Philadelphia - Tom Hanks movie
Philadelphia Story - Katharine Hepburn movie

[Governor Quinn]

Philadelphia - Tom Hanks movie
Philadelphia Story - Katharine Hepburn movie

As hinted at in my post.

[blowero]

I haven't read it. As long as we're splitting hairs, you're correct that the story is marketed as fiction. But it's fiction that the author claims is solidly grounded in fact - that is, the conspiracy is real,

Do you have a cite for that? Did he really say that? Because it was just so obvious to me, reading the book, that it was a fictional plot. The organization behind the plot is a real organization, but I never had any pretense that they really did that stuff.

the clues in the paintings are real, just the people in the story are made-up.
But the clues are real; and that's exactly why it's a clever novel. I, and I'm sure many other readers, looked at those paintings, and I could definitely see the elements that he was talking about. And the beauty of it is that it's just ambiguous enough that you can see what he's talking about, but you can also suspect that, nah - he just made that up. If he had just completely invented stuff, like "there's a cat walking across the table in The Last Supper", or "the Mona Lisa has 3 boobs", or whatever, it wouldn't have been interesting at all, because you would look at the painting and say, "No, that's not even close". I think the fact that people have talked about it so much is a testament to how cleverly it was done. If it had just been a case where you say, "That's just total b.s.", nobody would have even had any interest in how many details were historically accurate. There's just enough reality in it to make people think about it.

[Algernon]

I'm simply coming out of the woodwork to say "Bravo" to blowero. Not that you need any moral support for your position, but here it is nonetheless.

Regrettably, I have neither the time nor the patience to respond beyond what has already been said. So, "what he said".

[BrainGlutton]

I'm skeptical that the movie will annoy "fundies." I read the book more as an attack on the RCC (Whore of Babylon) . . .


Fun to annoy them too! :)

[Marley23]

Do you have a cite for that? Did he really say that?
The problem is that Brown claims:
"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
Yes, there has to be some verissimilitude in the novel for the thing to work in the first place. That's not the same as "the clues are real."

[Made in Macau]

Re; OP - it will be a hit.

IMO - Hanks is a good actor getting better.
The NOVEL had several good premises but wasted them through the most crass, style-free, money-seeking, lowest common denominator writing I can remember.

I read it on holiday - I thought that was what it was for - and left it in the cottage in order that others wanting to buy it would be saved the cost. I finished it in order that I could be critical from an informed position.
'Tonight, asleep she awakens to the shrill of the telephone' Jeez

The movie will be huge, as stylistically and in terms of pacing, I would hope there would be some care taken and the novel's writing won't matter. Hell I might even enjoy it. I agree with R Thornhill - it's got to be better than the book.

[medstar]

Apollo 13 was a good movie. That was Hanks and Howard.

I think that Forrest Gump was overrated in some ways but that is was watchable solely because of Hanks' performance. He found a way to play a retarded character in a totally unique way. He created a genuine, indelible character that wasn't just a catalogue of acting tics and mimicry of retarded people. The writing sucked and the direction was saccharine but that wasn't Hanks' fault. I thought he made a bad movie watchable with an inspired characterization.

He was pretty good in Saving Private Ryan as well.

And Ron Howard has done a couple of thrillers before, hasn't he? Didn't he do Ransom with Mel Gibson and there was some other movie with Tommy Lee Jones last year. I haven't seen either movie, are they any good?

Lib:

"Handstabber?" Me?

How about if I just say that I get a little kick out of the fact that the book annoyed the kind of people who would get annoyed by a book like this? People who have any genuine faith and brains are not going to let piece of fiction by a hack novelist get their panties in a bunch.

Diogenes the Cynic, the movie you're thinking of, with Tommy Lee Jones in it, was [b]The Missing[/b} co-starring Cate Blanchett as his estranged daughter. I thought it was very good. It's a western, set in the late 1800's.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes the Cynic, the movie you're thinking of, with Tommy Lee Jones in it, was [b]The Missing[/b} co-starring Cate Blanchett as his estranged daughter. I thought it was very good. It's a western, set in the late 1800's.
Thank you, that was it. It looked pretty good from the trailers but I haven't caught up to it yet. I'll put it on my list.

[Trunk]

Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn't supposed to be a true story. It's fucking fiction for crying out loud.

The thread was about the *surprise* that Hanks was going to be in the movie and that Ron Howard was going to direct it, as opposed to David Lynch or Oliver Stone or Cronenberg.

I was merely pointing out that the book was a populist action story, NOT the exposing of a mass conspiracy, and therefore that a populist director like Ron Howard was the perfect choice for it.

Nonsense. You seem to think that Da Vinci Code is entirely fanstasy invented out of whole-cloth, like Lord of the Rings or something. Da Vinci was a real person; the works of art referred to in the book are real works of art; the secret societies are real secret societies; the locations and buildings are real and are accurately described. The story, however, is quite obviously fiction. It's actually quite clever how he takes real historic events and objects and uses them to tell a fictional story. It's not fucking "Goonies", and it's not "Harry Potter" for that matter. If you guys want to criticize the writing style or the character development or things like that - fine. But if you're going to trash something, could you at least have a valid reason for it?

I'm not trashing it by calling it a populist novel. Nor am I trashing it by comparing it to Goonies. If I enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed Goonies, I got my money's worth. And, I enjoyed the book a lot.

However, I am saying is that the book is first and foremost an action/adventure/mystery. The fact that he used churches and art museums as the backdrop, instead of thieve's hideouts and pirate caves, doesn't elevate it above "Goonies", not at all.


Blowero beat me to this, but the book isn't supposed be anything but adventure fiction. The "conspiracy" is presented merely as the premise for a story. It's just entertainment.

Trunk: this book is fiction, action/adventure entertainment.

DTC & Blowero : What are you talking about? This book is FICTION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Am I missing something here?

Tell it to BrainGlutton. He's the one who thinks David Cronenberg should waste his time on it.