Da Vinci Code

[Cyclefrance]

For some reason, Mrs CF insisted on seeing this - even after reading/hearing the critics demolish it. So Saturday night saw us at the local Odean with virtually every seat occupied for this performance. Clearly others had been influenced by the same force affecting the missus!

With neither of us having read the book, it was relatively virgin territory (all right we knew the basic plot - how could you escape knowing it, with so many people recounting it everywhere you go?). So how did it fair?

Well, I didn't notice too many boring bits. Overall, considering the task in hand, I thought that Ron Howard did a pretty good job on the direction front -we were able to unsdrestand what was going on and why, at least. Acting was of a high enough standard to carry the audience aong effortlessly as well.

The last ten minutes or so and the climax was the only real let down - it didn't come up to the standard set by the rest of the plot/film and seemed all too weak and out of place after all that had gone before.

So as for opinion: OK to pass the time without much effort. Doesn't come anywhere near to justifying the amount of hype it's received, but it's harmless viewing and enjoyable hocum. I wouldn't discount it out of hand - there's a lot worse out there at the moment!

[glatt]

Wow. You make it sound so good.

[skysidhe]

I want to see the Movie but havn't read the book. I guess the book is awesome but I don't like even hints of theological reads.Well Christianity dosn't interest me but the movie just might give me enough of an idea of what the book is about?

The complaint I have heard is that the book is much more detailed than the movie. Well duh. I read Memoirs of a Geisha which was good. The moive was boring for the same reason.

[Ibby]

Angels and Demons > The Da Vinci Code.

Angels and Demons was just a good mystery/crimesolver/adventure/cool novel that happened to feature a couple religious fanatics and such, but The Da Vinci code had to make a huge point of being religious and shit. I'm not a big Dan Brown fan, all his books follow the exact same formula, but Angels and Demons was good, in my opinion.

As for the movie? Not gonna waste my time going to see it.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Angels and Demons > The Da Vinci Code.

Angels and Demons was just a good mystery/crimesolver/adventure/cool novel that happened to feature a couple religious fanatics and such, but The Da Vinci code had to make a huge point of being religious and shit. I'm not a big Dan Brown fan, all his books follow the exact same formula, but Angels and Demons was good, in my opinion.

As for the movie? Not gonna waste my time going to see it.

I am interested in reading angel and demon books. If it is fiction and entertainment. There is a James Patterson book called Maximum Ride I was thinking about buying in paperback. I hope it is good because the last book I bought called, Book of Shadows was the WORST book I have ever tried reading in a long time. I had to stop after the first couple chapters or so. There was no rhyme or reason to it.

I might waste my time going to see DaVinci Code . I Might look into the Angels and Demons book too.

I have quite a few angel and demon books... I'll compile a list when I'm having a better day.

BTW... every single thing that Brown states as a "fact" in his book is incorrect.
No one is that stupid. Think about it.
He had an agenda.
I am not a Christian, but it was uncool.

[Happy Monkey]

It wasn't as bad as the reviews implied. I hadn't read the book, and there were a few points that probably would have made more sense with the additional exposition available in the book, but for the most part it was pretty easy to follow. Ian McKellan was great as usual.

BTW... every single thing that Brown states as a "fact" in his book is incorrect.

Well, that's obviously hyperbole. I'm sure there were many correct facts in the book. What are you referring to in particular?

No one is that stupid. Think about it.

No one is how stupid?

You name it, if he stated it was a fact, it is wrong.
No is so stupid that they could write that book and get every single thing they state is a fact and get every one of them wrong.
Every piece of architecture, every historical fact, every Biblical fact, and every aspect of each "society" and the "Church" everything he states in his statement in the beginning of the book that is not fiction in the story.
For all of them to be wrong, there had to be an agenda.
Altering them does not make the murder mystery any better or worse... so the murder mystery is just a vehicle for his throwing people's faith under the bus with lies.
A shitty hobby.
Like I said before, I am not fond of Christianity as an organized religion and have my problems with the history of the Church, but he as set the struggle with the truth back decades.

[Stormieweather]

The book was an excellent mystery. The fact that so many people actually wonder how much is true and debate the accuracy of Brown's "facts" in a work of fiction, indicates exactly how engrossing and well done this book is. Most people don't read fiction to determine the history of the Catholic church or how we came to be a patriarchial society.

I have the book in front of me, and on Dan Brown's fact page it states: "The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099.........." Now the date is debatable, as some say it was a hoax formed in 1956 by two con men..but it does exist, even if not exactly proven to be in the manner described by Brown.

It goes on to say, "The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect........." It is also controversial but does exist. http://www.opusdei.org/

The fact page ends by saying, " All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." I have no idea if they are or aren't, but their use certainly added to my enjoyment of the book.

I think a book that causes people to question and search for answers cannot be a bad thing, no matter how inaccurate its depiction of history may be. Anyone who actually faults a novel for its lack of factual accuracy must be confused about what they were reading.

That said, I'm waiting for the movie to come out on DVD. I pick and choose my 2 hour/$8 investments carefully .

Stormie

The problem is that this book is a top seller all over the world, with that statement at the beginning. That statement which says that all of it is not fiction.
A lie, an intentional lie.
Places where the option of searching for the truth are not as readily available as they are most other places.
Why do that?
Why not just state that the book was a novel?
Why state all the aspects the story was based on were facts when he knew they were not, in a novel? Makes no sense... or does it?
Action = intent.

[Cyclefrance]

Jeez, I thought I'd just mention that the film wasn't as bad as the critics made out, IMO, and that provided you took the event of going to see it as just a case of being entertained you would be reasonably happy. It's no 'Lord of the Rings' that's for sure.

If the idea behind the book was that it tried to create a new set of rules about Christianity then the film fails miserably at achieving such an objective. It looks and feels like a generous, albeit far-fetched, dollop of fiction, and that shouldn't spoil the experience for you, so long as you don't go there expecting to get more than this.

[wolf]

Novels are meant to be a creative means of lying, usually for 300-500 pages.

I didn't think much of the book, but am going to be forced to see the movie because that's what the girlfriends want to do. I went to the opening weekend of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for the same reason.

If this movie also sucks I'm either going to have to try hermiting or the Nancy Reagan approach.

(I agree that Angels and Demons was a much better story)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You name it, if he stated it was a fact, it is wrong.

Since that is obviously not true, and you provided no examples, I had to look around a bit on my own. The websites I found primarily pointed out that much of his fiction was fiction, and some of his sources aren't universally accepted. No shit. But are there any things that he said "this is fact" and had no support?

Incorrect that it is "obviously not true".
Name a "fact" from the book and I will show you it is incorrect.
I do not have the time to write an entire reference book for you.

[Happy Monkey]

I didn't read the book. I was hoping you had an example.