The Da Vinci Code

[Nikita]

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/thedavincicode/


Did you read the book? Looking forward to the movie? Any thoughts? Just curious. (I haven't read the book but I love conspiracy movies/stories)

[EZMOHR]

My thoughts? I thought after all the things I heard about this book it would be a religious eperience or something. I read it. It was an extremly easy read, and pretty entertaining. But, it did not change my life, and did not explain to me things I had not already heard, but I would say, it would've been better if it was called, "Indiana Jones and the DaVinci Code." That's all it is, a modern day Indiana Jones with a different protagonist. Good read though.

[Paradox]

Nikita wants to know the mysteries:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/thedavincicode/


Did you read the book?

Yes.

Looking forward to the movie?

No.

Any thoughts?

I found the book to be utter tripe. A bad knock-off of Umberto Eco's similarly themed and far better written Foucalt's Pendulum. To quote my roommate "THIS is what passes for a 'best seller' these days????".

[grendel824]

The book was a fun, light read. I kept my expectations low and was pleasantly diverted over the couple of days I read it. I got an extra kick out of it because a couple of years before I had spent some time in Paris and remembered a lot of the locations used in the book. I'd give the movie a look to see how close it matches my mind's eye picture of the book.

[roguespirit]

I do not understand how this book came to be an international bestseller.

Its is a load of half assed nonsense, devoid of characterisation or character development, mostly predictable, badly and lazily written.

As such I have absoloutely no interest in the movie at all.

Having read the synopisis of his other books I am further convinved of Dan Brown's laziness as they all seem to practically be the same book

[eJm]

The book was great, but IMHO, I would rather see an 'Angels and Demons' Movie

[Mia]

Ditto what Rogue Spirit said. I got through a quarter of it and just returned it to the library. I couldn't see what the big deal was. I thought it was badly written and the characters annoying. I loved Angels and Demons though.

[roguespirit]

Ditto what Rogue Spirit said. I got through a quarter of it and just returned it to the library. I couldn't see what the big deal was. I thought it was badly written and the characters annoying. I loved Angels and Demons though.

really I was just gona vetoe Dan Brown but was it really worth a read then.

[Arrjay]

Did you read the book?

I started it. Then I stopped reading it because it was dull.

Looking forward to the movie?

Definitely not. Couldn't care less actually.

Any thoughts?

Yes. I cracked the Da Vinci code. Here it is: S-H-I-T.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I do not understand how this book came to be an international bestseller.

Its is a load of half assed nonsense, devoid of characterisation or character development, mostly predictable, badly and lazily written.

As such I have absoloutely no interest in the movie at all.

Having read the synopisis of his other books I am further convinved of Dan Brown's laziness as they all seem to practically be the same book

Controversy sells. I mean if you can piss of the catholic church, protestants, historians, and tell people that it can change their life your going to have people buying it no matter if the only thing inside is a picture that says "SUCKER!"

I'll probably see the movie once, it has a good cast.

[Danger Dude]

Any thoughts?

Tasteless, offensive, and all in all bullsh--. I hope Dan Brown gos to Hell for this

[Magneto_X]

I hope they make Angels & Demons into a movie after this.

(It's Robert Langston's first adventure.)

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

i'm catholic and i liked the book.....go figure

[Chiasm]

On another political message board I hang out I found you could basically divide up those who liked the book and those who didn't into two camps with a few exception.

The devout side hated the book, thought it was crap, and panned it. The majority of whom probably voiced their opinions based on religious reasons not the actual merits of the prose.

The non devout side tended to be all over the place since they didn't have a personal belief stake in the book.

[Chiasm]

As to me, I look forward to the movie but not nearly as much as I do Superman.

The book dovetailed with what I've always believed (Jesus was just a man) even though I'd never heard of the theories espoused in the book prior to reading it.

[DonC]

The devout side hated the book, thought it was crap, and panned it. The majority of whom probably voiced their opinions based on religious reasons not the actual merits of the prose.


Whenever I read someone calling the book crap, that's the first thing I think of: "Do they really think that or is it just that they don't like the book's religious messages?"

Me, I enjoyed the book a lot, but it kind of dies at the end. I'm kind of iffy on the movie right now. I haven't seen any previews or anything from it. I know who's in it, and who's making it, just haven't seen any clips or stuff.

[Michael P]

Book is shite (something no one else has mentioned is that it seems to be a Mary Sue story as well), movie will likely be shite as well, and I weep that talented people like Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Sir Ian McKellan, and Ron Howard have willingly attached their names to this tripe.

[Phrozen]

From someone who in interested in history: The book is utter crap. Incredibly bad history.

[Matt K]

I thought the book had an interesting story but was poorly written (same with Angels and Demons). I think the movie might be good since it takes what I liked (the story) and leaves out what I didn't (Brown's poor writing ability).

[Error_2.0]

I loved the book, but I always thought that Ian Holm fit the role that Ian McKellan is playing much better.

[Sean Whitmore]

I thought the book was very interesting, if not terribly exciting.

The movie's gonna have extreme pacing problems if they follow the book too closely. Lots of brief instances of suspense/action, followed by 2 or 3 chapters of lecturing.


SEAN

[Pepsigirl]

Hated the book, not looking forward to the movie at all.

[Chevan]

Whenever I read someone calling the book crap, that's the first thing I think of: "Do they really think that or is it just that they don't like the book's religious messages?"


I don't care about the book's religious message. In my mind, there really wasn't a religious message beyond "Jesus was a guy". I happen to agree with that, but IMO book should never have made it to print.

It's rife with Sues and Stus and continuity, character, and factual errors. The writing style is fast-moving, but completely devoid of substance. The characters make stupid decisions and spend (in-story) hours figuring out incredibly simple things. To use familiar terms, someone turned the PIS dial to eleven.

If there's one thing that DB actually does well, though, it's the historical descriptions. For example, months after I read DVC for the first time, I had trouble remembering characters' names yet I could recall in great detail the section where Langdon gives a lecture on Phi. That doesn't reflect well on the author, but IMO if he had written the entire book the way he had done the 'explanation' sections, reading it would have been a much more worthwile experience.

For the movie, I think I'll end up seeing it. I'm interested in finding out what they did with the story, especially with the cast they got. And even if I never see it on my own, I'll probably get dragged along to it with someone else or at someone else's house.

I'm not really looking forward to it, though. The number of times I've heard people spouting off the DaVinci Code's bull as fact makes me cringe a little, and thinking about how many more people are going to accept what they're told with nothing backing it up when the movie comes out depresses me a little.

[Danger Dude]

From someone who in interested in history: The book is utter crap. Incredibly bad history.

Here, here!

[Danger Dude]

In my mind, there really wasn't a religious message beyond "Jesus was a guy".

Actually, there is. It's no secret that Opus Deie is a Christian lay (non-clerical) orginazation who does missionary work, helps the poor and stuff like that. NOT a secret society of assasin priests. I'm not even Catholic, but I'm still outraged at DB's accusations at Pope John Paul II.

[Matt K]

Actually, there is. It's no secret that Opus Deie is a Christian lay (non-clerical) orginazation who does missionary work, helps the poor and stuff like that. NOT a secret society of assasin priests. I'm not even Catholic, but I'm still outraged at DB's accusations at Pope John Paul II.

Wait, so Opus Deie is a real organization? I thought Brown made them up.

[Magneto_X]

Wait, so Opus Deie is a real organization? I thought Brown made them up.

It's real. IIRC Ratzinger is a major leader/member of the group.

[handOFfate]

Well, as a semi-professional historian (I teach junior high history and am in graduate school), I thought that the book explained the basic controversy well enough (the perfect number, Jesus being a mortal man, etc.etc.). But some of its more outlandish themes (the holy grail being a woman and the representation of Opus Dei in particular) are pretty silly. Let me put it this way: if your faith is strong, then this book won't change your mind. I would NOT recommend reading it solely for historical purposes, but it is a pretty entertaining couple of hours. The story is solid, but the pacing had some problems. Also, I thought the villain was too obvious. Brown does create one of the more tragic figures in recent literature in Silas, whom I couldn't help but feel sorry for.
As for the movie, i'm having some doubts. It's a great cast, but I question Hanks as Langdom. He doesn't fit the description at all, but i'll give Hanks the benefit of the doubt for now because he's a great actor. My real problem is Ron Howard. I've always found him to be mediocre at best. Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind did nothing for me. Of course i'll still watch the movie. The rest of the cast is great, and i'm interested in seeing if some of the more controversial aspects are included.

[Danger Dude]

Wait, so Opus Deie is a real organization? I thought Brown made them up.

He probably chose the holy evanglical types to write bull shit about because he knew they probably would not sue the pants off of him.

[Forefinger]

I liked the book. The theories in the book are certainly controversial, but it was well written.

What I'm curious about is are they going to gloss over some of the more outrageous theories for the movie in order to try to reach a wider audience.

[Kirayoshi]

I read the book. A mildly entertaining conspiracy theory story, sort of X-Files Lite. That's how I read it at least.

Personally Kevin Smith's Dogma had more controversial ideas regarding religion and the life of Christ. But in movies these days, just mentioning Christ in any context is asking for trouble. Either you please the audience and anger the devout(Dogma, Da Vinci Code) or you please the devout and bore everyone else(Passion of the Christ, well-made but more gory than Friday the 13th!).

[sixstringguild]

(Passion of the Christ, well-made but more gory than Friday the 13th!).

crucifixions are gory things...

[DF2506]

The Da Vinci Code is one of my favorite books. I like the book quiete a bit.

Its a fun action/adventure/mystery imo. I like the Langdon character too. I also think that Dan Brown is a good writer.

I did read Angels and Demons too, but after I read Da Vinci Code. I do like Angels and Demons, but Da Vinci Code is my favorite.

As for the movie, I'm really looking forward to it. With Ron Howard directing and Tom Hanks staring the movie should be really good! I definitly want to go see it at the thearter!

Hopefully it will be really good/great!

DF2506
" Can't wait till Dan Brown writes another Langdon book! "

[Erebus]

I definetly like the book, although its not one of my favorites. It was just a fun read, not anything life-changing for me. Although I've always imagined Robert to look like Nicholas Cage or Harrison Ford.

[meethraa]

Actually, there is. It's no secret that Opus Deie is a Christian lay (non-clerical) orginazation who does missionary work, helps the poor and stuff like that. NOT a secret society of assasin priests. I'm not even Catholic, but I'm still outraged at DB's accusations at Pope John Paul II.
I've always heard that Opus Dei's specialization was lobbying and managing pressure groups all over the world, way before Dan Brown's book.
It's still a long way from assassination, but it's not exactly missionary work either...

[SMKSPY]

Well, as a semi-professional historian (I teach junior high history and am in graduate school), I thought that the book explained the basic controversy well enough (the perfect number, Jesus being a mortal man, etc.etc.). But some of its more outlandish themes (the holy grail being a woman and the representation of Opus Dei in particular) are pretty silly. Let me put it this way: if your faith is strong, then this book won't change your mind. I would NOT recommend reading it solely for historical purposes, but it is a pretty entertaining couple of hours. The story is solid, but the pacing had some problems. Also, I thought the villain was too obvious. Brown does create one of the more tragic figures in recent literature in Silas, whom I couldn't help but feel sorry for.
As for the movie, i'm having some doubts. It's a great cast, but I question Hanks as Langdom. He doesn't fit the description at all, but i'll give Hanks the benefit of the doubt for now because he's a great actor. My real problem is Ron Howard. I've always found him to be mediocre at best. Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind did nothing for me. Of course i'll still watch the movie. The rest of the cast is great, and i'm interested in seeing if some of the more controversial aspects are included.


The holy grail isn't just a woman in the book. The holy grail is Jesus's blood line, which is a very plausible idea.

I enjoyed book, but I am a sane person and realized the ENTIRE time I was reading it that the book is fiction with elements of history thrown in to make it more appealing.

The fact that anyone takes this book to be very serious shows the power that mass media has over us. Its not like this was the very first time that anyone has ever mentioned that Jesus may have married or had sex or had kids.

[Kirayoshi]

crucifixions are gory things...True that, but "Passion" passed the Jason Voorhees level before Jesus was given the cross. Around the scourging.

My only real problem with "Passion" was that, by emphasizing His death, director Mel Gibson seemed to trivialize Christ's life and ministry, the good works that He and the disciples did before the Crucifixion. To me, His life, death and resurrection are the heart of Christianity, not just His death. Just my opinion, but that's how I saw it.

And the idea that Jesus may have been married isn't going to destroy two millenia of history! The idea of celibacy in the Christian church didn't really catch on until around the tenth century or so, when the Pope commanded that priests be unmarried and celibate, in part so that they may live up to a higher example, and in part so that the Church may control every aspect of their lives, without potential heirs to get in the way!

[Theophilus]

True that, but "Passion" passed the Jason Voorhees level before Jesus was given the cross. Around the scourging.

Mel actually showed some artistic restraint in that respect. By all accounts, Roman crucifixions were even worse. The prophet Isaiah says of Christ, "there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness" (Isaiah 52:14), and Mel stopped short of that.

My only real problem with "Passion" was that, by emphasizing His death, director Mel Gibson seemed to trivialize Christ's life and ministry, the good works that He and the disciples did before the Crucifixion.

It's not uncommon for a director to pick one element of an extraordinary life and focus on it, and Christ's is the most extraordinary life of all. There are plenty of movies that have covered Christ's ministry. "The Gospel of John" is a wonderful film. But since all films have shortcomings, the one thing most gospel pictures lack is an effective "Passion". By the time they get to that, it seems like an afterthought.

To me, His life, death and resurrection are the heart of Christianity, not just His death. Just my opinion, but that's how I saw it.

That's very true, but the Passion is the most crucial element. Without the sacrifice, there is no atonement for sins, and without the resurrection, Paul says we are still dead in our sins. The kind of gospel movies that came before Passion tended to lend themselves to emphasizing Jesus' ministry at the expense of His mediation on the cross, and Passion balances the approach...in spades. The resurrection isn't the afterthought...it's the "firsfruits" of what is to come.

And the idea that Jesus may have been married isn't going to destroy two millenia of history!

No, but the implications in Brown's forward--that his book is based on fact--is capable of misleading others. The fiction format doesn't allow for the kind of point-by-point debate necessary to understand the question. It just puts the theory forward without examining the finer points. There are several books out by theologians that tear down Brown's arguments, but not everyone will take the time to read them. And as a Christian concerned with immortal souls, that is a problem to me. But the movie also presents a ministry opportunity.

The idea of celibacy in the Christian church didn't really catch on until around the tenth century or so, when the Pope commanded that priests be unmarried and celibate, in part so that they may live up to a higher example, and in part so that the Church may control every aspect of their lives, without potential heirs to get in the way!

While celibacy was uncommon in Jewish culture, there is a sect of Jews called the Essenes who emphasized celibacy. Josephus mentions them in Book II, Chapter 8 of his "Wars of the Jews", and they are esteemed favorably. He says, "As for their piety toward God, it is very extraordinary". Her is the passage on their opinion toward marriage:

"For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. These Essens reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man."

But my second and most important point is this: Christians regard Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For Him to marry would be a form of cosmic incest; we are his children, and His bride is the Church. It makes perfect sense to debate the issue, but understand what is at stake for Christians.

I welcome the argument, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm undecided. Jesus Christ is certainly no conspiracy theory to me; He is my Lord, my God, my Savior. So I have a major problem with Brown's novel, not because I think it should be suppressed or shut out, but due to the love I bear Jesus Christ and the ahistorical nature of the book. And I treat every threat to history like it could take root and overcome all accounts; especially when spiritual forces bent on deceiving the world as to Christ's true nature are involved.

[Theophilus]

And one more thing. As a Christian I don't expect others to share this sentiment who don't share my faith, but I find it somewhat comical when people suggest that Christ was probably married because there was social pressure to do.

"But it was uncommon for Jews to remain celibate in Jesus' day."

Maybe, but it's even more uncommon to be the Son of God, wouldn't you say?

[Danger Dude]

I welcome the argument, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm undecided. Jesus Christ is certainly no conspiracy theory to me; He is my Lord, my God, my Savior. So I have a major problem with Brown's novel, not because I think it should be suppressed or shut out, but due to the love I bear Jesus Christ and the ahistorical nature of the book. And I treat every threat to history like it could take root and overcome all accounts; especially when spiritual forces bent on deceiving the world as to Christ's true nature are involved.

You rock, dude. I couldn't have said better.