NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw The Da Vinci Code last Saturday. Great movie, great book.

Nice polls options.

Shit movie, worse book.

I'd rather listen to Celine Dion on permanent replay, than read that again.

Da Vinci would be turning in his grave that something so... so... dire, so dreadful, so terrible, so awful, so pointless, so artless, so plotless bears his name. That's just the book, though, and the film, manages to be worse. Symbology is misapplied, misused, or of course, the old favourite just plain wrong; the intellectual content of symbology is forgotten and misused; the history of the world is simply inaccurate (Crusades over 1000 years ago? French alone capturing the Holy Land? Catholic Church slaughtering all the Knights Templar at once?); the history of Christianity is wrong (Violent outbreaks and clashes between Christians and pagans threatening to rip Rome apart under Constantine?); the photography is awful (the one good bit of the film, the architecture, is always obscured); the conspiracy theory has been debunked, is based on fake evidence, and is simply wrong; and the whole premise is awful.

My advice? If you already have tickets either don't go... or get a double lobotomy first.


And I'm an atheist and antitheistic, and a disextablishmentarian. So...

While I know Dan Brown writes fiction, and therefor can make up whatever he likes, I cannot stop being annoyed by the enormous amount of factual inaccuracies his books (not just the da Vinci code) contain.

As such I really cannot give an objective verdict :(

I wouldn't say it was great.

It was a solid entry in the genre of films that mock Catholics (and I'm generally a fan of those - I recommend The Prophecy), but the plot was incredibly simple. The puzzle they had to solve wouldn't have been out of place on the side of a box of cereal.

i saw the movie before reading the book and i thought the movie was rather predictable. wasnt really any twists that i didnt see coming. it was a decent movie and so far the book isnt really that great but its ok.

i honestly cant see what the catholic church has against the movie. there were only small parts that talked about jesus not being the son of god and you can hear all about that at your locol groccery store. the catholic church needs to realize they cant shield their followers from life

haven't read the book, haven't seent he film but i think thta people are taking it far too seriously

i mean charlie and th echocolate factory is a book

wheres the hype about the film

too many people are scared by the idea of an off the wall idea

I read the book and thought it was pretty good. I didn't think the movie would be that good because of the bad reviews it got, but it was better than I expected.

A word of advice: If you haven't read the book, you won't be able to follow the movie.

To me, this whole "Da Vinci Code" thing has just been argued over and done to death so much, I doubt that there even is one even if Da Vinci DID make one. In other words, it just got old real fast.

To me, this whole "Da Vinci Code" thing has just been argued over and done to death so much, I doubt that there even is one even if Da Vinci DID make one. In other words, it just got old real fast.

First of all, it's not based around some mysterious code Da Vinci made. It has to do with the truth about the Holy Grail, which the Church had tried to suppress for all these years. According to the book/movie, Da Vinci did hide clues about the Holy Grail in his fresco The Last Supper, and was the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, a secret society that protects the Holy Grail, but there was no specific "code" that he invented.

This whole controversy is stupid.

It's a work of fiction, jeesh. Not a very good one at that.

I have yet to watch the movie, and I don't think I will in any case.

but there was no specific "code" that he invented.

he did in fact mirror his writtings, but that wasnt really code, that was just to help keep his ideas his

First of all, it's not based around some mysterious code Da Vinci made. It has to do with the truth about the Holy Grail, which the Church had tried to suppress for all these years. According to the book/movie, Da Vinci did hide clues about the Holy Grail in his fresco The Last Supper, and was the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, a secret society that protects the Holy Grail, but there was no specific "code" that he invented.

I know. But what I'm saying is is that this whole argument over wether or not there is some code of this sort has gotten old.

A word of advice: If you haven't read the book, you won't be able to follow the movie.

Okay, that's patently false. I haven't read the book, and I found the film simplistic it was so easy to follow.

I listened to the audio book on a x-country drive and just saw the movie a few days ago. Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven was better on the history angle and more entertaining. The DaVinci movie was well executed, but long for a cerebral film. I'd rather have seen it on DVD at home. The good news is Hanks does a workmanlike job and stays out of the way. I didn't even recognize Audrey Tatou (from Amelie) until the credits. She's luminous. Ian McKellen steals what show he can.

While I know Dan Brown writes fiction, and therefor can make up whatever he likes, I cannot stop being annoyed by the enormous amount of factual inaccuracies his books (not just the da Vinci code) contain.

As such I really cannot give an objective verdict :(

And of course, he even admits himself that this whole book was fiction and he never knew the writers of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". So I don't think he could be the prime suspect of knowing the code.

Besides, the various denominations of Christianity have done a superior job at discrediting themselves without the need for help from Dan Brown or the Priory of Sion.

I didn't even recognize Audrey Tatou (from Amelie) until the credits.

damn your right. i thought i knew her from something else.

i saw the movie before reading the book and i thought the movie was rather predictable. wasnt really any twists that i didnt see coming. it was a decent movie and so far the book isnt really that great but its ok.

i honestly cant see what the catholic church has against the movie. there were only small parts that talked about jesus not being the son of god and you can hear all about that at your locol groccery store. the catholic church needs to realize they cant shield their followers from life

I'm definitely not Catholic. But I think it would be a little near-sighted to not understand what problems The Catholic Church would have with this movie. For one, Opus Dei, A conservative catholic group is completely misrepresented and slandered in this movie as some murderous group of thugs. Unless there's something I'm missing, when I looked them up they seem to be anything but that. I would be mad if a group I was a part of was slandered that way. Secondly, to suggest the church is wrong on essential doctrines of the faith and then to present evidence of such by twisting or completely making up or rewriting history is difficult as well. Think what you want about faith and all, but I understand the church being upset with the book and the movie.

I read the book and saw the movie. I thought the book was not a very believable plot from the beginning. You have a 73 year old man mortally wounded and runs the equivalent of 3 city blocks, thinks up three anagrams, writes his bank address on a key, writes on two different paintings a distance away from each other, hides a key behind one of those paintings, draws a large circle on the ground with a paragraph of clue, takes off all his clothes "AND FOLDS THEM NEATLY", draws a pentacle on his stomach in his own blood, poses, and then dies. Other parts of the plot are quite unbelievable as well. So it comes as no surprise when he butchers historical facts and other trivia throughout the book.

This book isn't even that good for people who hate the Catholic Church because it arms them with false evidence to continue their personal attacks. I will say the movie was much more disappointing than the book.

Da Vinci would be turning in his grave that something so... so... dire, so dreadful, so terrible, so awful, so pointless, so artless, so plotless bears his name.

My family was saying this was what's happening right now. Of course my mom said that Leonardo Da Vinci would be laughing at us from Heaven right now just busting guts over how he thought people would be a lot more intelligent in these several more centuries. Boy was he wrong....

My family was saying this was what's happening right now. Of course my mom said that Da Vinci would be laughing at us from Heaven right now just busting guts over how he thought people would be a lot more intelligent in these several more centuries. Boy was he wrong....

You do know that calling Leonardo "Da Vinci" is equivalent to referring to Jesus as "of Nazareth". His name is Leonardo.

You do know that calling Leonardo "Da Vinci" is equivalent to referring to Jesus as "of Nazareth". His name is Leonardo.

And Jesus's name is actually Yeshua

i liked it pretty well. i had very low expectations. they were exceeded. i did break into a few rants here and there but nothing to loud that i had to be removed from the theater.

i hadnt read the book (and im very glad i didnt waste my time and money on it) and i found it very easy to follow. perhaps someone who read the book would think it was confusing because they must have left lots of stuff out that a reader would wish was left in.

in any case im left with one important remark on the movie

TOM HANKS HAIRDO WASN'T A MULLET!

And Jesus's name is actually Yeshua
Well, technically, Chuck Norris is really named Carlos. Your point being?

if u insist on real names u should say Yeshua, not Jesus

if u insist on real names u should say Yeshua, not Jesus

I don't think I was insisting on real names as much as referring to someone as a prepositional phrase :)


Da Vinci = "From Vinci"

If you want a film that mocks catholics, try Dogma. Far more intelligent in every way.

And of course, he even admits himself that this whole book was fiction and he never knew the writers of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". So I don't think he could be the prime suspect of knowing the code.

Sure. His books aren't real. That most of the details are wrong is perfectly fine - it is after all fiction. Hell - I have an extensive library of SF and Fantasy myself, which contain things that violate known history, science and facts more than Browns books by several orders of magnitude.

But still, for some reason I cannot put my finger on, it annoys me in Browns books. Which is why I cannot give a objective review.

If you want a film that mocks catholics, try Dogma. Far more intelligent in every way.

Chris rock pwns! Watch Everybody Hates Chris!

For one, Opus Dei, A conservative catholic group is completely misrepresented and slandered in this movie as some murderous group of thugs.

In the movie, it was suggested that the bishop knew of the killing. In the book, it was the teacher who ordered the killings - without the bishop's knowledge or consent. Thus, it was the teacher and the monk alone involved in the murders.


As for the book/movie itself - it's interesting enough. I wouldn't say that it was well-written (the book or movie). Brown's style is not something I really thought was great.

Nice polls options.

Shit movie, worse book.

I'd rather listen to Celine Dion on permanent replay, then read that again.
HAHAHAHAHA!

So now you're reading the book with Celine Dion on permanent replay? Is that going to improve the reading experience?

HAHAHAHAHA!

So now you're reading the book with Celine Dion on permanent replay? Is that going to improve the reading experience?

Dammit. Just noticed that slip of the finger.
Bloody grammar Nazi

*shakes fist*

Dammit. Just noticed that slip of the finger.
Bloody grammar Nazi

*shakes fist*
I wouldn't have said anything if it didn't create a whole new meaning! :p

http://myspace-310.vo.llnwd.net/00253/01/33/253903310_m.gif

I haven't seen the film and only read the first 250 pages of the book before tossing it aside. I thought it was so mindlessly repetitive - it's like at the end of every chapter they make an "amazing discovery", to the point where you couldn't really care less if "dog sith is my soda red ted" is actually an anagram of "my God this is so retarded". The whole idea of a "babe cryptologist" is so far-fetched that you just know that Dan Brown is exploring his fantasy of having someone attractive that thinks his warhammer collection is really "nifty". I resent the fact that the book is offensive enough to mask as fact when it is most clearly fiction. But worst of all, worst of all, is Robert Langdon's constantly condescending interjections to the effect of "of course it's common knowledge that what this painting really means is...".

http://myspace-310.vo.llnwd.net/00253/01/33/253903310_m.gif

Thats' friggin hilarious!! :p :p

Thats' friggin hilarious!! :p :p
Thanks, mate!

My lil'sis' hinted me towards that one when I introduced the term "grammar nazi" to her 20min ago. I just had to use it :D

You do know that calling Leonardo "Da Vinci" is equivalent to referring to Jesus as "of Nazareth". His name is Leonardo.
Lemme guess -- you're one of those people who continue to point out that the new millennium didn't start on January 1st, 2000, aren't you?

Look, we KNOW he's from Vinci. We KNOW it's not really his surname. But guess what? I live in a culture where referring to someone by their surname is commonplace and even a sign of respect. So unless you can dig up an actual family name and popularize it so it catches on and replaces the city of his origin, GET USED TO IT. "DaVinci" is the second part of the full name used by the guy, so it's going to be interpreted as a surname. "Christ" wasn't Jesus' family name or surname, either -- it's a title. Are you now going to go to all the churches who call him "Christ" and attempt to belittle them with your fake superior knowledge, too? Not only that, but Leonardo, as a given name, could apply to anyone who bears it! Say "DaVinci" and EVERONE knows who you're talking about.

There are things that need pointing out in this world. DaVinci not being Leonardo's last name is not one of them.

One of the greatest wastes of time I have ever suffered (and I have seen Andy Warhol's "Sleep")!

Look, we KNOW he's from Vinci. We KNOW it's not really his surname. But guess what? I live in a culture where referring to someone by their surname is commonplace and even a sign of respect.

So how do you refer to the Dutch painter Rembrandt van Rijn ?

So how do you refer to the Dutch painter Rembrandt van Rijn ?
And pray, who is more widely known? Whose false surname is easier to pronounce and spell? I call him Rembrandt, but that given name is an order of MAGNITUDE less common than Leonardo. Try again.

The book was decent. Kept me going 3 days in a row.

There were moments of "Oh come on.." and "puhleeze"

but luckily they were few.

Does that mean I agree with Langdon's beliefs? Nope.

It was a fun read, even if the theories suffered from the "pendulum effect"

(IE taking some ultra conservative idea and transforming it into an ultra liberal idea while skipping the middle ground and the truth altogether) :p

You forgot to add "I didn't read it" to the poll...

Tope

Why the biased pool?
Also, wheres the Ive never read it option.
Im telling this because Ive never read it.

For the record, I'm religion-neutral.

The book was written as entertainment and sold as such.

Besides, even if it was truthful and Jesus was a mortal human, so what? People won't change how they live - maybe the christian church will undergo a major crisis but thats about all.

Book: Slightly entertaining (though basically the same as all of his others), movie: crap. Why no option like this, huh?

Dreadful set of poll options...

I may be a religious zealot in your view, but it has NOTHING to do with why the DaVinci Code didn't live up to my expectations. It wasn't even that well written, and wasn't engaging enough to keep me picking up the book every chance I got. Yah, it was okay... I mean, I didn't put it down and forget all about it... yet. But it's been over a week, and I haven't even bothered to read it every day. Which does not inspire me to see a movie that most critics panned.

And if religion can be threatened by a semi-decent fiction novel, then it probably ought to be.

Twas an ok book. Like a puzzle book, but with a story tacked on.

Oh, and How the DaVinci Code doesn't Work (http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/davinci-code.htm) if you're interested.

Dreadful set of poll options...

I may be a religious zealot in your view, but it has NOTHING to do with why the DaVinci Code didn't live up to my expectations. It wasn't even that well written, and wasn't engaging enough to keep me picking up the book every chance I got. Yah, it was okay... I mean, I didn't put it down and forget all about it... yet. But it's been over a week, and I haven't even bothered to read it every day. Which does not inspire me to see a movie that most critics panned.

And if religion can be threatened by a semi-decent fiction novel, then it probably ought to be.

Yeah, i was kind of biased with the poll options...but i intended it to be...thats how politics works you have to make someone choose one of two extremes, both of which suck

Lemme guess -- you're one of those people who continue to point out that the new millennium didn't start on January 1st, 2000, aren't you?

Look, we KNOW he's from Vinci. We KNOW it's not really his surname. But guess what? I live in a culture where referring to someone by their surname is commonplace and even a sign of respect. So unless you can dig up an actual family name and popularize it so it catches on and replaces the city of his origin, GET USED TO IT. "DaVinci" is the second part of the full name used by the guy, so it's going to be interpreted as a surname. "Christ" wasn't Jesus' family name or surname, either -- it's a title. Are you now going to go to all the churches who call him "Christ" and attempt to belittle them with your fake superior knowledge, too? Not only that, but Leonardo, as a given name, could apply to anyone who bears it! Say "DaVinci" and EVERONE knows who you're talking about.

There are things that need pointing out in this world. DaVinci not being Leonardo's last name is not one of them.

Anger Management Counseling...

No, I don't claim to know alot, it just bothers me to call him Da Vinci, that's all. Your "fake superior knowledge" shot hurts :( :p . I wasn't trying to appear snobbish. If I didn't know any better and somebody told me that, I'd file it away and go on. Why attack me about this?

It's not his surname. I understand your point. It just seems a whole lot better to call him Leonardo since that's his real name. Your argument about using "Christ" is irrelevent. I refer to George W. Bush as the president also. I just never call him "of Texas". However, I wouldn't have brought any of it up if I thought it would get this much play here.

I saw The Da Vinci Code last Saturday. Great movie, great book.

Haven't bothered to see the movie. I'll probably wait until it comes out on HBO, if I watch it at all (I'd have to be very bored).

The book was poorly written, didn't live up to the hype and wasn't that entertaining.

You need an option up there for Agnostics who are capable of critical thinking and who can tell good from bad.

I read the book but I have chosen not to see the movie. The book itself is not a bad work of fiction but many people have siezed on it as a possibility of reality. There is a small group of people around the world who have an agenda to undermine Christianity. Nowhere is this process more in focus than in the United States. Traditional Christian thought frowns upon homosexual marriage, abortion, and secular government. Somthing like 75% of Americans profess to be Christians. Therefore, the only way that the pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-seperation of church and state folks get in the majority is if 1/3 of American Christians betray the traditions of Christianity. The move toward this goal is subtle but real. Activist judges, the ACLU, and movies like the Davinci code being taken as fact help this cause.

yet another poll i can't vote on. this tears me apart. where's the 'other' option? the book was a compelling and very easy read. i like alternative histories and conspiracy theories because they are entertaining. i know the actual contents of the book were based on a load of bollocks. the movie was shite and the casting even worse. the lady cryptologist wasn't even ginger. what's that about? and thingy that played the male lead is way to lumpy, stupid looking and, frankly, unattractive to play the handsome water-polo playing academic that the role was supposed to be.

If you want a film that mocks catholics, try Dogma. Far more intelligent in every way.

The ironic thing is that Kevin Smith is a devout Catholic. The movie's premise (as seen from the title) is criticizing dogma (the difference between belief and idea).

the reason i made those two options ws because i wanted to give people a one-sided question...im so evil...meheheheh

the reason i made those two options ws because i wanted to give people a one-sided question...im so evil...meheheheh

im united o-zones other nation...fyi

It's all a ripoff of Holy Blood, Holy Grail anyway. I'm not a "Crazy Religious Zealot", and think all of this stuff is stupid.

There are things that need pointing out in this world. DaVinci not being Leonardo's last name is not one of them.

Well it obviously does if people use "Da Vinci" as if it is his last name

It's all a ripoff of Holy Blood, Holy Grail anyway. I'm not a "Crazy Religious Zealot", and think all of this stuff is stupid.

Ummm...Holy Blood, Holy Grail is nonfiction, while The Da Vinci Codeis. So it's not just a ripoff. For example, another of Dan Brown's novels, Deception Point, mentions the theory of panspermia.
If there was a nonfiction book about panspermia, would it mean that Deception Point is a ripoff of that book? I don't think so.

I haven't been able to bring myself to read the novel, but not because I'm a religious nut-job. Oh no, it's because I'm a linguistic nut-job. I have heard, from reliable sources, that Dan Brown is possibly one of the worst writers of this century (behind Nicole Richie, of course). I haven't yet discovered whether or not his concept of grammar and language are worse than JK Rowling's, but I've heard scandalous things about his abuse of the "cliff-hanger." I'm scared that the writing may tempt me to throw myself over a cliff and dash my head out on the rocks.

i think all these reigious nuts should just shut up about it. It is a book, a story, nothing more, i don't want to be invited to another convention of prats who want to try and find meaning in it.

I haven't seen it or read it yet, but from what I've heard, I don't believe it.