The Da Vinci Code

[Let's Chop Cats!]

Didn't see a thread on the first page....

From someone who didn't read the book, I thought the movie was awesome. But I'm also a fan of movies that are treasure hunt type scenarios (ex: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, National Treasure).

I've been hearing a lot of other people didn't like it thought.

[FA]

Didn't see a thread on the first page....

From someone who didn't read the book, I thought the movie was awesome. But I'm also a fan of movies that are treasure hunt type scenarios (ex: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, National Treasure).

I've been hearing a lot of other people didn't like it thought.

<--jealous. Anywho, I'm gonna finish the book, therefore I'm greater than you?

[Alpepiman]

I wish I knew what the DaVinci code was. I haven't seen the movie or have any clue what this code is. I will be sure to see it when it's out on DVD.

[GenuineImitation]

I have read the book and I loved it. I may catch it next week because Im pretty busy this weekend.

[Samuel]

Haven't seen the movie, or read the book. Plan on doing both at some point.

I have listened to the film score though. Bloody good writing. Anyone remember enough of it to comment on how it worked with the cinematography?

[Let's Chop Cats!]

The only part of the score I can remember is near the end, which I liked but wasn't anything new. Nothing bad about the music I thought.

[Music.is.Life]

Saw it today and loved it, one of the best book to movie crossovers I've seen.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

To me it seems like the people who didn't like the movie already had some sort of problem with the book and/or the content to begin with.

[Txus]

I'm seen this movie tomorrow, I'm so excited because I loved the book :)

[JohnXDoe]

I plan on seeing the film. I haven't read the book so I'm going in fresh. I really don't know much about it except one of it's theories is Christ and Mary Magdalene were married and had a kid. I hope that's not the basis for the whole thing, though, as I've thought this myself and is believed reasonable in certain theological circles. Or at least the married/sex part. Jesus and Mary knockin' the sandels.....Not very controversial, IMO.....

[masada]

Even messiahs need some action.

[JohnXDoe]

True. Maybe even especially messiahs. Saving souls is a tiresome and thankless job. :(

[masada]

Yeah so it's pretty acceptable within the confines of the bussiness that these guys get a little sumthin' sumthin' wink wink.

[FishSauce]

I've just came back from the movie a half an hour ago. I understood the main plot but Im not religious/catholic and I was wondering why was the "Holy Grail" so powerful?

[g°®†]

I loved the book ... read it twice and enjoyed it all the same. I'm anxious to see the movie but kinda worried that seeing the movie will ruin what my imagination had created whilst reading the novel.

[bradc1988]

I've read the book and plan on seeing the movie, probably by downloading it. I enjoyed the book, but am a bit skeptical about how the movie will be when so many people are bashing it, and the critics that "laughed at the movies critical point" or something along those lines.

[Dinosawesome]

I've just came back from the movie a half an hour ago. I understood the main plot but Im not religious/catholic and I was wondering why was the "Holy Grail" so powerful?
Because those documents allowed one to have an incredibly amount of power over the roman-catholic church, a group which has a lot of money and a lot of influence.

[Aklerc]

The movie has been given really bad reviews- too much talking apparently. Either way I'm going to see it tonight. I loved the book and I want to see how they've done it.

[Angry Balled Fists!]

I might actualy see this.

[Concubine]

The book is good, even though all of the theories about Christ in it are rubbish, it was still a good read. I'll watch the movie next week or sumtin'

[funluvinhobo]

Im gonna go see it later tonight, looks pretty good and I enjoyed the boook.

[tumples]

i saw it yesterday, at the first showing by fluke.
i liked the film, i thought it was exciting and fun to watch. I didnt look for an inner meaning to it, i took it as film the same as i read the book as a book, not as some sort of new theory, and for that, I enjoyed it.

The film was bound to get slated, people love hating stuff thats popular, it makes them seem more of an individual amirite?
I think the way ron howard transformed pages of thought from langdon into film was great, it was bound to have a lot of talking in it as a film anyway.

For me, Ian Mckellen and Paul Bettany as Silas made the film though

[Dinosawesome]

The movie has been given really bad reviews- too much talking apparently. Either way I'm going to see it tonight. I loved the book and I want to see how they've done it.
If I didn't know any better I'd be thinking powerful catholics have been handing cheques out to the right people. 90% of the time, bad press is paid press.

[E sharp]

I don't see what the big fuss about people objecting to watching it because its against Jesus and such.
My friends girlfriend is christian, and she didn't want him to watch it. But he did after he explained it was fictional.

Top movie anyway.. now i wanna read the book

[sketchyjoe]

The book was one of the worst books I've ever read, as such, you could not pay me to go see the film.

[Gnarmageddon]

I haven't read the book (yet), but I want to see the movie.

How closely does the movie follow the book?

[tumples]

very closely

[AA-12]

The book is absolutely amazing, and this is too.

[Werny]

The book is good, even though all of the theories about Christ in it are rubbish, it was still a good read. I'll watch the movie next week or sumtin'

It's not funny, it's AMAZING how the book has been out for so long and people still can't realise that the theories are FICTIONAL and not to be taken seriously, it's just a story.

Seriously, there's still TV specials every now and then trying to prove it wrong, even after the author has said in one hundred interviews that all of it is just fiction for the purposes of the story.

Just go see it and enjoy the story. I must see it next weekend.

[Untitled]

I havnt heard a single good review about thi sfilm yet, ive heard it was ridiculed, poeple Boo'd it and film reviewers actully Lol'd at it.

It kinda put me, and the people ive spoke too, off seeing it.

[TheDMV]

I finished the book in a few days last week to prepare for the movie. I haven't seen it yet, but I think next weekend would be my best bet.

[Kithkin]

I have little interest in reading the book, but the movie looks good.

[Music.is.Life]

I havnt heard a single good review about thi sfilm yet, ive heard it was ridiculed, poeple Boo'd it and film reviewers actully Lol'd at it.

It kinda put me, and the people ive spoke too, off seeing it.

I think something fishy must be up with those critics then, because I've seen movies a million times worse than this. Theres really no reason at all for the terrible reviews IMO.

[TechniX]

I'm no film critic.. but I read the book and loved it. I went to see the movie last night and it wasn't really comparable to the book (book->movie crossovers rarely are) and I actually did find a few parts ridiculous and I lol'd at some of the intense seriousness in parts.

Wasn't really bad though, but if you like the movie, definitely read the book as it's infinitely better.

[Rrrrrrr]

The movie really has no excuse for not being more enjoyable than the book, seeing as the book was a piece of crap :/

[PDWAB]

I liked it, it was entertaining. There were a couple of lucky coincidences in favor of the protagonists, but that's not so bad. It was just cool to see all these puzzles and clues in art and stuff, even if I don't take it seriously.

[standard]

EXCELLENT movie.

[Pastorius]

Hey guys I read this book once called Lord Of The Rings, and it suggested that tiny people existed and that orcs existed and that wizards existed and get this there were no cars how stupid is that pretty stupid right?

tolkien is an idiot

[rockgod90]

I've just came back from the movie a half an hour ago. I understood the main plot but Im not religious/catholic and I was wondering why was the "Holy Grail" so powerful?
Because Christ having a child and/or wife would challenge his "divinity," which would pretty much screw the Church over.

[Kurtz]

I saw it last night, I thought it was pretty entertaining.

Not great, but pretty much a standard good movie.

[SantaDuJuan]

I saw the movie, I'll probably never read the book.
But I may read his other works.

Also, I really wonder if he'll make a sequal.

Edit: The movie really wasn't that shocking in it's theories about Christ or what the people did, the Church has killed many secret societys and there really was a council that left books written out of the bible, it's very possibe Jesus really did have a child with Mary and there really was a bloodline.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

As they stated in the movie the Merovingian line of kings is believed to be from Christ's bloodline, and it's very possible that they are.

[DJ Ducksauce]

Link to article trying to disprove Da Vinci Code. (http://m02.webmail.aol.com/17385/aol/en-us/Mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=1.12945019&folder=Old+Mail&partId=4&saveAs=DaVinciCode.pdf)

We all do know this book is fiction right?

[form]

I have little interest in reading the book, but the movie looks good.

123

[Let's Chop Cats!]

Link to article trying to disprove Da Vinci Code. (http://m02.webmail.aol.com/17385/aol/en-us/Mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=1.12945019&folder=Old+Mail&partId=4&saveAs=DaVinciCode.pdf)

We all do know this book is fiction right?
Tell that Catholic Church that. While the book is fiction a lot of the things it says about Catholicism are borderline real, such as Jesus and Mary having kids.

Link doesn't work, stop using AOl.

[Aramis]

My best friend and I hauled *** there immediately after school to see it yesterday. We were fortunate enough to have found two open seats.

As for the movie? We were actually disappointed, since we had such high expectations. We were hoping that the movie precisely followed and stayed true to the book (which it did for the most part), but only to a certain extent. We both know exactly how the plot went with the book, and while watching the movie, we expected it to follow the same EXACT concept. . .but the movie trailed off a bit, causing some confusion. There were some inconsistancies within the movie, that didn't match the book. . .including some that affected the plot a little bit.

And Tom Hanks is one of our top favorite actors, but shouldn'tve played Langdon - especially since there was a lack of chemistry between him and Audrey Tautou (Sophie). . .either George Clooney or Russell Crowe probably could've done the job better.

Although it was entertaining and stayed with the book pretty well for the most part, it was over-hyped.

[JohnXDoe]

I saw the movie, I'll probably never read the book.
But I may read his other works.

Also, I really wonder if he'll make a sequal.

Edit: The movie really wasn't that shocking in it's theories about Christ or what the people did, the Church has killed many secret societys and there really was a council that left books written out of the bible, it's very possibe Jesus really did have a child with Mary and there really was a bloodline.
I believe so. And to say so is controversial. So the filmakers must go out of their way to emphasize it's a work of fiction. When of course we already know. Yet elements of truth and possible truths are present nonetheless.

And yes, lost books of the Bible. I know a lost book of Timothy has been authenticated (although it will never be added). That one has Jesus telling Timothy directly who he is (or thought he was) and his personal philosophy, so to speak. And the recently discovered book of Judas. Which if authentic claims Jesus told him to "betray" him. Or at least turn him in. For whatever reason. Which if true makes perfect sense.

[Arucard]

From what i have seen, The Da Vinci Code is for people who can only understand 2D plots, and can't read real literature.

So i won't be seeing the movie.

[JohnXDoe]

Well it's a film. Whole different medium and art form then it was originally created under. You can't expect as much from it. It's a visual medium. That's how the story must be told.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

Stupid people will deffinently have a hard time following this movie. It's not really complicated just, there are a lot of dumb people who can't focus for more than 20 seconds.

[Curtis89]

I read and loved Angels and Demons and the Davinci Code (I liked Angels and Demons more though). I haven't seen the movie yet, but would like too. However, like all the reviews i've seen have been pretty negative.

[DJ Ducksauce]

Tell that Catholic Church that. While the book is fiction a lot of the things it says about Catholicism are borderline real, such as Jesus and Mary having kids.

Link doesn't work, stop using AOl.
Meh, all of that is just speculation. I'm Catholic, and I'm not really into that mumbo jumbo, but scwhatev. There's always going to be debates and nobody wins.

I don't really use it except for e-mail and virus/spyware scan.

[Scoot]

Christ, our local paper attacked it.

[Aramis]

I read and loved Angels and Demons and the Davinci Code (I liked Angels and Demons more though). I haven't seen the movie yet, but would like too. However, like all the reviews i've seen have been pretty negative.
Speaking of which, I wonder if they'll end up making a movie on that book. T'was a good read, but I still enjoyed Da Vinci Code more.

[Against Miik!]

I didn't like the film. I still think Tom Hanks is not right for the part. Everybody else was good though. I just think it was way to cheesy. I guess the book was the same way, but Langdon(Hanks) literally pulls conclusions out of nowhere, kinda like that Jeff Goldblum parody on South Park. It just gets to unbelieveable.

[[Shadowfox]]

It was an ok movie. I followed the plot and all, but I felt too much was being crammed into the movie. I still think everyone should see it. Although it is fictional, the theory has been around for twenty or so years. To me, it just proves how religion is a way to organize and control people.

Never read the book though. From what I've heard, the author did a lot of research (which shows in the movie) and just seemed to write his theory off in a fictional story.

Makes perfect snese for Jesus to have a kid. For a man of his time and culture not to would be absurd. But this is for a different thread.

[JohnXDoe]

Some of the poor reviews I have seen on it compare it to the book. Which is wrong to do. And almost all look for something bad to say about it. Some negative reviews sound as if they like it but were simply disappointed by the hype. How can it live up to the hype? And sure, many find whatever flaw they can in it because it shakes their moral ground. I think that's an ok thing to shake.

I think this is probably going to be a big hit. People have to see it for themselves. It's obvious. My expectations are pretty high just for the film, never having read the book. And no matter what anyone says about it, I have to see it. I think a lot of people feel the same way. I was talking with some friends earlier and they're going to see it even though they think they might object to it. It's that kind of movie, I guess.

[Against Miik!]

']It was an ok movie. I followed the plot and all, but I felt too much was being crammed into the movie. I still think everyone should see it. Although it is fictional, the theory has been around for twenty or so years. To me, it just proves how religion is a way to organize and control people.

Never read the book though. From what I've heard, the author did a lot of research (which shows in the movie) and just seemed to write his theory off in a fictional story.

Makes perfect snese for Jesus to have a kid. For a man of his time and culture not to would be absurd. But this is for a different thread.

The movie easily could have been twice as long. They left a lot out. For example, in the book, when they opened the cryptex, there was another smaller cryptex inside with another riddle they had to solve.

[madeyadams]

I really loved the book. But stupid religious people made it so over-the-top that it just became stupid. I mean, who the hell cares? It's a novel. It's FICTION. I'm sure that when Dan Brown was writing this he would cause some controversy, but a lawsuit? Man. ****ing religious people piss me off. They have to censor everything to fit their tastes and beliefs.

/end rant

[Tillius]

I think it's stupid that so many religious people are taking this so seriously.

I mean, Christ, my church is taking the youth group up to see it this Friday.

[DJ Ducksauce]

I think it's stupid that so many religious people are taking this so seriously.

I mean, Christ, my church is taking the youth group up to see it this Friday.
I'm confused. Why would they show it to your youth group unless they wanted to point out all of the errors.

[Tillius]

Because my church isn't a bunch of evangelists who flip out and tell you you're going to Hell at the slightest mention of something possibly against the bible.

[Aklerc]

From what i have seen, The Da Vinci Code is for people who can only understand 2D plots, and can't read real literature.

So i won't be seeing the movie.
Just because it's not as complicated or up to your 'standards' doesn't mean it's not a good book. I hate people like you who think you're so above books that don't quite reach the level of intellect that you obviously have. It's like music elitism- just because someone can't shred at lightning fast speeds means it's crap. People listen to pop music because it's easy to listen to and catchy. People read simple books because they're easy and pleasant to read. Get over yourself.

[tumples]

I think angels and demons would have made a better film tbh

[MrConeman]

I thought the movie was brilliant, I went to see it yesterday.
The general lay out of traveling and solving puzzles, and even the story on a few occasions kept reminding me of the game "Broken Sword".
I hadnt read the book, so this was my introduction to it, and I thought it was pretty great.

[Pastorius]

Just because it's not as complicated or up to your 'standards' doesn't mean it's not a good book. I hate people like you who think you're so above books that don't quite reach the level of intellect that you obviously have. It's like music elitism- just because someone can't shred at lightning fast speeds means it's crap. People listen to pop music because it's easy to listen to and catchy. People read simple books because they're easy and pleasant to read. Get over yourself.

Hear hear!

[benfan]

Just because it's not as complicated or up to your 'standards' doesn't mean it's not a good book. I hate people like you who think you're so above books that don't quite reach the level of intellect that you obviously have. It's like music elitism- just because someone can't shred at lightning fast speeds means it's crap. People listen to pop music because it's easy to listen to and catchy. People read simple books because they're easy and pleasant to read. Get over yourself.

Testify!!

anyway, i shall be seeing this film tonight :chug:

[Ice 9]

Meh everyones stupid even me thats my fair view.

[Aklerc]

Testify!!

anyway, i shall be seeing this film tonight :chug:
I saw it last night- it's good. It strays away from the book a little in places, but in general it's good :)

[chorbalan]

Saw it, haven't read the book, but I was told it strayed from it quite a bit (which is to be expected with most movies based on books) however who else saw the ending coming from a mile away. Halfway through the movie it was allready so apperant what was going to happen.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I havent seen the movie yet, but I've read the book.

The book was a great read. I've heard the movie was a little lackluster, but I will still see it.

The girl who plays Sophie in the movie..... :naughty:

[Tillius]

/hasn't seen it yet

But I'm going to see it tonight, so go me.

[croniun]

I think it's stupid that so many religious people are taking this so seriously.

I mean, Christ, my church is taking the youth group up to see it this Friday.

They take it seriously because Dan Brown wants the theories to be taken seriously. Dan Brown himself claims that he wants these theories to be debated and talked about. Yes, the novel is fiction but the skeleton of this work of fiction is believed by some to be fact. Not to mention the fact that Brown has claimed that everything we've been taught about Christ is false. So the church has every right to take this seriously.

Anyways, anyone who does believe the theories in the Da Vinci Code...well they're just simply gullable. Either they don't even have a decent understanding of history or they're just slow. These theories are only held by lightweight non-believers. Any credible historian would simply laugh in the face of someone who believed any of this.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

They take it seriously because Dan Brown wants the theories to be taken seriously. Dan Brown himself claims that he wants these theories to be debated and talked about. Yes, the novel is fiction but the skeleton of this work of fiction is believed by some to be fact. Not to mention the fact that Brown has claimed that everything we've been taught about Christ is false. So the church has every right to take this seriously.

Anyways, anyone who does believe the theories in the Da Vinci Code...well they're just simply gullable. Either they don't even have a decent understanding of history or they're just slow. These theories are only held by lightweight non-believers. Any credible historian would simply laugh in the face of someone who believed any of this.
Sounds like you go to church and are mildly religious. Consindering parts of those theories in the book have been proven as fact I should laugh in your face for so blindly defending the church.

[Mr. Ron]

They take it seriously because Dan Brown wants the theories to be taken seriously. Dan Brown himself claims that he wants these theories to be debated and talked about. Yes, the novel is fiction but the skeleton of this work of fiction is believed by some to be fact. Not to mention the fact that Brown has claimed that everything we've been taught about Christ is false. So the church has every right to take this seriously.

Anyways, anyone who does believe the theories in the Da Vinci Code...well they're just simply gullable. Either they don't even have a decent understanding of history or they're just slow. These theories are only held by lightweight non-believers. Any credible historian would simply laugh in the face of someone who believed any of this.
Ummmm he has always described his books as being fantasy. Read any of his interviews.

Plus, what is so terrible about theories being debated? Authority must always be questioned.

[DJ Ducksauce]

Sounds like you go to church and are mildly religious. Consindering parts of those theories in the book have been proven as fact I should laugh in your face for so blindly defending the church.
May I ask exactly which parts?

[Let's Chop Cats!]

The lost testaments of the bible, Jesus and Mary getting together. I know they have found other stories originally meant for the bible which to this day the church ignores. The Jesus and Mary thing I don't think has been officially proven, but is widely believed to be true by basically anyone who knows religious history yet isn't blindly devoted to the church. Those are the only big ones I know of, but I know very little about religion.

[DJ Ducksauce]

They're supposed to be from the Gnostic Bibles which the church rejects. Most of the things mentioned above were written long after all of the apostles died and by people who did not know them or anyone from Jesus's time period. Besides, Da Vinci wasn't at the Last Supper, so how can he know what went on?

[Reactor158]

I thought that the book was great, even though totally fictional and probably false as well. I'm probably not going to go see the movie. I read a review in the local newspaper, and it said that Tom Hanks was miscast as Robert Langdon, and that they tried to fit a 400 page book into 2.5 hours of film. Also, a friend of mine saw it last night, and he said it sucked. He said that he would have rather spent his $8.25 on a pack of cigarettes and an energy drink and went home and jacked off. So, I probably won't see it.

I agree with AZNGuitarist, lots of these other books that have been found are not part of the bible, because, as he said, they were written after all of this had taken place, and not by people(such as the apostles) who were eyewitnesses.

[Kurrpt]

it was an alright movie, but i dont understand why some think it was SOO great.

[Bass_ment]

After having to endure 3 years of hype over how great the book was, and yet having absolutely no interest in reading it for myself (Mainly because I was told by practically everyone that there was nothing special in Brown's writing style, just his ideas) I was at least a little interested to see the movie which i was told followed the book closely and for me would provide a quick way for me to see what all the dam hubbub was about.

I was viciously dissapointed. The ideas were fascinating, the mystery was enthralling and I especially liked all the references to Isaac Newton, Da Vinchi's inventions, Knights Templar, etc.

None of this managed to save the film from having mind numbingly bull**** plot twists and poorly written characters. I could not convince myself to really give a damn about any of the characters. And by the time the final plot twist came about I was just about ready for the film to tell me "it was all a dream"......thats how dissapointing I found the twists to be.

EVEN IF THE BOOK WAS REALLY DIFFERENT I WILL NOT READ IT IF THE PLOT TWISTS ARE THE SAME.

[Mr. Ron]

They're supposed to be from the Gnostic Bibles which the church rejects. Most of the things mentioned above were written long after all of the apostles died and by people who did not know them or anyone from Jesus's time period. Besides, Da Vinci wasn't at the Last Supper, so how can he know what went on?
Actually, a lot of the gospels that are accpeted were also written much later. The church only rejected some of the gnostic gospels because they seemed too "outlandish".

[Aklerc]

May I ask exactly which parts?
It says in the front of the book the parts that are true.

*tries to locate book*

[Adam Jones is GOD]

I would probably have enjoyed it more if I hadnt read the book. The acting was pretty bland, and Tom Hanks was a bad choice for Langdon.

Plus the Silas/police shoot out scene annoyed me, as his gun was clearly empty, (even someone who knows nothing about guns could see that.) Its a bad way of potraying the British police as incompetent when it comes to gun situations. I mean, its not like they go round shooting suspicious foreigner in tube stations now, do they.....

oh shi...

[Kurrpt]

isnt that the french, not british police?

[Adam Jones is GOD]

When he's shot, its the British police, as they're in London by that point

[Kurrpt]

o, i see what you mean..


i remember them specifically showing the gun out of ammo though

[DJ Ducksauce]

Actually, a lot of the gospels that are accpeted were also written much later. The church only rejected some of the gnostic gospels because they seemed too "outlandish".
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only official gospels that were actually accepted for the Bible. I don't know what you're talking about. Those were written by those four people, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[POINTLESS5448]

When he's shot, its the British police, as they're in London by that point
i thought the british cops didnt have guns :confused:
im seeing this on the weekend even though ive heard its bad. this is the first place where ive actually seen people say that they liked it.

[Mr. Ron]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only official gospels that were actually accepted for the Bible. I don't know what you're talking about. Those were written by those four people, so I don't know what you're talking about.
There are other gospels besides those, you know.

[DJ Ducksauce]

There are other gospels besides those, you know.
Yes, but they are not accepted by the church and were not placed in the Bible.

[Mr. Ron]

Yes, but they are not accepted by the church and were not placed in the Bible.
Because the church has an agenda they want their followers to belive. Even some of the older gospels were edtited or even left out because they didn't fit the way the church wanted thier believers to think.

[thedeadwalk!]

Meh, it was alright. The story was the only thing going for it, but with an unoriginal ending, it lossed any power it might've had otherwise. The meaningless flashback also got on my nerves:

"My grandfather gave my a crypttex as a child." *cut to her childhood, she receives a crypttex*

"I came home unexpectedly one weekend and saw a strange gathering." *she comes home one weekend and sees a gathering*

These were really just useless shots that took me out what was going on currently, and didn't need narration, actually, the script didn't need illustration. The music during these parts seemed to especially ruin the moment as well.

Finally, the Opus Dei who were trying to prevent this information about Jesus getting out still got their way. It kind of made all the conflict throughout the movie pointless. Maybe they'll reveal themselves in the sequel. :|

"Thanks" to Sir Ian McKellen for providing some nice humor, though.

[EverytimeIBodom]

What a boring two and a half hours.

Seriously, that was a waste of 6.99. It was one of the biggest letdowns ever.

[Music.is.Life]

Finally, the Opus Dei who were trying to prevent this information about Jesus getting out still got their way. It kind of made all the conflict throughout the movie pointless. Maybe they'll reveal themselves in the sequel. :|




Not really. Its not like the priory was just about to expose everthing to the world, it had been kept secret for thousands of years and still was being kept a secret. They were just trying to destroy the evidence so that it couldn't ever be shown.

And all the conflict wasn't really pointless in the end. Langdon and Sophie were trying to stay alive, escape being arrested by the police, and discover the location of the grail, all of which were accomplished. So the Council of Shadows didn't really get their way, Langdon knows the identity of the decendants of Christ, and the location of the grail.

[Kithkin]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only official gospels that were actually accepted for the Bible. I don't know what you're talking about. Those were written by those four people, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Actually they were written by anonymous... and chosen by Men to be in the bible.

[thedeadwalk!]

And all the conflict wasn't really pointless in the end. Langdon and Sophie were trying to stay alive, escape being arrested by the police, and discover the location of the grail, all of which were accomplished. So the Council of Shadows didn't really get their way, Langdon knows the identity of the decendants of Christ, and the location of the grail.
But there's still nothing really keeping the Council from killing them later. It doesn't go in to what happened to the Bishop after he's shot (though I suppose his plot has been found out when Fache learns that Langdon's confession was fabricated).

Thinking about this more, I'm just getting confused. The Priori is keeping the secret of Jesus' lineage, and Opus Dei wants to keep this secret from ever getting out, right? What is the Priori waiting for to realease the information? Did I miss that?

[xLE_SABOTEURx]

dissapointing. didnt focus enough on the real good and bad guys. It was just tom hanks on a goose chase, getting out of situations too easily. no suspense. no emotions. didnt really care if he found the tomb, no point finding it anyway...no payoff....

[matt_h]

will seeing the film before reading the book ruin the reading experience? i mean to do both but dont want to see a supposedly boring film that will only ruin the plot when i come to read the book.

[Echleon]

I thought that the movie was fairly good; but a little disapointing in some areas - it seemed to move too fast.

Though, this could partly be down to the fact that I have read the book; thus knowing what happens throughout.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

I think I may read the book once I borrow it from a friend when they're done.

[Jude]

I saw the movie but didn't read the book. Everyone talks about how great it is, but I didn't think the movie was so hot and from what I've heard, Dan Brown's prose style is annoying. The movie was sort of fun to watch, but it dragged on like hell and consisted mostly of "OMG Here's some ridiculously hidden code which I can figure out through a psychic vision courtesy of my Harvard education in symbols. Once I break it, it'll take me to the next link in an insanely long chain of preposterous codes, hidden steps and clues which will lead me to an entirely inconclusive end." Great.

[gillygan]

I wanna read the book.... after I'm done with the one I'm readin now ;)

[ZaaR]

i thought the movie didn't really do the book justice. i also thought that tom hanks didn't portray the character of robert langdon very well.

[Tillius]

So I finally got around to seeing it, and I thought it was great, personally.

I probably won't read the book now that I've seen the movie, but I'll probably end up checking out some of Dan Brown's other works.

[br3ad_man]

I'm seeing it with some people from my youth group tomorrow. I'm not particularly interested in reading the book (there are too many books I would rather read), but I would like to see the film just to get a feel for the story.

The lost testaments of the bible, Jesus and Mary getting together. I know they have found other stories originally meant for the bible which to this day the church ignores. The Jesus and Mary thing I don't think has been officially proven, but is widely believed to be true by basically anyone who knows religious history yet isn't blindly devoted to the church. Those are the only big ones I know of, but I know very little about religion.

Considering you admit to not knowing much about religion, I don't think it's fair for you to say that croniun is "blindly" defending the church, especially when he knows quite a bit about religion and christianity.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

I may not know a whole lot, but I knew enough to know better. If I had known so little I wouldn't have bothered to talk in the discussion.

[Mexican Bandito]

I watched it a few night back. Ive not read the book but still really enjoyed it.
I was worried about not compleatly understanding what was going on but it wasn't a problem at all.
I loved the long scene when Sir Leigh Teabing is first introduced, when he's talking about The Last Supper.
Although I've not read the book, and have no intention in doing so, I'm sure the film has done it justice.

[Iskandar]

I saw it on the weekend. It wasn't a bad little flick.

McKellen was great.

[Sebek]

I still havn't read the book. Saw the movie last weekend, I thought it was pretty good. Nothing I'd rave about, but good.

[Kithkin]

Wow... I don't think I've ever seen a more predictable movie...

[nevermindemily]

i thought the movie didn't really do the book justice. i also thought that tom hanks didn't portray the character of robert langdon very well.


yup. Tom Hanks as Langdon was really bad.

[kamiccollo]

He was alright as Langdon, the book was better though, maybe because I read it first.
The film seemed really rushed to me despite being 2 1/2 hours and a little overdramatic with the music and effects, but theres no other way they could have done it really.

[Tillius]

Yeah, the music was a bit overdone. Like, the part where Sophie is backing the car up through all the traffic to get away from the police, it was like something really important was happening.

I thought the music went well, though, on the part where Silas was shooting all the cops and then shot the bishop. Probably one of my favorite scenes of the movie.

[br3ad_man]

Ok, I thought this film was pretty bad. The whole thing was just dialogue and hardly any action. I never thought I would make that complaint about a movie. It had the worst cinematography I have seen of a film made in the last 10 years.

[silicon71]

I passed by the movie theater today, and there were lots of old people protesting against the movie. :rolleyes:

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Sounds like you go to church and are mildly religious. Consindering parts of those theories in the book have been proven as fact I should laugh in your face for so blindly defending the church.

The lost testaments of the bible, Jesus and Mary getting together. I know they have found other stories originally meant for the bible which to this day the church ignores. The Jesus and Mary thing I don't think has been officially proven, but is widely believed to be true by basically anyone who knows religious history yet isn't blindly devoted to the church. Those are the only big ones I know of, but I know very little about religion.

Anyone who believes in the theories stated in The Da Vinci Code is gullible. Is your only defense that people who are doubters must be religious? Open your eyes and grow up. A lot of these "lost testaments" were written 100s of years after the life of Jesus and the others aren't even verified as being true. The theory of Jesus and Mary having a relationship comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grail which bases its whole theory around the Priory of Sion. The problem is, the Priory of Sion never existed. It's all a hoax, stop believing in conspiracy theories.

I can't believe how ****ing stupid some people seriously are.

Do you believe in the moon landing hoax conspiracy as well?

[deathscreamingsheep]

Priory of Scion is a proven hoax started in 1956.

It's true that the Catholic Church has stamped out or assimilated lots of previous beliefs into their own doctrine, but so has every major religion.

Actually, Jesus and Mary having a relationship comes from before Holy Blood Holy Grail but to quote Anne-Marie D'Arcy :

The notion that Jesus was married and had children was just not of interest to early Christians, it became more of an issue only when Constantine established Christianity plc, by proclaiming Christ's divinity openly at the Council of Nicaea in AD232. But Brown's suggestion that the Church then went and suppressed various gospels that reveal 'the truth' about Christ is nonsense: the Apochryphal gospels have been freely available to scholars for hundreds of years. The reality is that there is no conclusive evidence either way to point to whether Jesus was married or not; but even if he did it's hardly news to rock people's beliefs to the foundations."

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Good find. The theory in the book is that the holy grail is Mary Magdalene, which was moreso what I was calling bull****. It's possible, certainly, but none of these theories or conspiracies that are said matter at all. It's all crap to sell more books. It doesn't even change Christianity at all (atleast, it shouldn't).

[Tillius]

Do you believe in the moon landing hoax conspiracy as well?
Actually......................

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Actually......................

NOOOOOOOOOOO

//darth vader

[deathscreamingsheep]

Good find. The theory in the book is that the holy grail is Mary Magdalene, which was moreso what I was calling bull****. It's possible, certainly, but none of these theories or conspiracies that are said matter at all. It's all crap to sell more books. It doesn't even change Christianity at all (atleast, it shouldn't).

That's what I thought it was at first when I read the book, just a cool ideato construct the plot around.

I didn't realise people were going to take it seriously until I saw a review where someone said "Dan Brown writes it as if it's fact with such conviction that I myself was convinced."

Of course he'll write it as fact, he's not going to say:

Robert Langdon cried out, "The grail is a woman." Of course the grail is in itself not really a woman so the readers of this book should not believe this statement. Then Robert Langdon fell to his knees.

Has anyone here read Angels and Demons or any of his other books. They are pretty much carbon copies of the Da Vinci Code- dead body, insert conspiracy here. My favourite is Angels and Demons, it uses Robert Langdon as well, in fact, when the guy is buggering on about "The event in Venice last year" he is talking about the plot of Angels and Demons. It's pretty good, (despite Dan Brown's limited knowledge of Europe) about the Illuminati and the masons and stuff.

[c0nfusedGUiTARiST]

I just saw the movie, and it wasn't what I expected. What a waste of $9.

[Tjebby]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

I just don't get why so many people believe it. For starters, you would get the book in the Fiction section, not the History section or Theology. Also, History channel has a series, and they did an episode about whether the theories are true or not. They all turned out to be false. These "lost testaments" Reiner is talking about, are actually the Gnostic Gospels. Gospels that were denied by the church for being herecies. Even Mary Magdalene wrote a gnostic gospel. They aren't included in the Bible because they aren't like the non-heretic gospels, the Synoptic Gospels. The Church doesn't necessarily ignore the Gnostics Gospels. And, I'm pretty sure they wrote up the list of Banned and Forbidden Books at the Council Of Trent, in the 1550's, so there is a list of about 20 or so gospels that were tried and proven as herecies.

/end rant.

[Aramis]

Thankfully my best friend let me borrow the book, and I hurried up to read it before the movie came out.

I've seen it twice (the second time with a buddy who wanted to see it), and was deeply disappointed upon my first viewing. It was over-hyped, and I initially walked in with such high expectations.

I thought it was gonna stay true to the book and follow it to a tee. I remember a lot of the inconsistencies that the movie had with the book; some actually unnecessarily affecting some parts of the plot. . .which eventually caused a bit of confusion.

I'm actually glad I saw it twice, because it cleared up some entanglements in my head, especially in regards to Bishop Aringarosa and Bezu Fache; and how and why they had come into contact with each other in the first place.

[Triangle]

I was dissapointed in the film having read the book. I didn't like the way they changed certain parts (quite cruicial parts).

[croniun]

Sounds like you go to church and are mildly religious. Consindering parts of those theories in the book have been proven as fact I should laugh in your face for so blindly defending the church.

Excuse me but which parts have been proven as fact? The gnostic gospels? Despite the fact that they were written years after the writers who apparently wrote them lived? The part where it says that Constantine wasn't converted until his death? Something that has absolutely no historical evidence? The part where it says that it wasn't until the council of Nicea that the church decided that Christ was divine? It was already widely believed by every Christian that Christ was in fact God, not to mention the many quotes by fathers of the church before the council of Nicea who claimed that Christ was the son of God. The council of Nicea was held not to create certain ideas of the Christian faith but to affirm them. The purpose of the council was to organize the already held beliefs of Christians, not to create new beliefs. There was no heated argument over the divinity of Christ. The vote was 300-2 in fact. And to go even further, the council was not held to discuss whether or not Christ was divine. The vote was over whether or not Christ was equal to God Himself. Again, this was not a vote on whether or not to create the belief itself. It was simply a vote by the church to clearly articulate what the church already believed.

What's funny is that many of the gnostic gospels actually promote the idea of the deity of Christ and seek to discourage the view of Christ as a mere man.

I'm sorry but if you believe the "facts" of the Da Vinci Code are historically accurate, then, not to be harsh, but you are simply a fool. I'm not attempting to offend you but I don't know how else to put it. Only a fool would believe that the "facts" of the Da Vinci Code are accurate or even close to accurate. I'd trust a Michael Moore movie before I'd trust The Da Vinci Code.

The lost testaments of the bible, Jesus and Mary getting together.

No one debates that they exist. The point is that they're fakes. They were written years after the people who supposedly wrote them lived.

And as for the whole marriage between Jesus and Mary...Teabing points out that in Aramaic the word 'companion' actually means spouse. What he fails to mention is that the Gospel of Philip which says that Mary was a companion of Jesus was not written in Aramaic, it's Coptic. And the word used for companion is actually Greek and it clearly means simply a friend or associate in the Greek. So that's a completely misleading statement.

I know they have found other stories originally meant for the bible which to this day the church ignores.

You say that the 'church ignores' as if that is a bad thing. Maybe you should do some research as to why the church ignores them? The church did not go through a simple process of eliminating books based on what they wanted the people to believe. There were certain qualifications that the writings had to meet and the gnostics did not meet them. The gnostics were simply a cult out to harm the Christian church. They're basically on the level of say, the Davidians. Not the kind of people any rational thinking person would take seriously.

but is widely believed to be true by basically anyone who knows religious history

I have no clue where you got that from...

This is from an interview with Josh McDowell, a Biblical scholar:

Interviewer: Foundational to the plot of The Da Vinci Code, is the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary. Is there any historic basis for this?

McDowell: This idea really comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a popular book from the 1980s. I think historians have made it abundantly clear that the ideas contained in the book have no historical grounding. Consider, for instance, that none of our earliest Christian sources make any mention of this fact. This includes the Gospels, writings of the earliest Christians, and the "other gospels" which Brown alludes to: the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter--not a mention in any of them. All you can say is there is no historical basis for the claim.

[Simon__Thats_All]

I thought the book was brilliant, and the movie was so-so. My biggest beef with the movie was casting Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. I don't mind Tom Hanks as an actor generally, but in this scenario I couldn't look past him as an actor to see his character. He was Tom Hanks the whole movie to me. This disappointed me. Some of the plot changes were a little irritating, but oh well.

As for people claiming it to be fact, I'd have to disagree, although I do somewhat wish some evidence came to light to prove it as fact, just to see the events unfold. It could potentially reduce one of the richest and most powerful organisations in the world to nothing.. Well, maybe a slight exagerating, but the effect could be huge.

[Cecillianne]

The book was exciting, although much was too far fetched. The movie was sorely disappointing. The acting was weak, Tom Hanks had weird hair, they had a few plot changes that didn't make a lot of sense tbh (why would Andre wait for 20 years for someone to come pick up the box? He didn't mention anything about the Sauniere at all, or if they knew each other). Plus it really didn't help that all the Holy Grail stuff sounded outright ridiculous when said outloud.

It irks me that people are taking The Da Vinci Code too seriously (like my mom). National geographic didn't help at all. There was this program called Secret Bible and they made constant reference to the book. How can a channel like Natgeo be basing their program on a fictional story?

[pikester]

The movie was basically a dumbed-down, tediously overexplained, poorly acted version of the book, with some of the most interesting parts taken out.

And it's not like the book was a difficult read to begin with.

[croniun]

The book was exciting, although much was too far fetched. The movie was sorely disappointing. The acting was weak, Tom Hanks had weird hair, they had a few plot changes that didn't make a lot of sense tbh (why would Andre wait for 20 years for someone to come pick up the box? He didn't mention anything about the Sauniere at all, or if they knew each other). Plus it really didn't help that all the Holy Grail stuff sounded outright ridiculous when said outloud.

It irks me that people are taking The Da Vinci Code too seriously (like my mom). National geographic didn't help at all. There was this program called Secret Bible and they made constant reference to the book. How can a channel like Natgeo be basing their program on a fictional story?

The church takes it seriously because there are fools out there who believe the theories in the Da Vinci Code.

[Cecillianne]

The church takes it seriously because there are fools out there who believe the theories in the Da Vinci Code.
I can understand why the church takes it seriously because they're facing an influx of idiots who think that it's absolute facts. But I don't get the people who think it's facts and argue strenously about how possible it is, or how incredible true it is, or blah blah blah. It's ridiculous.

[MBS]

Doesn't the church not want for people to see this movie or something?

[Tillius]

There's no way people should be taking this book or this movie so seriously.

It's a good theory, but that's all it is, is a theory.

[Rrrrrrr]

People should pay more attention to the fact that it's a crappy novel.

[Cecillianne]

It's a good novel, in terms of writing and style. The contents are just questionable.

[Rrrrrrr]

No, he uses the same damn formula over and over and waits for the cash to roll in. And a lot of the attraction of his books is that they all deal with supposedly intellectually stimulating plots that flatter the reader into believeing they're reading something more substantial than a trite thriller.

[croniun]

Doesn't the church not want for people to see this movie or something?

Some. I'm a Christian and I personally don't care if Christians see it and I've already seen it. Good thing about it is that it at least gets Christians to do some research into church history which can lead to interest in the "deeper" aspects of theology, as well as philosophy, an interest that is tragically rare today. I think that lack of interest has resulted in a secular society that is probably the most anti-intellectual society that has ever existed in world history, which in turn results in pragmatism and I see pragmatism as the equivalent of a philosophy of the destruction of mankind. A philosophy that results in a bunch of babbling idiots going around in circles and never getting anywhere worthwhile. "You have to live in the moment." What a foolish way to live.

[Kithkin]

It's such a bad movie, the church should be pushing people to see it.

Though we are hardly the most anti-intellectual society. At least most everyone can read. And it isn't the secular society that is anti-intellectual. I'm not sure how pragmatism leads to the destruction of mankind... but I've only read the wikipedia entry.

...pragmatists do not hold that anything that is practical or useful, or that anything that helps to survive merely in the short-term, should be regarded as true. Instead, most of them argue that what should be taken as true is that which contributes the most good over the longest course.

In the case of C.S. Peirce's pragmatism, this means that theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices — that is, one should be able to make predictions and test them. Truth is defined, for Peirce, as the ultimate outcome of inquiry by a (usually) scientific community of investigators.

For William James and many of his followers, the meaning of any term consisted, rather, in the grasping of the consequences for action that the acceptance of the truth of the term entails. Truth itself, on this view, is not that which contributes the most good to the community, but that which contributes the most good to the individual.

The last one maybe... but the other two seem like pretty good ideas.

[Rrrrrrr]

I think that lack of interest has resulted in a secular society that is probably the most anti-intellectual society that has ever existed in world history, which in turn results in pragmatism and I see pragmatism as the equivalent of a philosophy of the destruction of mankind. A philosophy that results in a bunch of babbling idiots going around in circles and never getting anywhere worthwhile. "You have to live in the moment." What a foolish way to live.
Pragmatism is about causes and effects. How is that "living in the moment"? Nihilism would seem to fit in more with that description.

[Cybergasm]

I loved the movie. It was unbelivably well made and really brought the book to life- especially ending when he is standing under the thing, and kneeling over the other thing while the narrator narrates the third thing. It was amazing- Sophie was pretty too. I think most people in this thread who are bashing the movie are doing so to be "cool" and just more for the hell of it then that they actually thought it was bad.

I did see why Christians would be pissed about the movie; it was alot more impactive then the book. Overall it made me sympathize with the protestors.

EDIT: I also highly doubt that many of the people critizing the people who believe this/are defending it actually had the historical prowess to not believe it and not be fascinated by the stuff Dan Brown was spewing upon the pages. Its just now, when thousands of other books, documentaries, etc... have come out are you truly realizing its invalidity and your foolishness, and, in subconcious defense of yourself, are now putting heat on the people who are now much like you were.

EDIT2: I do not know why documentaries is spelled d0cumentaries, it is not like that in my screen.

[MattSharpIsCool]

The movie was good.

And Audrey Tautou is beautiful.

[fuzzyhair]

Well I just now saw the movie. I have read the book before.

I thought it was really good and I loved the part at the end where they actually showed Mary's remains. It made me lol because whoever made the movie was thinking, "Okay, the Christians allready hate this, so what can we do to piss 'em off even more."

If you have read the book, he doesn't even know that Mary is actually there. The book says he is unsure.

[mightygod]

Well I just now saw the movie. I have read the book before.

I thought it was really good and I loved the part at the end where they actually showed Mary's remains. It made me lol because whoever made the movie was thinking, "Okay, the Christians allready hate this, so what can we do to piss 'em off even more."

If you have read the book, he doesn't even know that Mary is actually there. The book says he is unsure.

Yeah it was a beautiful ending scene

[Blackest_Eyes]

for some reason i could definately see Trey Parker making fun of Tom Hanks' hair in this movie, on south park. haha