The DaVinci Code

[neufelni]

What do you all think of the DaVinci Code? Does anyone here believe that Jesus actually married Mary Magdalene? Let me know what you think about it?

[rdrake]

I thought it was a good book, but as for the message behind it... well... I'm not so sure. Not saying I agree or disagree, but I just don't know enough about history to make a judgement. Some of the stuff, especially in Angels and Demons at the end, seem pretty far fetched.

It is interesting how I see so many people reading it now that the movie is coming out shortly and there's a lawsuit over it compared to before when only a few I knew were reading it.

[[Gandalf]]

Yeah, it was a pretty good book, but overrated in my opinion.
Me, I'm one of those people who don't see what all the fuss is about. It's clearly a work of fiction, anyone who takes it otherwise is either extremely gullible or... well, you choose some alternative.

[md]

There are some wonderful ideas about the power of the church and it's possible motives; but it is a work of fiction. As far as anyone can tell none of the events mentioned in it actually happened (and there are many things factually wrong with it).

[NikG]

People who take this book as a source of history are, as Gandalf put it, extremely gullible.

Having said that though, I really liked the book. The reason was not so much about the story itself, but how Dan Brown put the story together. How many people can honestly tell me that the book is not an exciting read from start to finish.

I've read Angels and Demons (which I liked better that Da Vince Code) and Digital Fortress (about cryptography, also very good). The thing you'll instantly notice, if you decide to read these other books, is that they all are VERY common in terms of his formula. I don't want to elaborate for fear of ruining anything for anyone, but I'm positive anyone who's read a couple of his books knows what I mean. That right there proves to me that he's not a great author, just one who knows how to right a good novel, albeit using the same formula over and over again.

[codemage]

I've read all of Dan Brown's books. A&D and Da Vinci are by far the best. His other offerings are mediocre.

His writing isn't that fantastic, but the books are fast-paced, suspenseful, and interesting - especially for history buffs or anyone who likes to travel.

Church leaders who are smart have realized that the movie has people interested in church history - and that it's a point for starting dialogue. Even in the crassest sense, churches in Europe have visitors and even tours devoted to seeing the sites, art and relics mentioned in the novel.

You'd think the church would be grateful for the free publicity campaign.

[Amailer]

I was watching the news and they said that the 'critiques' said the movie 'sucked' o.O I would have expected better.

[Mazer]

Don't the critics say that about everything?

Movie critic: This film sucked.
Movie goers: /worship

Sometimes they'll call a movie was stupid when I'll think it was easily worth watching, and sometimes they'll think it's the greatest thing ever shat when I could care less about it. I tend to just see what people I actually know think about it. It's only failed me once.

[Dan]

I have not read the book, tho i am going to see the moive. Not that i am lazzy just that i am curently reading many many many books and texts about world relgiones that are for shure based on fact for some relguises studys corses i am doing this summer.

About Mary Magdalene, from what i have read it is likey that the hole story and any referces where added to the bible in latter works during transaltions and rerights and are not present in the eraler verson of the scriptchures. How ever i blive the sorce i read this in was from a gorup with a relgouises heavy baises so you never know.

But as codemage side either way it is great publicty for the church. I mean you have to blive in Jesus to think that he had or did not have any realtions with Mary Magdalene. Witch realy beges the question as to why some one whould try to cover it up.

[codemage]

I'll wait until actual user ratings come out on IMDB.

I don't even read idiot critical reviews anymore - they're so distant from what a normal human being cares about.

[1of42]

Ehh... book was a page-turner for sure, but Dan Brown is terrible at writing. Some of the stuff he writes makes you do a double-take at whether he actually makes a living doing it.

Movie was way too drawn-out. It was almost LotR-length :/

Also, it wasn't nearly as suspenseful as the book, and imo the ending's not as cool when you're watching it.

I think Angels & Demons would make a better movie.

[Dan]

WARNING THE BELOW MAY HAVE SPOLIERS

Just saw the moive and i realy liked it. Tho you are right the ending was dawrn out. I whould buy it on DVD for shure tho.

From what i could tell/know alot of it's basick ideas (mainly the ones brougth up when they where looking at a painting of the last super) are well based in fact. Of corse the rest is a fiction based around a theroy to make it intresting and an acoutal sotry.

I do not realy understand the bad reaction this movie had with opises day and some others. I think it maybe that they had not viewed the movie and noticed that they cleary side that the monk guy was a fantick and they also had a noralm opises day who turned out to be good. Also they cearly stated that the vadican had nothing to do with any of this and it was only a few slectect members.

As for them being upset that they are saying that Mary Magdalene was not as described in the bible and was aucatly meriaed to jessus thos making him not a god.....well there have been peoleop saying that since the dawn of cristainity, such as the jewish relgion and muesame relgions.

Either way it dose not chage the morals or sotrys of the relgion and the diffrence is rather nil.

[Andy]

saw the movie last night, it wasnt as good as i thought it would be. I enjoyed the first half of the movie alot more the second half, it seemed like they were trying to cram 75% of the story into the second half, and it turned out to be a mess.

[1of42]

Andy wrote:

saw the movie last night, it wasnt as good as i thought it would be. I enjoyed the first half of the movie alot more the second half, it seemed like they were trying to cram 75% of the story into the second half, and it turned out to be a mess.

Totally agree.

[NikG]

Finally saw the movie today and I have to say... I was very pleasantly surprised.

I didn't have high expectations for it because I thought the book is too detailed to be a movie. That meant that the movie would either have to cut down on some details (i.e. some of the art histories) which would ruin it, or try to make a detailed movie which would be too slow to capture the book's suspense. I was further reluctant to see it after reading critic's reviews, but I should have known better.

Well, some details were indeed cut out (although nothing terribly important) and several things were changed (including a few highly irritating alterations), but despite this (or perhaps because of it) the movie worked very well. The 2 hours 20+ minutes flew by.

Having said that though, I'm sure my appreciation of the movie is greater simply because I have read the novel. A person who hasn't and decides to see the movie would probably not like it as much and perhaps even call it a little slow-paced.

Oh yeah, The Da Vinci Code made an estimated $77 million over the weekend in North America, $224 million worldwide (supposedly, this is the 2nd best international opening-weekend total after Star Wars Episode 3). Just another reason not to believe everything you hear.