Cool News
Moriarty Decodes DA VINCI!!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
Oh, my.
It’s been interesting in a traffic-accident-sort-of-way to watch the hubbub surrounding the release of this Big Giant Summer Movie over the last couple of weeks. Personally, I’m of the opinion that anyone out there who either (A) believes that this movie is fact or (B) believes that this movie is going to cause people to lose their faith should probably be asked to step out of the gene pool for the good of our species. This is a very silly potboiler, directed by a director with little or no feel for the genre, and getting upset because of its theological content gives it a weight that the film never even comes close to earning.
I admire the intent of the film. As an idea, it’s engaging, a literate thriller that ties in real-life masterworks of art with long-discussed theories about the origins of the Catholic Church and the nature of Jesus Christ, and in the right hands, it might have been fairly potent stuff. Incendiary, even. But Dan Brown’s book was very much lightweight airport fare, and Akiva Goldsman has made a fairly startling mistake in adapting it. Instead of embracing the giddy, trashy side of the book and playing it as giddy, trashy adventure, Goldsman took the book seriously and has crafted a ponderous, slow-motion thriller without thrills, an inaction movie of sorts. Robert Langdon, played by a profoundly-stranded Tom Hanks, is one of the most passive heroes I’ve ever seen in a movie like this. He barely participates in the events. It gets so bad that I started to expect that we’d see him carrying a camera to film the events, since there’s no other real purpose to his being part of things. Any comparison anyone makes to Indiana Jones in discussing the character is wrong, wrong, wrong. Indy is a man of pure action, especially in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, while Langdon seems to be a man who is not only slow to action, but incapable of it. He’s overpowered several times in the film, and during the big moments where the mystery comes together, he’s sidelined, uninvolved.
And, yeah, this year’s biggest unintentional laugh line comes from the very seriously intoned, “I have to get to a library.”
What makes a film like THE DA VINCI CODE frustrating is that it’s not terrible. It’s not incompetent. There’s at least one performance that is genuinely fun all the way through, Sir Ian McKellen, Lord Of Exposition. It’s his job to lay out the majority of the backstory, the supposed history that an audience needs to understand things. It’s a thankless role, especially in his last few scenes, but McKellen milks it. Audrey Tautou is adorable even in an underwritten role like this one. Paul Bettany does what he was hired to do. Unfortunately, what he was hired to do was play a villain that reads menacing on a page, but plays silly on the screen. I’m not creeped out by him because of his intense faith or his self-flaggelation. I do think people who say that Dan Brown vilified the Church in his novel are probably right. I don’t think he did it out of any genuine desire (or ability) to attack the foundations of faith, though. I think he just needed a bad guy for his book, and using a creepy hyper-devout monk assassin and a creepy corrupt bishop and some creepy church interiors seemed like it tapped into a general anti-Catholic malaise that’s set in over the last decade or so. The controversy, such as it is, really should be focused on that more than on trying to correct Brown’s history, since that’s the stuff that is less important. This is no more of an argument for or against the divinity of Jesus Christ than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a political manifesto about the God-given weaponry of the Chosen People. Yes, the lost Ark of the Covenent is part of the story of RAIDERS, but would you call that a religious movie? I mean, that film even shows us the Wrath of God close-up, and somehow, that’s all just accepted as the supernatural world that Indiana Jones travels in. It’s not thought of as “religious.” And that’s what this film gets wrong. This film spends so much time setting up the idea that whatever the secret of the film, it’s worth killing for, that it sort of hammers home that over-important pompous attitude. Watching THE DA VINCI CODE frequently feels like homework, and as much as I dislike the adaptation by Akiva “Big Surprise” Goldsman, I don’t think the film’s real shortcomings are his fault. In the end, I think Ron Howard was more miscast here than even Tom Hanks was, and that’s a crippling blow the film never recovers from.
There are things Ron Howard can do well. I’m personally a big fan of APOLLO 13, and I really love SPLASH and NIGHT SHIFT and PARENTHOOD, and every now and then, his sense of humor still shows up in his films. On those occasions, I am reminded of why I like Ron Howard and root for him to make a good film each time out. I really dislike “Give Me An Oscar!” mode Ron Howard, but then again, I hate pretty much everyone in “Give Me An Oscar!” mode, so nothing personal. And “nothing personal” is the problem here. I don’t detect any pulse in THE DA VINCI CODE. I don’t think Ron Howard’s heart was ever in this film. I think he made it because it was going to have to get made by somebody, and he figured it was a giant hit and sure, why not. Well, I’ll tell you why not. At this stage, Ron Howard’s got all the commercial credibility he’s every going to have, and he figures he should spend it when he needs to. He’s coming off a flop and an underperformer, and he needs to make something that connects. He looked at the sales figures on that book and realized it would be next to impossible to screw up. There’s a tidy professionalism to the entire enterprise, and taken in small bites, it’s entertaining. It’s just that it doesn’t add up, and there are things about it that, if questioned, tip over into being totally ludicrous. The set-up of the film, the murder that spurs the whole thing into motion, is one of the most ridiculous situations in recent memory if you try to make any sense of the logistics or reality of it. Works as an image, but not as reality. Howard tries to stage a car chase, but it falls flat, just like the three truly insulting “escape” scenes in the film. But having said that, I thought the first two hours or so moved with a certain propulsive force that was impossible to deny. It’s only in the last half-hour that the film finally slows down and really makes some major missteps. Anyone who complained about the multiple endings in RETURN OF THE KING is going to go mental as this film ends once, then again, then seems to end conclusively, only to turn into another long sequence. And even worse, the film sort of stutters, repeating itself, hammering home its “big idea” over and over. Howard tries for a transcendent visual metaphor to close the film, and it’s not a bad idea, but it doesn’t really communicate onscreen.
Even saying this much, it feels like more effort than the film deserves. It’s okay. It will most likely please its fanbase, and it may cross over a bit to become a minor hit. But considering how much muscle there was behind this one, the entire affair seems sadly anemic.
I’ll have an OVER THE HEDGE review for you later today, as well as much more over the weekend. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
I wonder if anyone bought it. Hehe.
-
Book was loads of fun to read and proviked some interesting thoughts but the construction of the story was kind of ludicrous...
-
but you already knew that...
-
When I see this tomorrow I'm curious to how people react... if Flight 93 got pulled, this one will get pulled for sure.
-
I simply cannot fathom the mystique surrounding THE DA VINCI CODE. It's an underwritten potboiler by a hack novelist of the worst caliber -- the kind with a well-thumbed thesaurus and an equally well-thumbed Google index to make him sound relevant, profound and intellectual. He's none of the above, and neither is the book. It may be okay for light beach reading if you really want to turn off your brain for awhile, but so is Pamela Anderson's latest opus, or one of Kevin Anderson's increasingly unreadable DUNE ripoffs, or a copy of MAXIM for crissakes. DA VINCI is the kind of sweaty, fumbling mediocrity any serious bibliophile would be hard-pressed to cough up at a yard sale for twenty-five cents, let alone recommend to a friend. (But mark my word, a decade from now, there will be copies on display in every yard sale in America... read once, then shelved... and still they won't sell.) Brown's writing is vapid silliness at best. And now a movie version... God, spare us. What a waste of time and energy by all involved. Ron Howard and Tom Hanks ought to be ashamed of themselves.
-
dan brown hadn't stated at the beginning of the book that the historical facts and the 'revelations' about Christianity were true. if it didn't claim to be more than the cheesy mess of a novel it is, there wouldn't have been a problem.
-
i have to disagree with you on one part. you said goldsman should have embraced the trashy part of the novel and dismissed all the serious aspects of the story. if he had, he would have been slammed for writing another shallow piece of crap with nothing to it - you know, the kind of stuff he's known for. he's damned either way. i despise the guy's abilities, but i can't knock him for trying to get better.
-
I disagree. If you read the book, he doesn't say all of it is true. I think people are making a mistake... reading too much into what he says. He shouldn't be blasted just because people skim instead of read. What is next? Are we gonna blast Lucas and Spielberg for claiming that Hitler autographed Indiana Jones' book?
-
Even if you just treat the first page (which he says are facts), he's wrong. The Priory of Sion is fictional.
-
Goldsman's trouble isn't that he's a bad writer as such (A Time To Kill was pretty good), it's that he seems to pick the wrong tone for the project he's writing (see also "Batman: Atrocity" and "Batman: Fuck No Not Again" or whatever they were called). Seems he's made the same mistake as a lot of people have with this book and taken it too seriously...
-
you hadn't read the book, which was easily Grisham's best. Goldsman sucked all the fun out of it.
-
...it was real, it just never existed in the way it is in the book. That's the whole problem with this thing is that DB clearly did his research well enough to know that the history of the Priory was a hoax. He's obviously using the "truth" as a dramatic device the same way the Coens did with Fargo. People really need to stop getting bent out of shape about it...
-
May 19, 2006 7:32:54 AM CDT
The Movie Should Have Been Based on Moriarty's Review
by kevinwillis.net
Which was kick ass. Especially compared to Harry, who apparently can't be bothered to actually review entertainment any more.
And even if Dan Brown went into this trying to cause controversy (to kick up sales . . . hmmm) the fact that so many folks cooperated and are acting like this is some big deal is nuts. It's a movie, people! And more likely to flop quietly into that dark night if folks so worried about the "anti-Christian" content stop complaining and just put their money into something that reflect their values, instead. I knew this was going to tank as soon as I saw Tom Hanks hair. Also, when I found out that, in the middle of the film, he disguises himself as a woman named "Buffy", I knew this film would suck. -
You just re-affirmed everything i suspected would be wrong with the movie. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
-
Way to go, Opie Cunningham. Time to take back that Best Director Oscar, methinks.
-
Well said, Moriarty. I agree completely. On the other hand, Harry's "thoughts" on the movie are simply frustrating.
-
Excellent job. "Creepy hyper-devout monk assassin" - so much could have been done with this one simple phrase. A much better film could have resulted - maybe....like Name of the Rose?
-
May 19, 2006 7:52:43 AM CDT
So this'll probably have one big weekend, then sink...
by orbots commander
...like a gangster with cement shoes in the Hudson River.
-
Let's face it, Dan Brown's book is another very popular (and eye-wateringly badly written) paranoid conspiracy thriller. Critic proof-trash that a smart writer & director could have turned into the kind of guilty pleasure killer B I adore.
While I see the point of folks who are trying to give Goldsman some slack, I don't see what anyone could have done with that script. IMO, 'Ransom' was far from brilliant but proved Howard could hack out a watchable thriller from a decent script. What's Goldsman's excuse for a script that was much worse than tonally inappropriate, but almost a textbook case study in how not to write a thriller? -
Let's face it, Dan Brown's book is another very popular (and eye-wateringly badly written) paranoid conspiracy thriller. Not necessarily a bad thing - plenty of good, even brilliant, films have been adapted from bad books.
While I see the point of folks who are trying to give Goldsman some slack, I don't see what anyone could have done with that script. IMO, 'Ransom' was far from brilliant but proved Howard could hack out a watchable thriller from a decent script. What's Goldsman's excuse for a script that was much worse than tonally inappropriate, but almost a textbook case study in how not to write a thriller? I just don't see how Spielberg himself could have done anything with the material. -
Boy, you pegged it Mori. However, I think your remark about people removing themselves from the gene pool is a bit over the top and hard-hearted. The truth is, I know people whose faith has been shaken by "The Da Vinci Code." But I don't blame the book or the movie for that--I blame the church. Yes, this story has the potential to derail a person's faith, but only if that faith has a weak foundation to begin with. Anyway...I hope the critical failure of The Da Vinci Code doesn't translate into completely abysmal box office--I want sufficient desire remaining to make "Angels and Demons" into a movie. It's a much better book, and I think will make a much better flick (but please...no Opie).
-
If it fails, whoever does Angels and Demons will make sure not to repeat the mistakes of DaVinci Code. Are we thinking Angelina Jolie as the love interest in A&D?
-
Who would you have asked to direct it and then wanted to play Langdon?
-
They seem to have tried to make The Da Vinci Code in they way people perceive it (as a daring attack on religious chauvanism) as opposed to what it actually is (a fun way to spend a couple of hours). Having not seen it yet I obviously can't really comment but it seems like they've attempted to create an air of significance by the use of po-faced ostentation, ruining what could have been a great adventure thriller. I would argue that's entirely a case of choosing the wrong tone. This should have been a Brendan Fraser film....
-
that made me chuckle
-
I think Angels and Demons was a better book than the Da Vinci Code, and probably would make a better movie. That isn
-
Wait a minute, did Hanks have a mullet in that one too?!
-
Instead of serious and apparently ponderous, DAVINCI should have been more like Cage's NATIONAL TREASURE---as light as cotton candy. Though no work of genius by any means, NATIONAL TREASURE (surprisingly one of Nick Cage's most profitable movies), was a fun and lightweight treasure-hunting caper without a lot of graphic content which made it palatable to a family audience. The only thing both movies, DAVINCI and NATIONAL, have in common, is the leading men's guffaw inducing hairdos.
-
Mori, I'm surprised you didn't mention the absolutely stupid plothole in the begining. We're told that Reno's cop character is basically trying to frame Langdon for the murder of the old guy in the Louvre, a charge rediculously easy to disprove as Langdon has a couple of hundred eyewitnesses to his lecture and book signing. Totally took me out of the pic and I couldn't completely engage back in.
-
Great review Moriarty! You continue to showcase one of the best reasons to frequent this site.
-
...*that* much. Taken from a strictly historical perspective it does seem as though there *was* a bit of an attempt to alter the role of women in early christianity. Doesn't invalidate the whole faith or anything but a little unavoidable if you look at the facts (as in the *actual* facts, not the ones in DVC)...
-
That was a fun movie.
-
Yep DVC=BOTV'06
-
Good job.
-
much better than most i read on this site. all books are way better than the movies they come out with. davinci code was more of a chick book anyways. Angles and Demons was way better. they should of made that one. then there would of been some sweet gruesom deaths. i thought silas the albino monk came off as a little bitch in the book too. the casting will save this movie from flopping though.
-
Harry sucks. morty and merrick do the best jobs.
-
...for so eloquently expressing my own thoughts. You're the real deal, man. The whole thing is preposterous. --- I know that silly little book shouldn't piss me off this much, but it does. My God, it does...
-
Not entirely sure what you mean. If you mean Christ rewrote the rules for how to treat women in the Jewish culture and totally changed the role of women in the church then I would agree with you.
-
With this one!
-
You've got this kid who everyone is in awe of "Oww, it's Harry Potter" but he doesn't do anything but walk around while all the supporting actors do all the stuff - and because Harry Potter was with them it's a Harry Potter adventure. Gave the first and second their chance. Walked out of the third. Didn't even bother with the forth.
-
I feel tha same way about them.but ......the forth one was really good i thought.
-
I was refering to the role of women as religious figures as opposed to the treatment of women in general. That's the supposed theme of DVC...
-
Audrey's performance nearly destroyed the movie. It was the most wooden and dead performance I've seen, and defitinely ruptured any chemistry that might have worked with Hanks who at least was trying. I like Tautou in her other films, but maybe the English was too much for her. An English actress with a French accent would have been better.
-
Am I glad I hurried up and read that 9th grade-level novel before the movie came out. Sheesh.
-
I think I see what you mean. Yes the early Christian church did kind of buck the trend of goddess worship and temple prostitutes of the surrounding cultures. They kind of reincorporated traditional feminine qualities back into the Godhead rather than seperating the traits amongst male and female deities. Instead they suggested God made both man and woman in His image, rather than trying to make gods in the images of men and women.
-
Guess it may not be the "license to print money" that you had earlier thought. What a drop off in expectations. I hope it is good but I have some serious doubts.
-
From looking at the christian faith from an objective point of view it does seem as though what you refer to as 'reincorporating feminine qualities into the Godhead' was more an attempt to move all positive aspects of femininity away from women and towards an undeniably masculine deity. I'm not really sure what positive purpose that serves...
-
You didn't give away any of the goods and yet you told me enough about that film that I'll just sit back and put it in my Netflix queue.
-
Way to oversimplify...there are facts that are true in the book and parts of it are fiction. No one believes it is all one or the other.
-
At least for the first weekend.
-
And his buddy Russell Crowe can be Gambit? How awesome is that?
-
coincides with the nomadic hunting cultures turning to the formation of societies and gaining horticultural awareness.
-
has writen some of the worst movies of our time: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Lost IN space, IRobot. This guys is a shitty hack writer who got lucky with an oscar. He must be destroyed!
-
...but then again, he considered "Speed 2: Cruise Control" one of the best movies of 1997. (http://tinyurl.com/hhe4z)
-
She's classy.
-
Not entirely true, by ascribing many feminine qualities as having a divine inspiration it actually vindicated women and their character; if God too possessed those characteristics you could not fault a woman for displaying them, in fact they made those qualities desirable for both men and women. Remember what Paul said,
-
When you get a *yawn* director to direct a movie he's not really excited about to begin with and then he hires his buddy in the lead role whose just wrong wrong wrong for it. Why did Tom Hanks even do this movie? For the same reasons Ron Howard did? Everything I've seen from everyone involved with this has been lack of enthusiasm, so no surprise they made a boring movie...
-
I mean, look at all the women priests... Ohhh wait. I'm gonna see this movie because the book was enjoyable enough. I'm sorry it's not as amazing as it should of been, but it doesn't seem like its going to suck, despite the bad reviews.
-
Snap!
-
Is Clint Howard in there somewhere?
-
a good line. an excellent review. kudos.
-
He named the original "Speed" as one of the best of 1994 after a four star review.
He gave "Speed 2" a marginal thumbs up. But not one of the best of 1997. -
I knew MI3 would be the best of the bunch. Now that davinci's turned out to be shite, weve got X3 and Superman Returns to look forward to....and both of those look really unremarkable.
Roll on 2007 and spidey.....
-
Oh, what comes out next week? a much hyped up summer blockbuster who will...oh, another lackluster summer blockbuster. I'm looking at you Wolvie.
-
where's the review? Mori is very interested in his own opinions and musings about Ron Howard. So much so that he forgot to write a review!
-
They're a sly twisting of actual facts. That's called deception. And I'm not talking about the slams against Catholicism and Christianity, but the information relating to art and history which have managed to piss off the art world and historians as well. He would've been smarter to let the facts be facts, and the story be story.
-
banal individuals possible to make a film that should've been campy given the weight of the story. And those people are Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman.
-
May 19, 2006 12:40:59 PM CDT
"DAVINCI should've been like Cage's NATIONAL TREASURE"
by triumph poops!
Orbot Commander hits the nail on the head, and I couldn't agree more. The problem here isn't the casting of Hanks or that Howard directed it. The problem is that the whole TONE that the movie takes -- this overly dour "you MUST take this SERIOUS!" lecturesome atmosphere -- is the 500-pound rock that weighs it down and totally sinks it. If it had been done more fast flowing -- yes, more like NATIONAL TREASURE or like RAIDERS -- with Hanks going from clue to clue with a more exhuberant notion of adventure and discovery, if it was more of a true summer popcorn film, I think this movie would have turned out waaaaaay better. But by taking things so fucking serious, in an overly hammy, hit you over the head, heavy-handed way, it comes off the opposite. Now it's just eye-rolling and totally unbelievable and worst of all for a summer film...BORING!
-
national treasure, the movie written on the back of an envelope to cash-in on the whole da vinci code craze, now seems like the better movie. sure, it was no citizen kane but i, for one, was entertained.
-
It was McKellen's character. He was hands down the best part of the flick.
-
Raiders, though, has a seriousness to it that DaVinci wanted to achieve. Howard would've been better playing it safe in the National Treasure vein. Everyone is praising McKellen because he's the only one who apparently hit the right note.
-
*****Misnomer, what did you expect, the summer of
-
so I hear....
-
There is no problem with Brown's facts.
He wrote a novel not a history book.
It's legitimate to say everything is true while simultaneously lying in order to entertain.
Fargo, anyone? -
They are partially factual with the remainder being deliberate distortions of history. When you read historical fiction, you expect a fictionalized account of historical information. For instance, would you read a fictionalized account of Battle of Thermopylae, and the 300 are really 3,000, and they defeat the Persians and conquer Persia, lead by Leonidas, who really was a woman? Of course not.
-
Mel Gibson aint blacklisted, brah. he's shooting Apocalypto in a self-imposed exile in Mexico. Passion made some serious scratch and Hollywood doesn't blacklist moneymakers. because they're jews. natch.
-
"getting upset because of its theological content gives it a weight that the film never even comes close to earning."
Well put. -
tell us!
-
As a Christian, I find questioning faith rather intriguing. I loved "The Last Temptation of Christ." I took it as what it was, a "what if" scenario. Sounds to me like this movie tried to do the same, but was boring. That's its real sin. I'll wait for the TBS showing.
-
"Because they're jews". I have laughed out twice today, both because of AICN. First when I read Vern's review of some horror movie and now this. It's a good day in the neighborhood.
-
And he lamented how much work it was to turn it into a worthwhile movie because unlike Brown, he was a writer that knew how to entertain for 2 hours! Wow. What a waste. I thought this would be fun, but the reviews have been poison. I still think discussing the pseudo history would be fun. I'm just sorry that the purists are making so much noise about the possibility of Jesus being married, as if that changes anything about what's important in the faith (I'm not Catholic though, it might damage their whole take on sex and original sin and the celibacy of anything holy). Also if Jesus had children, it makes sense to me that they weren't acknowledged in any official doctrines because A, they'd be targets of the Romans or anyone who was against the Faith, and B, you'd potentially have a family claiming a birthright to leadership of the church. That such a lineage is not called out to be important in the theology of the Bible tells me that either way it's not important info. I'm sorry if I'm getting preachy, but this stuff is interesting to me. Talking about this appears to be more interesting than the movie itself. HOW'D THEY MESS THIS UP??! Ron Howard must get away from Goldsman, the man is ruining him.
-
Stupid lady on BBC News 24 gave away twist while revealing how critics laughed at it. Definitely not gonna see it now.
-
Only because one of the rabid fans of this book all but demanded it and told me it was a must read. I quit after 100 pages because it was so badly written. Now looks as though all the critics are really taking a crap on the movie. Well if they made it exactly after the book its no wonder they hate it.
-
Here's the thing.. I think about what works in the book, the idea, the 'big bad church', the creepy assassin, the little twist etc... And I think that the problem is that they got Akiva "THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING SCREENWRITER OF BATMAN AND ROBIN" Goldsman to Xerox it.. they just did a DIRECT copy of the book, no surprises at all (especially if you've read it)... and that bugs the tits off of me.. and I had a great set of tits before this film... you think about the movies that have good (if not predictable) twists, usual suspects, seven, the game, identity, fight club, that bruce willis movie.. its the fact that there's a little mystery to it, you may think that the twist is what it is, and when it hits you think.. well that figures, but not knowing for sure is exciting.. and that's the problem, there's no doubt in peoples minds of how this one is going to start, build, and end.. because it's all there, in black and white in any Barnes and Noble, or Angus and Robertson, or (insert two white guys names here) bookstores... If you've read the book, don't bother. If you haven't and you've remained as spoiler free as possible, then try and have fun with it.. I reckon it's a 2 1/2 out of 5 movie that will do well because of "buzz"..
-
So that's not why I'll see it. I am kind of disappointed by the response; I was hoping it'd be sort of like Indiana-Jones-But-Intellectually but it sounds like all of the sense of adventure is gone. And speaking of Gibson, he's not exactly on Hollywood's good side just because he's making another movie right now. The fact that the Passion did better than everyone in Hollywood thought it would confused them, and then pissed them off.
-
as soon as I saw who was in it. No, not Tom Hanks or Ian McKellan or that Amelie chick.....I mean the part of the wierdo albino monk-assassin. If Ron Howard were going to do this movie right, he would've given that role to Clint Howard. Good gravy, he would've been perfect. Instead, we get bland old Paul Bettany, who I have been assured is a great actor though I have yet to be really impressed with anything he's done.
-
I'm sure the movie is deeply flawed and perhaps as terrible as they (this is the writer who gave us "Lost in Space" and the director who gave us "The Grinch" after all). But I think the critics were predisposed to not like the movie...primarily because it pisses them off that this silly, poorly written novel has sold 60 million copies. I am reminded of all the terrible reviews "Gigli" got, mainly because everyone was sick of Bennifer. Now, don't get me wrong--"Gigli" is certainly a bad movie but not nearly terrible enough to justify the reviews it recieved.
-
May 19, 2006 7:25:38 PM CDT
"He was a writer that knew how to entertain for 2 hours
by triumph poops!
So Goldsman feels he's a writer that knows how to entertain for 2 hours? That statement tells us alot. It tells us that after Goldsman finishes typing and gets up from the desk, he's never actually SAT THROUGH one of his craptacular productions. Look up "Greatest hack on the planet" and you'll find a picture of the man. I'll never forgive him for utterly shitting the movie version of LOST IN SPACE. And for foisting BATMAN AND ROBIN upon the world, let's be honest -- the man should be tried for crimes against humanity.
-
I was reaching for a pillow after about an hour!!!!!
But, I think a sequel should be made and Jodie Foster should star as Nell and she should decipher Dakota Fannings career and then bury her for a thousand years!!! -
If you don't believe the story, then suspend disbelief. It's a fun flick that - in my opinion - stays too close to the book. There could have been things improved upon. But it's not this flaming pile of shit critics or so-called 'critics' like the above would have you believe.
-
Go to www.rottentomatoes.com and on the first page of "Da Vinci" reviews, the same review blurb is repeated 7 times. Did they count it 7 times to calculate the movie's score? There may be other repeats...something fishy going on there.
-
Despite the lack of substance in THE DA VINCI CODE, and the obvious lack of authority the author, Dan Brown, has over the main topics in his own work, Christians should avoid this film. I was against a boycott at first because that's usually what purposefully controversial works want in order to gain extra publicity. Then again, the book has already been a best seller, so the film already has the publicity it needs, along with some help from the major media. Therefore, a call for a boycott by Christian leaders will drive home the point that any claims this book makes directly, or implies, despite being fiction, are contrary to the true history of traditional Christianity and its beliefs. What implications and claims does Brown's story make that traditional Christians should find insulting? Misrepresenting Christ as not divine, not God Incarnate, and denying his miracles, including the most important miracle, the Resurrection, is a major attack on Christ and traditional Christianity. Such attacks, along with the popularity of this book should concern Christians, and the many inaccuracies about Christianity that the author either claims as fact or are being confused as fact.
Brown's work is based largely on conspiracy theories and heresies the Church has dealt with since its beginnings. The biggest heresy is Gnosticism which denies the divinity of Christ. This is based on the so called Gnostic Gospels which were written much later than the original canonical gospels. Does a Christian really need to know anything else before knowing this is a work they probably shouldn't promote or support in any way? Forget that Brown's book makes the illogical and non-historical claim Christ was married. The bigger issue is that Brown's Christ is not Divine. Not the Son of God. Brown also bases his work on a pagan belief in 'the sacred feminine', which apparently also became a fad for hippies in the 60's. So, there's something for conservatives to consider getting 'outraged' at, also. It's essentially a story that promotes feminism, and reduces Jesus to just being a teacher. To justify this Brown takes liberties with legitimate history, either for the sake of the story, or just out of ignorance.
The positive thing about this film for Christians is that many good books refuting the premise of Da Vinci code have come out. I have read three, and found them to be very educational. There are two books that have the same title The Da Vinci Deception, with different subtitles , and The Da Vinci Hoax by Olson. The beauty of these books is that you don't have to read Brown's work. The books actually make a good case not to read Brown's work. In addition to its hostility toward traditional Christianity, author Mark Shea points out that Brown's writing "is not particularly exceptional and neither is his knowledge of art and history." Here's an example from Mark Shea's DA VINCI DECEPTION: "Brown routinely refers to the great renaissance artist, engineer, and scientist as 'Da Vinci' and thereby trains millions of readers to do likewise. But the reality is that Leonardo Da Vinci has traditionally been known as 'Leonardo' for the same reason that Jesus of Nazareth is called 'Jesus' and not 'of Nazareth' and Francis of Assisi is referred to as 'Francis' and not 'of Assisi'. This elementary blunder, enshrined throughout the book (and its very title) is a dead giveaway that , whoever Leonardo is, The Da Vinci Code will not be a reliable source of information about him."
Both Shea and Olson also point out many other examples of Brown's lack of authority on the subjects he writes about. First of all, the ridiculous idea that the apostle sitting next to Jesus in Leonardo's Last Supper painting is a female, when paintings of that period often portrayed youthful men with feminine features. Just a couple of facts among many that Brown gets wrong about Leonardo himself. Both authors also point out major inaccuracies about Opus Dei, which is not a secret organization, as Brown's story claims, and is made up of mostly lay people. Yet in Da Vinci Code, the assassin is a member of Opus Dei and is a monk. There are no monks in Opus Dei. Brown also essentially makes up an academic discipline called 'symbology', while showing a very shallow understanding of traditional symbols and true and deep meaning behind them. Another inaccuracy in the story is the claim that the cup of Christ is missing in Leonardo's painting, when in reality one can count thirteen cups for each person in the Last Supper. Another example of how this plot is truly no more sophisticated than that of a Saturday morning cartoon adventure.
From what I understand about the story, essentially being many long speeches and preaching by the main character, it doesn't sound like it will translate well into film. Not a good formula for a 'thriller' with a limited amount of action. The book fan-base will give it a good opening, but I doubt this film will have legs. I personally am disappointed in those involved in the film, but shouldn't be surprised. -
wanted to buy the rights to the book and use the story for an entire season, substituting Jack Bauer for Robert Langdon. Dan Brown refused but is probably wishing he had reconsidered. If nothing else, it would almost certainly would have become the most watched TV show season of all time. Probably would've been easier to get all that religious exposition out over the space of a 24 season instead of a 2 1/2 hour movie. Oh well...
-
-ed. Jesus wasn't an important figure until well after he died and Christianity was started.
-
hollywood can crank out one loser after another after another, and yet i can't even get someone to even look at one of my ideas without my having to sign a fucking waiver. i might as well just start a bonfire, and burn the lot of them. i've wasted twenty years of my life, and i'm sick and tired of beating my head against fortress hollywood. so, fuck you too - keep your shitty remakes and reimaginings and your endless sequels, and i will take my original ideas to the grave with me. you had your chance.
-
And why not. You know it's going to make a ton of money. Except it won't be getting any of mine. Not because of any religious reasons, but because the whole thing just sounded stupid. Sorry, Di Vinci fans. Color me hater on this one, and the lowest, most scum-sucking kind too--that "Never Ever Will See The Movie, Doesn't Care, And Takes Time Out of the Day to Talkback About Not Liking It." Oh, the level I have just sunk too. I need to stare in the mirror and gaze upon what I've become.
-
And how much more kickass it would have been If Jack Bauer was in Da Vinci code, he would have cracked a few corrupt priest skulls, made the albino cry like at little bitch he is, solve the mystery of that map thing in under 5 minutes (while it was wired to explode) and probably have enough time left over for a tender moment with the French chick, AND save the world from a Nuclear threat. In an hour and 30 minutes. Tops. Now THAT would have been a fucking movie. as it stands, its boring and exposition heavy as fuck. (note the Bauer's Da Vinci code rumour is from IMDB. So, I dunno how accurate that is. Cause, you know, its IMDB... still, Jack Bauer would have made this movie infinitely better.)
-
pretty damn average. and anyone who says boycott, um, u really are an idiot. so it implies Jesus might not have been divine, so what? i don't think Jesus was divine? should you boycott me? if anything the DaVinci code movie is TOO politically correct, trying to please everyone at the end. simply because you question a religion doesn't make it an "insult." too bad DaVinci code really isn't smart enough to warrant such "deep thought" anyways.
-
until St. Paul spread the word.
-
In the "trivia" section for "Da Vinci". Sometimes that info is good, sometimes not...so take it with a grain of salt. I think it's probably true. I could do a google search to find out more but I'm so damn lazy...maybe later. Can anyone imagine Jack Baeur manicly screaming "We've got to get to a library! Fast!" ? I know say this way too often but man oh man, I wish MST3K was still around...
-
So there was no danger. There's no record of him existing, outside of the gospels, and even Paul/Saul said that Jesus existed in a realm outside our own, and ignored the story of his birth, miracles, and life before crucifixion. The story is just a rehash of dozens of other, previous "hero king" avatar myths, from Dionysus to Heracles to Mithras to Perseus, and on and on... The story's always the same. The Christian explanation for those versions of the story being around thousands of years before Christ? "Satan planted them in history to make the birth of Jesus seem less divine." Yeah, right. Nothing like ret-conning world history.
-
"National Treasure" was in development long before anyone had heard of "The Da Vinci Code." You can say that the studio fast-tracked it to jump on the bandwagon, but don't accuse the scriptwriters of something they didn't do.
-
there was a man
who painted pictures
such as the Mona Lisa
and drew drawings
of helicopters and six armed dudes
before they even existed
he starred in Hollywood films
such as Ever After and Hudson Hawk
his name was Rick.
Rick Da Vinci -
before "Da Vinci" but it wasn't given the greenlight until the book became a huge bestseller and was probably rewritten with that in mind. Frankly, I think I'd rather see a movie about real Vatican corruption that has taken place in the past than all this made-up conspiracy theory BS (which is impossible to prove or disprove, like God himself). It doesn't have to be anti-Christian or anti-Catholic....all institutions contain some level of corruption at various times and mid-way through the 20th century, the Vatican had PLENTY. I recall Francis Ford Coppola mentioning on "The Godfather Part III" commentary that at one point, the Vatican actually owned Paramount Studios. Good stuff...
-
The Da Vinci Toad is a poisonous amphibian which habitates in the warm climes of the tropics. It's chameleon like ability to alter it's skin to match it's surroundings is a defense mechanism to protect itself against all predators great and small. It prefers wheat toast over white, butter over margarine, and life over death. But it will kill you on nothing more than a whim.
-
They bend over backwards in the first paragraphs of their reviews to tell their scared little simpleton readers that they have nothing to fear from this film...talk about pandering. Even Roger Ebert does it. You have to be a retard to fear a friggin' movie. But I guess if your beliefs are a flimsy house of cards, then you are petrified of someone knocking it over with a few words of truth. But the reviews all suck because they are so transparently manipulative. I bet many of the reviewers love the movie, but they are afraid to say it for it might anger their low-IQ readers...pathetic.
-
... in the da vinci code? Would Audrey Raines be the last descendant of christ? Or Kim Bauer? Jack's, "dammit's" would've carried a lot more meaning. I would've liked them to discover that the Holy Grail actually was indeed Jack's sack of badness.
-
It's like Rocky Road, but more DaVinchish.
-
You can argue Jesus wasn't the Son of God, but no serious historian, secular or Christian, would argue he never existed. You can put your "just old myths re-hashed" theory onto the gospels if you like, but to argue the man never lived is pitiful.
-
Thank you. Debating how much mythologizing went on with our good friend the J-man is one thing, but some people go a little overboard on the Debunk Train. Or do you go overboard on the Debunk Yacht?
-
Come aboard...we're expecting you.
-
...I think everyone will be sound asleep by the controversial parts, so maybe Christians ARE getting too riled up about it. Worst part of the movie? The score.
-
just got back from seeing it..haven't seen that many people in a theater in a long time..
-
I was falling asleep during the first hour of Apollo 13. I liked Beautiful Mind until I found out it was all bullshit. Cinderella Man.. yeah whatever. Far and Away, give me a fuckin break. The Paper.... for my ass!!! His older movies will always be near classics.
-
It's a detective story. It moves and paces like an adult movie and it's very entertaining. I'm really at a loss as to why people don't like it. Thumbs up for me.
-
Cause the false endings you were talking about were all in there. The audience I was with didn't have any problems with it and laughed at appropriate moments.
-
... just got back from this and everything Mori states in the review is dead-on. It was a competnetly executed movie but was soulless. The story overall could have made for an awesome thriller. The book was poorly written but was still a page-turner. Even though the "facts" are in-fact fiction does not lessen the compeling nature of the narrative. I think they blew their chance to create one of those great timeless thrillers. This film will do well becuase while is is not spectacular it is still better than most of the crap out there.
-
Your a fucking dick
-
Regarding the "facts" of the novel. I think everyone can agree that the more outrageous elements of the book (killer albino monks, etc.) are pure fantasy by Brown in order to create a "thriller". But as for the rest, about Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having a child, etc.--let's assume its true just for the sake of argument. What difference does it really make? Since when is Jesus' divinity somehow tied to his celibacy? If they were married, surely that doesn't disgrace Jesus. And what if---big if---his descendants have survived to this century. Woul they have special Jesus powers, becoming the life of every party turning water into wine? The problem I think is that it is generally accepted notion that Jesus was put on earth for one purpose--to die for our sins--and somehow the thought of him as husband and father undermines that. But I don't think it should...of course all of this is besides the point because you will never be able to prove or disprove these allegations definitely. However, anyone that could have their beliefs, values and faith questioned by a poorly plotted, hackneyed sensationalist needs to get a grip.
-
...is because they believe everybody else thinks the same fucked up way they do. They've been taught to only believe what you are told, and not question it, so they think the same will apply when people read DaVinci Code. They don't realize that regular people are actually capable of logical thought and can decipher between fiction and fact. I love how the guy above says we should read all the DaVinci Code rebuttals, BUT DON'T DARE READ THE DAVINCI CODE. How much sense does that make? Why read a rebuttal to something you don
-
It was better then the book. The book itself wasn't all that well written but had an interesting mix of theories and mystery. The movie improved upon the narrative, and was visually apealing. I knew what to expect, so alot of what it's been critized for didn't bother me, since the book had the same problems. If I hadn't read the book, then i may have been disapointed. It wasn't a great movie, but it was good.
-
The Catholic church demonizes sex, even marital sex, in so many ways. First, none of their leaders are allowed to have sex, next Mary never had sex her whole life, third they flip out if you mention the possibility that Jesus had marital sex. Let's break it down- 1. Why no leadr sex? Catholic families are expected to encourage their eldest son to enter the Priesthood because traditionally the eldest son inherits his parent's money which would then go to the church upon his death. 2. Mary remaining a virgin is just plain retarded and not even in the Bible/totally made up, what possible need would God have by keeping her a virgin other than to subconsciously tell people that sex, sex is bad m'kay. 3. Accepting Jesus' divinity and all of that, what better way for Jesus to be our perfect sacrifice than for him to experience the whole experience of humanity. Come Judgement Day no one would be able to claim that God just doesn't understand what it's like to be a human and how hard it was, and that is the point of Jesus/God becoming man is it not? So along those same lines, if Jesus did indeed marry and have sex with his wife then what is the problem? The only problem is that many religious people have WRONG ideas about sex that are unfortunetely taught to them by their stupid church.
-
to solve a 2000 year old mystery. At least it looked like it all happened overnight in the film. I never read the book.
-
Marry remained a virgin, hmm? Prove it. The fact is, she was married to Joseph long after the birth of Jesus and thusly, the marriage rights and practices would have been observed. There is no reason, biblically or legally to suggest that Mary and Joseph would not consumate their marriage as per Jewish Law when they made their vows. The only reason the Catholic church and others of similar stance have ever made this claim is because they believe that Mary was married to G-d, which is ludicrous--she was married to Joseph and conceived G-d's child. The Bible, catholic or otherwise, does mention brothers, but it could mean either cousins OR brothers and there is no definitive evidence to dispute either legitimate claim--we could in effect have a round-robin argument for eternity. However, if there is one thing I'm quite familiar with, its Jewish Marriages (my wife is Jewish). Joseph and Mary were married, and surely had sex after the birth of Jesus. Simply because the bible ceases to talk about every consumate act, whether kissing, hugging, holding hands, or having sexual practices, does not mean they did not happen. It is simply a case of you, and to a larger extent, the Catholic Church, WANT to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin and base your claim on a series of assumptions. The Bible mentions brothers of Jesus, which could mean either cousins or brothers; you thusly assume it means cousins when there is no evidence either way. Based upon that initial assumption, you assume that she didnt have sex, when it could be for a number of other reasons, all equally valid. You then assume that she remained a virgin out of love for G-d, another blind assumption based on Catholic Revisionism.
-
If Hairy Nutsack's name says it all about him, what does yours say about you? Do you truly believe that "God" came down from heaven and impregnated a woman who then gave birth to "his" son? The story of Jesus' divinity is nothing more than a story of politics. When the Christians tried to sell the movement to the Greeks they encountered a problem in that the Greeks had an intimate relationship with their gods, who lived among them and even had children with them. To get the Hellenized world to buy into the Jesus thing the Church leaders "adapted" the story to fit the people. Besides which, let me ask you a question or two. One of the commandments "God" gave to Moses was that one should not commit adultery. Correct? If so, when "God" came down from heaven and impregnated the "Virgin" Mary (who was engaged to be married to the carpenter Joseph) did "God" not break his own commandment? What kind of "God" is that? Anyway, don't mind me, forget everything I said, don't question anything, and go back to your nice, neat, and completely flawed worldview where everything written in the Bible is pure, complete and unadulterated truth. You scare me...
-
By the way, Im not trying to undermine your other arguments, many of which I agree with, but I do agree with the previous poster concerning the church's regulation and association of divinity with those that abstain from sex. You see, the Catholic church views mary as a divine being, roughly equivelent to a g-d. The church was able to promote this idea because it has taken the view that she was pure, untouched, as it were. Furthermore, the assumption is that when she states herself to be blessed, as she does in Luke, the leap is made that we should view her as pure and holy, rather than HONORED, as is supposed to be translated. Again, catholicism does indeed promote divinity through abstinance, and many are right to criticize the church for this rather hypocritical stance.
-
After everyone runs out to see it this weekend. Horrible reviews, so-so word of mouth and Opie's worst movie ever will cause a box office drop of biblical proportions next weekend.
-
well, the view is that G-d didnt have sex with her, per se, as much as he CREATED a child inside her, out of thin air, as it were, rather than biologically. I'm not asking you to believe this, by the way, just clarifying. I understand why you would have this misconception, however, as the Catholic church have heavily promoted the notion that Mary was married to G-d, which only undermines the entire Messiah prophecy in the old testement/talmud. Again, save for the record keeping they did in the early centuries, I blame the Catholic church for 99.9% of the problems concerning Christianity and Judeo-Christian relations.
-
The book was a decent page turner. It was not a profound, life-altering experience, but it was a fun read. I am referring to the Holy Bible. Dan Brown's book, The DaVinci Code was as entertaining and somewhat more coherrent and intelligent, but still not "life altering." The movie was about as close to the book as I can imagine a movie getting. The problem is that so much of it is telling and not showing, which seemed to me to be the shortcoming of adapting a mystery where you can't really "show" but constantly have to explain. The movie is overly heavy in exposition and I don't think there was any way around that........As for the facts concerning all this, there is not actually any evidence that would lead a rational mind to conclude that Jesus even existed. Concluding that Jesus was real based on the sources we have would be like future generations concluding that Scarlet O'Hara existed............Of course the Priory of Sion was invented a few years ago (as has been confessed by the guy who made it up), but it was not a historical fact and Newton and daVinci never belonged to it or even heard of it. Brown is likely embarassed for asserting that such things were real .......But still, if this movie and the NOVEL that it adapts cause even one person to doubt religion, then it is worthwhile. One less person willing to sacrifice reason to faith is a good thing. Yes, Dan Brown's book is a work of fiction, with enough history thrown in to cause the uninformed to wonder. And so is the Holy Bible. Having seen films based on both, I found the DaVinci Code movie watchable, enjoyable, and a reasonably intelligent entertainment. Thumbs up.
-
Have to agree about showing not telling to, what the hell else can you do with this novel? And one more the God botherers, surely if you really cared about your faith you'd be out at soup kitchens helping the poor and telling them you are doing it because of Jesus and not protesting a piece of fiction. Do you think God cares more about a movie that doesn't even insult him or his child or does he care more about the people dying of starvation?
-
Moriarty, do you really think that Robert Langdon should be more physically heroic so that he can more comfortably fit into your narrow view of the genre? Would you prefer he strap on a gunbelt? This is NOT the Adventure Genre with its associated conventions. This is an intellectual suspense. Langdon is not there to beat people up or shoot guns. He is there to solve codes. Perhaps you noticed the cool special effect they came up with to try to make this activity more graphic (Or, rather, the one they lifted from "A Beautiful Mind")? The "I have to get to a library...now!" line was funny and was clearly meant to be funny. Why do you say it was unintentional humor? You didn't get it because you don't get Robert Langdon. He is NOT Indiana Jones. He is not a brutal or physical man. He is not a brawler. He doesn't pack a whip when he goes on a trip. He doesn't own a gun. He avoids violence. He is a symbologist. He is a man of the brain. The point of this characterization is that he is up against brutal people and his only hope is to outthink them because he cannot outfight them. As a writer, do you really not understand this point? Did you really go into the theature looking for a Saturday Morning cartoon? Did you really want to see a Harvard Professor in Symbology cracking skulls and kicking ass? Were you looking for Indiana Jones? Did you miss the point of this character so badly that you were disappointed not to see Harrison Ford up there? In the thick of trouble, this is a man who, rather than saying in a Rambo voice "I need to get to an armory so I can wax my chest and strap on a rocket launcher" says "I need to get to a library." That's my kind of hero! Intellectual excitement for a change. Moriarty, you've already got Rambo and Indiana and Bond and such to satisfy your popcorn cravings for fisticuffs.....can't we have ONE hero who just uses intelligence, education, and a determined curiosity? Robert Langdon is a step in the right direction. Looking forward to "Angels and Demons."
-
The Da Vinci Code hysteria has proved one thing...Religion is truly the opiate of society.
-
First: DrWorm2002, I'm sorry you don't get my wacky brand of morning zoo DJ-style inyourface comedy. as for Jesus..... if Jesus had a child or not is irrelevant. Saying the child would somehow be special or would have Jesus's magic is nuts. It would be worshipping the flesh. and that's not the point. it's like people who pray to the symbol and not the concept that the symbol symbolizes. frankly, the story falls apart if you place it in the real world. either Jesus was a god or a man. if he was a God, he didn't suffer. if he was a man, he did. but he can't die for me any more than he can have breakfast for me. the Bible is a pretty good book. and I identify with the main character of the New Testament. which is the point.
-
How is it that almost every other form of Christianity besides Catholicism allows for their priests to marry? They carry an equivalent workload as Catholic Priests. All believers are to see themselves as the bride and Christ as the bridegroom, so marriage is obviously not a hindrance to serving God. I don't mean to attack your beliefs; it is when things are added to Biblical Christianity that problems arise both inside the Church and how the outside world percieves it.
-
I've never seen anything like that in my life. I think I will hold off on this till Tuesday or so. I'm anxious to see it since I just finished the book.
-
if the story of the Bible were placed in the real world, the pupose of Jesus's death would be lost to the church. he would be just a man. (as he probably was, but you know how things get blown out of porportion) the other, unrelated thought, was that if Jesus had a child, why would that make him any less divine? i'm not entirely sure why it matters. he ate, he slept, he wept, he fought. there's no reason to believe he couldn't father a child. if this story were rewritten in a modern context, it may be helpful to today's people. and if it got back to the man and his teachings, it may matter once more. again, i'm not in my most coherent frame of mind. apologies.
-
It was on 5 screens at the Showcase Cinemas in Manchester, CT and they were all sold out. I thought the film was terrific and the audience seemed to agree. What's your guess, $70 million this weekend?
-
May 20, 2006 10:55:23 AM CDT
Hey, no fair bible-bashing due to lack of "coherency."
by 'cholera's ghost
Of course a popular modern novel is going to be more coherent than something written by about five hundred different religious zealots over a 1,500 year period.
-
So Mary and Joseph did consumate their marriage. The controversy was that Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she was married to Joseph. Which would obviously be humiliating for Joseph because it suggests adultery. As for whether or not God impregnated Mary, if you believe he holds atoms together and created the entire universe, and formed you in the womb, this really is not a big debate item.
-
for him to accept the enormous duty of raising a family knowing he was going to be teaching and travelling, then crucified and ascending to heaven afterwards? This took place within a relatively short period, so when would he have time for this? Obviously, whether or not you personally believe Jesus is who he says he is, he clearly believed it. Jesus lived in complete accordance with what he preached and his mission was divine; he was not here just for Mary or his descendants, but for millions, according to his own words.
-
Just like the rest of humanity. For instance, when anything mentioning Jesus or the Bible is discussed in any manner even remotely approaching reverential, people tend to freak out and say the most irrational things!
-
May 20, 2006 12:24:03 PM CDT
i don't think questioning a book about a 2,000 year old
by hypeendshere
man with superpowers is neccesarily "irrational". however, if we could get back to his radical teachings and not focus on the hocus pocus later attributed to him (understandably so. i mean, Paul Bunyon was a lumberjack of renown which gave rise to his being 50ft. tall and able to wipe out a forest with a single swing of an axe) we'd be better off. but his amazing voice that gave rise to the legendary aspects have been overshadowed by the legend itself.
-
the Christians complaining are doing they same thing they accuse the Christians of. They are just as ill-informed and reactionary most of the time.***Anyway, if God created the entire universe, and holds atoms together, etc., why are superpowers by a man who says he is God automatically irrational? The issue is whether 1) God exists, and 2) is Jesus telling the truth. Everything comes back to whether or not something is true with a reasonable degree of certainty, which makes it a belief. The Bible is not legend, anymore than Herodotus is legend. Even non-believing historians agree with this. Archeaology continues to support the Bible's historical claims. The Bible is also not philsophically contradictory as some claim, which makes its claims more convincing in my opinion, given the number of writers and length of time it covers.
-
The biggest problems Christians have with "The Da Vinci Code" is NOT the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting it on. It's the suggestion that the idea of Jesus' divinity being a human invention.
-
I dont get all the negativity. I enjoyed the book and also liked the movie. oh well.
-
30 million, just about. figure probably 80-85 for the whole weekend... more than people expected. I'm seeing it tonight, and I don't much care if it's just a bunch of exposition... it's subject matter than interests me, so I'm sure I won't be bored if I can sit through 3 hours of it every day in lecture hall.
-
radical. Still are. Have you seen the film?
-
God holding atoms together? What are you talking about? Why would anyone in the 21st century believe that atoms are held together by "God?" Children are made by people screwing, not by God putting kids in wombs. If Mary had a kid, it's because she was scoring some pole. Whether it was Joseph's or someone elses might be in debate... but if you want to say that God tagged that ass, you'll first have to offer a rational definition of "God." As for those "radical teachings," most are borrowed from other cultures and philosophies. "Be nice" isn't novel. Even the idea of foisting one's sins off on someone else wasn't new. People have been trying to avoid responsibility since the dawn of history.
-
For the people who said this was slow paced, we must have seen a different movie. I was fully entertained throughout. And this is coming from someone who never read the book, but is a huge history nut. All the flashback sequences in the film to past history are fact by the way. This is a crazy ass world! HIghly recommended!
-
Actually, "YackBacker," I must point out that there were quite a number of loons running around in that era claiming to be the Messiah. I don't think "Render unto Caesar" qualifies as a rejection of economics. Of course, this is all conjecture. There's no evidence that the dude ever lived. Is that nice enough, sir?
-
it's because she was scoring some pole. (Fucking hilarious)
I'm assuming that this movie is horrible, like the reviewers have been saying.
If we learned anything from Scary Movie 4, it's that most people don't give half a shit about what critics think about movies. -
Jesus, Lincoln, JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., Medgar Evers, and John Lennon all found that out.
-
being true, are two different things. Did Herodotus live, or is that just conjecture? You at least should be consistent. What about Aristotle, Plato?
-
It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Those overturned the economic beliefs of the day, which were you could buy your way into heaven. And actually, all of Jesus' teachings political/economical, etc. were and are radical.
-
I guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity. (source: www.boxofficeguru.com)
-
I would be surprised if it didn't make money hand over fist, no matter how bad the reviews.
-
And while we're here, I keep seeing "lightweight airport fare" thrown at this movie. What does that mean anyway? Does Moriarty (or anyone else throwing around this phrase) even know? These people would have us believe that they spend their copious free time reading "real" literature. Get over yourselves. (And yes, I'm a Da Vinci Code fanboy, but this is a rant that needs to be made anyway. :) )
-
Gawd spoke to me last night in my sleep and said Glodene i'm gon' make me ovah $80 million smackaroos ovah da weekend, cuz pimpin' is my game and Hollywood is my BEEYOTCH!
-
As a fan of this "lightweight airport fare", I have to be admit to being a combination of amused and frustrated that Moriarty couldn't seem to understand the main character, basically characterizing Langdon is a wimpy nerd who gets beat up easily and thus is no way comparable to Indiana Jones. (Wow).
-
Why exactly does the Jean Reno cop think Langdon killed the guy in the museum? If he was giving a lecture at the same time as the murder, doesn't he have hundreds of witnesses to verify his alibi? Is there really a need for him to go on the run? And if these secrets have been kept for thousands of years, how can two civillians running from the "French FBI" manage to uncover it all in 24 hours? And while I'm at it...why does Hanks' hair look so damn greasy?
-
The immediate answer that covers most of your questions is: its a dimestore novel. That said, all that's left is your greasy hair question. Well, Hanks' hair is naturally frizzy/curly and the only way he was ever going to get it to look like a mane is with a half can of 10w-40.
-
Ye' Olde Funk & Wagnall sez: A paperback novel, usually on someone or other's best seller list, usually purchased in an airport news-stand or gift shop, which one buys to pass the time whilst sitting 'round the terminal, that is: Passingly entertaining, but not so engrossing or thought provoking that you'll really mind if you lose it somewhere along the way before you've finished it. Or, won't feel bad about throwing away half read, if you decide it's too much trouble to carry around anymore at some point in your travels. Please see: "Jurassic Park", "The Silence of the Lambs", "Hearts in Atlantis" and "The Da Vinci Code" for examples.
-
Invalid Entry "dont get all the negativity." Um, I thought it was a shitty film and will quite happily explain why to anyone who cares to listen - while respecting the fact that we don't all respond to any film/book/piece of music/television show the same way.
One thing that really fucks me off are actors and dictors - like Howard pissing and whining in the Reuters report in my newspaper yesterday - because the whole world isn't a fully pimped out extention of their publicity operation.
Make better films and I'll be so damn positive you'll be knocked into a diabetic coma at a thousand paces. Until then, stop whining like some punk bitch who can't understand why Mary Jane won't let you feel her up.
-
...thatcan measure my indifference to this film.
-
Nothing prepared for what i was about to see and the speed at which this film utterly distingerates before your eyes is amasing considering the actors involved. Lets Start with Hanks, my god what were you thinking when you signed to do this, to say hanks looks he was a sleep is an understatement then there is audrey Tautou as the pretty french woman Sophia Nevue and that is all that is pretty much why she is there to be the pretty french woman. Then there is Jean Reno as fache, Paul bettany has good scenes and when he is on screen, there are real jolts however he his let down by his unplaceable accent. Alfred molina is giving nothing as a the head of Opus Dei and it is sad to see a great actor wasted in nothing role. one hour in and we meet Sir Ian MCKellen as lee teabing. Sir Ian's scene are hilarious. After this however the movie goes off the rails completely and pretty much goes down hill. Not that it was up hill to begin with. The problem with this movie really is the screenplay, they adapted the book but they never bolstered to make it a better screenplay and so as a consequence all the conspiracies end like one big huge car pile up. by the end this movie gets radically more stupid as it nears its idiotic conclusion. I saw this film when it was called indiana jones and the raiders of the lost and indiana jones and the last crusade. Dont bother seeing this utter rubbish go out and buy the indiana triliogy and enjoy.
This is one of the strangest looking films that i have ever seen, the stuff with the knights templar is bizarre looking.
I cannot think of single reason why anyone should see this film at all, but if one is dumb enough to fall for browns cobbled together history then fine. -
That's why it's so meaningless. Add that to the review and you wonder if Moriarty (and others) even understand what they're looking at. If I were a psychiatrist, I'd say people came into this movie with lots of preconceptions (good and bad) and merely reverse fitted what they actually saw to fit their preconceptions, no matter how ridiculous it sounds (see: Indiana Jones as Langdon). But I'm not a psychologist so I'll avoid that. :)
-
Hey, I had never read the book, and I was still bored during the final half-hour of the film. The story's premise is pretty interesting (for a movie) and I immensely enjoyed Iam Mckellen's performance. As I said in another talkback, this film suffers from a major flaw: its climax occurs 2/3rds of the way in. Tom Hanks is pretty bland in this film, its true, but all that is fixed by a relatively interesting opening act and enlivened by Mckellen. It is when Mckellen pulls a snagglepuss and we are left with Captain Bland that the movie slows down to an expository crawl that lasts 30 minutes! Still, I got my money's worth, and I think your typical movie-goer will enjoy it--I know I did. Oh, and not only did I not read the book, I did not know the plot, either, when I went in.
-
didnt even register with me. It wasnt ludicrous and was said in a matter of fact way--I dont know how Mori thought the line was said in a dramatic fashion.
-
WWW.RUBENSREVIEWS.COM
-
This movie will no way be nearly as successful as what it was hyped up to be.
-
I just saw it and I loved it. I don't get the reviews, I was entertained throughout. The only thing that felt off to me was Tom Hanks' delivery of some lines but other than that what a great movie. Critics need to get over themselves.
-
Why hasn't harry reviewed it? Saving all his hate for X-Men?
-
Same as every book-to-screen adaptation since LOTR: So much story to speed through that the characters get no time...and the time they do get is horrible because they're horribly written. Akiva really deserves to be flogged by a million wet noodles for this one, because if handled right, there was no way you could miss with a story that was already a hit around the world, but he really managed to f**k it up. I'd say more about it, but I slept through half of it. Save your money and go rent the National Geographic documentary on the Gospel of Judas or any one of the docs about "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" instead...
-
If he actually solved much of anything in the film, I would accept your arguments about the nature of his heroism. But he doesn't. He stands around and lets things sort themselves out. And the "clues" he solves ("Use the Fibonacci sequence") are so patently obvious that it doesn't make him seem like he needed any special set of skills to accidentally uncover THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD!
-
haven't read this book & don't care about this movie, but SO glad the box office is doing so well just based on my limited knowledge that the idiotic christian right and fox news can't seem to realize that THIS IS FICTION and NOT A THREAT TO THEIR ARCHAIC BELIEF SYSTEM. this movie's success is vindication for, if nothing else, sanity ...
-
Uh oh, zacdilone. We need to throw out another Debunk Love Boat life preserver.
-
People tend to dismiss Brown's facts as untruths and they tend to be wrong - Chrth states "Even if you just treat the first page (which he says are facts), he's wrong. The Priory of Sion is fictional." which would be fine if it was true. The modern day Priory was made up by 4 French right-wing nationalists in the 50's which is why people say its a fiction ignoring the historical Priory which definitly existed. By most accounts said Priory had links with the Templars and fell out of fashion when they lost their powerbase. Their links to any Sang Raal conspiracy are what is tenous.
The secret of Brown's book is because the conspiracies are by their nature "hidden" you can pretty much make up any links or reasons for certain things andtheir is a level of plausability to them. It doesn't hurt that for the first 1500 years or so the Catholic Church was riddled with corruption, splits, major revisions and scandals. It was only after people like the Lutherans split and were able to succesfully establish alternate versions of the Christian religion that the Catholic Church started to really become what we know it as today. Once people knew they could split off without persecution those who wanted to did rather than having very radically different factions within the established church. Couple that with the decline in Church political power and the subsequent lessening in the corruption related to political powerplays changed the very nature of the church. Legend has it that one Pope who had already fathered 6 children bought his way into the job with bribes so enormous that "the streets ran with gold". The Church of the Dark Ages was so corruption riddled that almost any scenario is pretty much believable so Brown uses that grey uncertainty to weave a plausible scenario.
Truth be told most of the Bible is iffy. The Old Testemant version of God is a violent and vengeful one whilst the New Testament version is much more forgiving. Events in the Old Testemant never occurred - Moses leading Jewish slaves out of Israel for instance is pretty unlikely since history tends to indicate that slavery wasn't all that heavy in Egypt. The writing of the books (which had previously been an oral tradition) occured during the time during & after Babylonian conquest and enslavement of the scribes and probably explains the "need" for a story of escaping enslavement as well as numerous negative Babylonian references elsewhere. Even in the four books concerning Jesus there is considerable differences in how events are presentented because of the differing views of those who wrote them.
The best way to look at the Bible or any other ancient religious work is to not overly concern yourself with the facts and worry more about the messages. Even if your not a Christian the peacve and love attitude of Jesus is a pretty nice one and the 10 Commandments are for the most part reasonably decent moral codes to live by - certainly few people could argue with thou shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness, be envious etc. In the end religion is a matter of faith , some people are heavily committed to a religion, some are agnostic or atheist others like me believe there is more but dont think that any human alive knows exactly what that is. To be honest even if Jesus had multiple wives and children it wouldn't matter because thats less important than the ideas he espouses in the Bible. People should just enjoy or hate the book and film for their entertainment value because the facts are probably not something any of us are going to know in our lifetimes. -
I read the book when it came out, and I didn't think of it as anything but pulp. It was an entertaining page-turner, with some ideas that I thought were interesting. But still pulp. It would have made an interesting thriller/adventure movie if it had been in somebody's elses hands. Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman definitely weren't the right director and writer team for The DaVinci Code.
-
Well let's see about Langdon. He figures out that the slain currator was trying to communicate with his granddaughter and he spends the bulk of the film coaxing the information out of her that leads to the solution. He solves the code at the Louvre. He uses the spent shell casing to make sure that he didn't get locked into the armored car and then actually pulls off something a bit physical when he slams the door into the driver and overpowers him. He solves the codex cylinder and recovers the next clue and uses the empty cylinder to force Teabing's hand. He solves the Roslyn clues and discovers the mystery's answers. And then at the end figures out the resting place of Magdalene, concluding the quest for the Holy Grail. I'd say that was pretty smart. Or perhaps you knew what a Fibonacci sequence was before reading the book? Or you knew that the blade and chalice were represented by inverted and opened triangles or that the star of David was a representation of both? If he were not a symbologist, would you buy him figuring these things out? Would you buy Rambo saying, "Obviously that's an anagram...yoooo?" First you complain because he doesn't kick ass like Indiana Jones and now you complain because he doesn't solve enough codes or the codes weren't hard enough. I get that you didn't like the movie, and that's cool, but I don't find your complaints very sound. Robert Langdon is an intellectual hero and I rather enjoyed his exploits so far. I don't really care to see him shoot at people or get into fistfights or throw grenades or jump cars over demolished bridges. Frankly the idea that mental accomplishments are undramatic is why we have so many crappy movies storming into the cineplexes. Nipples and explosions first. We'll tape a story around it later.
-
Well said! I agree. This was a good movie, and the showing I saw was sold out. Not boring, not dull, and certainly not poorly made. People are on Jesus-crack.
-
...couldn't have said it better myself.
After reading all the whining here and all the bad reviews this movie has gotten, I decided...hey, I like a good train wreck...let's check this out....and to my surprise, what I saw was a different kind of potboiler other than the usual kill-tits-guns-fire crap that usually passes for a mystery or thriller out of Hollywood.
I though everyone onscreen handled what they were given quite well. Hanks wasn't playing the standard "I've never held a gun before but now I can shoot a guy right in the forehead" type of lead...he played a guy who had to use his brains instead of brawn to get the job done and he played it well.
I'm sorry if this movie isn't as hip and fast and loud as so many are used to (isn't Tom's MaleMenopause:III supposed to satisfying that crowd?)but for those who liked the book and enjoy what is basically a potboiler, this movie is just fine. I hope that audiences can see past the crictical snobbery and whining and find this movie through word-of-mouth..evryone in the lobby after I saw it was sharing positive feedback along with the now-standard "What do critics know anyway?" exchanges...
C'mon lighten up people.... -
it looked as if the whole thing was rushed and that the screenplay was cobbled together very fast. it is almost as if when the court case was over they, the studio threw the film together and hurled it into theatres and that is there is much hate for this film because its not a film really is just group of action scenes thrown together but with hanks in sleepwalk mode and lousy script.
-
Conpsiracies do hold the element of truth. Whether it be the kennedy's fall from grace and the fact that there maybe some CIA involvement or whether there is a big coverup regarding 9/11 and the role of the bush family and the bin laden families going back 20 years or or in this case whether there is a huge cover up regarding jesus christ and the Church. the success of the Da vinci code lies in the fact that everyone loves a good story and people love a good story and tah is why lost has been so successful, not that lost is true but the people behind lost know how to tell a good tale and lost does have a great story.
-
Actually the point of the Bible and Christ, alpha, is not because of Christ's teachings or the morals, though of course they are a big part, but the point is to inform us that Christ came down to Earth as a perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind from death as a result of sin begun during the Fall when Adam and Eve rebelled, eating the forbidden fruit in order to be 'like God', independant and not having to rely on anyone to sustain them like God. However this separation brought about the process of decay, death and sufferring. All the ills we experience in the world today. The God of the old and New Testament is still the same. The Old Testament focused on the trials and problems the Hebrews and Israelites went through as God led them out of Egypt to establish that very plan for salvation through Christ. This also was to demonstrate his power to them and the surrounding pagan nations at the time who all believed that the most powerful god was the one that brought victory to them through battle. The Old Testament God that leads them to do battle with the surrounding nations even outlines the reasons why hey must attack specific groups of people and leave others alone. In the New Testament, there is no need for any full scale war as everything is in place, leading to the violent crucifixion of Christ, the paschal lamb, all still under God's supervision. Even the Book of Revelation goes on to tell us that there will be tragic times, it's just that the focus of the New Testament is different, but essentially everything is still the same. As for other claims about slavery in Egypt, and Moses and the Exodus, and the dates of writings of the Old Testament, you can find many apologetic articles online that deal with those issues. It is true that the Catholic Church has had it's very very low points in history, and it's likely that there will be more occasions, however these scandals usually involve personal and political reasons beyond religious dogma and always contradictory to what it teaches, and where issues of dogma are concerned there is very little debate and practically universal agreement. The Church's track record of maintaining correct dogma, teachings and tradition, thanks to the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, is excellent.
-
your problems are then with the book, puzzles were taken directly from there
-
The Bible is one part biography and one autiobiography. the biogrphical part is true and it follows the birth, the life and death at thirty three yesrs of Jesus Christ. Crucifictions did happen and that his historical fact. Where this story becomes tricky is this after his death he was taken down of the cross and placed in a stone coffin and a group of people pushed the stone coffin into a cave, which was then sealed by a bolder. It is this point we are supposed to believe that jesus Rose from the dead, phyisically and went to thomas who didnt believe that and that point, for some reason, the story ends and the individual is then meant to follow is christs footsteps. Last Christmas, dr Robert beckford who is a theolgian and black suggested that much later on around the time of the formation of the Catholic Church, that some of the story was thrown and or as he claimed controversially was censored for some reason. that bit at end of the bible will remain enormous mystery and will never be answered, what happen to christ and for me it is as mysterious a story as the so-called patron saint of Ireland, st patrick, who wasnt really Irish at all.
-
they only contain a little bit of truth. Not enough to establish a belief system without an irrational leap of faith.
-
So if you want to pick and choose, that's fine, but Jesus said he would die and be resurrected before he was crucified. Over 500 people saw Jesus appear to them after he was very publicly crucified as an enemy of the State and religious authorities. All of this was written down and dissemenated within a period of time where people who knew and saw Jesus (even if they didn't believe him) could have refuted it.
-
As a summer blockbuster? Besides, most of the complaints of the film seem to be with the script and how is was so banally shot, which makes sense given the individuals involved. There are many films with people sitting around talking are done in an interesting and suspenseful fashion and it sounds like this isn't one of them.
-
I noticed most open minded people ate up this film, while the religious nuts around me in the theater rolled their eyes and let out "ugh", "sheesh", and "whatever" whenever the slightest notion their weak minded belief in a possible farse came on screen. You have to simply watch this film just like reading the bible... weed out the fact around all it's bullshit.
-
"Not enough to establish a belief system without an irrational leap of faith."________So just like religion in that regard.
-
Did you know everyone in the theatre personally? How could you distinguish between open minded people and the relious nuts?
-
May 21, 2006 2:59:39 PM CDT
The religion 'backstory' of this is the only good part
by performingmonkey
The best part is when the McKellen character gives the Church a good asskicking by explaining to naive people what they should already know - that the Church's history is full of shit and has been politically remoulded several times over the years. I only got a kick out of reading the the book 'cause I was thinking about how certain people would react in HORROR to reading these 'revelations'. This is a story FOR Christians! As a thriller novel it's very run-of-the-mill and if Howard hasn't injected any life into it it'll fall flat onscreen. This should have been made in a few years and Brown should have allowed them to fuck around with the plot. It could have been SO epic and action-heavy.
-
hahahaha...that quote had me in stitches, considering the sexual context it was in because of the reference to both knights and swords and grails earlier in the movie as phalluses and wombs!
-
"So if you want to pick and choose, that's fine, but Jesus said he would die and be resurrected before he was crucified. Over 500 people saw Jesus appear to them after he was very publicly crucified as an enemy of the State and religious authorities. All of this was written down and dissemenated within a period of time where people who knew and saw Jesus (even if they didn't believe him) could have refuted it."
now, I have no problem with Christianity, many of my closest friends are Christian, and a lot of Da Vinci code is BS (though is that really a surprise) and the movie was only slightly above average, if at all. But saying "yeah there were eye witnesses... 2000 years ago." i've heard this argument brought up over and over again, and it always amuses me. 2000 THOUSAND YEARS AGO! how do we know anybody actually saw it? how do we know it wasn't just "written" down. if people are so angry that the DaVinci code supposedly shows lies to be truths, how do we know the same didn't happen 2000 years ago? it coulda been easy... Jesus crucified, dies, some people are like "uh oh, umm... wait Bob, you saw him last night didn't you?" Bob: "Uhhhh... yes, yes I did! Write that down, and say John and Lewis saw him too!" "Who's Lewis?" All in all, it's EASY to create truth out of fiction, especially when time is working in your favor. Not that it's dumb to believe in Jesus or religion, but the whole we must take this 100% literally is just asking to have logic slapped in your face. -
Excellent points, all. Mori, I enjoyed the review as always but Vynson makes a good case as well.
-
...right now. And that is that Sony is apparently going to film the prior novel to the DaVinci Code, 'Angels and Demons', the first Robert Langdon book. THANK FUCKING GOD!!!!! Not only is that a better book than the Da Vinci Code, it'd make a much better movie...either go to Amazon and read the reviews or ask anyone in these threads. Better yet go read it yourself...if you liked the Da Vinci novel in any way at all you'll LOVE Angels and Demons even more. I read the whole thing in two days a year back and came in my pants at the thought of it being filmed. Both nuts. It was a bit messy.
-
hmmmm ... you have your faith and no way in the world am I going to get into a argument about faith. You clearly believe the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, the Exodus from Egypt, etc I dont and what independant evidence exists backs me. I think a lot of the Old Testemant has been mutated over thousands of years of oral history followed by transcription during a time of captivity and that the document itself should be viewed in that way. Much of it may be true - much of it may be the words of men with specific agendas. You cant prove much of it is true and since it is an ancient document it is also impossible to disprove much of it - hence Faith - you choose to believe it is a literal telling of events and I respect that. Some people say Jesus didn't even exist but the same sort of independant evidence also confirms Jesus actually existed - he is clearly mentioned in several Roman documents of the time in relation to his brother who became somewhat important. As for the books of the New Testament they were the ones accepted by the church several 100 years later whilst others were rejected. They may well be totally accurate or completely false and we will never really know for sure in this life - afgain it comes down to faith - you choose to have total belief in them - whilst I choose to concentrate less on the specific details and more on the moral messages contained therin. I think no matter what Jesus as portrayed has a strong moral core and anyone could do a lot worse than try to follow his example. As for Church Dogma - of course there is debate - the historical church was extremly aggresive against disent or differering views - it doesn't mean that there was always agreement - and disagreement often led to extreme violence. You may recall things like the execution (murder) of the Templars which was probably as much because they had essentially established a power bloc that did not acknowledge the Pope as the supreme earthly power in regards to the Church. The Catholic Church of today is largely benign but even the most devout Catholic will admit that it has not been without its problems especially during the middle ages.
-
Mori and other critics, regardless of their place among the elite movie watchers, seem to NOT be comfortable with an "adventure movie" where the main character's primary purpose is THINKING, while others are intimately involved in the action - Langdon appears to be uninvolved, since most of what does is look at clues, break puzzles, etc. Additionally he's not cracking a joke a minute like Teabig, so he's also boring to boot. Vynson's post titled "Mori and Langdon" sums it up best.
-
Aside from problems with the movie on a FILM basis -- like Hanks acting as if he was sleepwalking through the entire thing -- I have to agree 100% with the core issue that Moriarity pointed out: the truly dump thing about DA VINCI and the real problem with the movie is that Langdon solves what is supposedly the BIGGEST fucking secret IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, a secret that has NEVER been solved or broken by anyone else in THOUSANDS of years in basically a day. Hell, he barely breaks a sweat. Worst of all, he isn't really TRYING to solve it as most things come to him and fall in his lap. Gee, maybe Dan Brown could have Langon jump on that Roswell thing next, so we can get an answer to that conspiracy, too. Hey, Roswell is only SIXTY years old, so Langdon should have it figured out by lunchtime...
-
I don't understand why this line was cited as bieng laugh-inducing. As someone noted above, it was said a matter of factly and it was perfectly appropriate. I love it when the fanboys try to find things to complain about.
-
That's what I heard in the theater...
-
Here's my main issue(s): So the body of Mary M is still around (under the u-know-what) and even if a blood sample survives (and why did anyone of 2000ish years ago think to keep blood?) and scores of liniage paperwork existed to trace the line from JC & MM to today....With out JC's blood (dna) what proof is HERs? How could DNA dilluted over 100 generations pinpoint imperically a connection to JC? Are we to belive a vile labeled "JC's blood" is sufficient to win the arguement? Even if all the necessary protocols of "chain of evidence" we employ to day were followed, 2000yrs of potential tampering negated any validity of such a thing. So, do I think its possible (this therory/story), sure it is. Could it ever be proven, no, no more than proving JC was or was not the son of God. It would take as much faith either way.
-
Have we devolved to such a level of stupidity that we can't tolerate "discussion" in our movies. Jesus, it's not like we were being lectured to. Ron Howard made these (absolutely necessary)discussions lively by presenting historical recreations while the discussions were occuring. All the "talking" is the heart of the damn story- without it we would have National Treasure. How pathetic.
-
Let us say for a moment that her dna could be traced to mary--then what? All you could prove, as the catholic church would undoubtedly say, is that you have a woman whose genetic lineage is that of a former prostitute. Who is to say when mary had her child--perhaps afet a marriage which occured some time AFTER the death of Christ. Remember, there is no DNA of Jesus available for comparison, only Mary, and believe me, 99 percent of the church-going populace would accept that Jesus never married Mary. Im surprised no one else has mentioned that little plot hole...
-
So, anyone who saw the movie this weekend, did they play this trailer in front of it? I only ask because I know theatre owners had the option of not playing it. I saw DaVinci at the Arclight here in LA and they didn't attach it to the movie. For those that saw it, what was the audience reaction to it? That was one thing that I was interested in while going to DaVinci was to see what a pack house of good ol' Americans thought when that trailer popped up. As for DaVinci, it wasn't as bad as I heard, but certainly could of been Way better. I never thought I would say that Hanks was the worst part of a movie, but he certainly was. Gandalf saved that movie from certain disaster.
-
they messed with the narrative structure of the book. for example at the start of the movie in langdons lecture he starts to go about how we have misinterpreted ancient symbols and in the book he brings that up with Fache while trying to decode that sentence you draconian devil, brown does not introduce nevue untill much later, Ron Howard and Avika goldsman introduce her straightway. The nun is a minor character in the film and is an important character in the book. In the Movie, there is a scene with a journalist and the head of Opus Dei answeres the phone but in the book, Brown writes about the media and opus dei, in a very verbal way. The chapters are short and seemingly Brown was very hands on with the production of the movie, he even did some of the music. By the way, i have heard dan browns musical compositions and they have to be heard to be disbelieved. Appalling stuff. and there is possibly more diffrences between book and film. I know its called Artistic Licence.
-
Moondoggy: I was addressing that very hole when I said "With out JC's blood (dna) what proof is HERs?" And tht regardless of supossed samples of each of their blood, there's no imperical way to prove it belonged to people we can't even prove existed! Its like saying (in a scientific faith example) "I have a recording of the BIG BANG!" - How would you prove that was real either?
-
It was ball lightning mixed with swamp gas that created the illusion of a flying saucer. Nothing to see there. No sir. Look no further into this issue.
-
I suppose I don't understand why this film is so misunderstood. A brilliant film with brilliant acting it ISN'T. It's true, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou don't have much to do or say. Their characters are in essence the audience, or, the vehicle that the audience uses to access this information. What makes this film IMPORTANT is the subject matter. It's the re-introduction of the Sacred Feminine back into modern day religious culture where you can find the power of this film. Tom Hank's character is not even arguably disinteresting, he's more than disinteresting to me, and as much as I can appreciate Hanks from time to time, he seemed so tired and lost during this film. On the other, this lore mixed with historical truth can be dizzying and tiresome, not because it's boring but because there's a lot to remember. Personally, as someone who considers themselves a beliver in the life and the works/teachings of Jesus, this film has limitless power to re-educate the world on the sacred feminine and put women in their rightful place in world religious society after ages of treachery and abuse. Scoff if you must, eviscerate if you have to but this film and the book is more powerful than anyone realizes. J.M. Prater
-
This becomes known as "The DiVinci Load"? Is it already too late to fire up the engine on this bandwagon?
-
Sorry to disappoint.
Everything from list of members to the last Master, supposed to be from the line of the Merovingians, who, though real, are mythologized in DVC and in works that pretend to be history, like "Templar Revelations" (which I wouldn't even wipe my ass with.)
As for the books of the new testament being only approved of hundreds of years later, that is only true officially. It's thought that even while Paul was alive that some of his epistles were taken as authoritative, since they were referred to with the same word for scriptures. And, the question about what books should be accepted as authoritative and which not appeared in the second century, not hundreds of years later, with two determining qualities. But, admittedly, nothing "official," though there does seem to be some consistency between different churches' lists of authoritative works, with differences here or there. But, the different accepted ones never said anything radically different from each other. (Outside of gnostic sects, of course.)And, might I add, that the fact that Constantine was baptised on his deathbed doesn't mean anything, since quite a few people waited until they were about to die to be baptised so that no major sins would be committed after grace.
Of course, what do I know? I sat through fifteen minutes of the 1992 "Jersey Girl" before I noticed Ben Affleck was missing.
-
I dont know why, but when i read your post the first time, i kept interpreting as there being too much dificulty in analyzing 2000-year-old dna for a proper comparison. I kept thinking you were overlooking that fact rather than moving beyond it. sorry ;)
-
GaiustheBrave - your buying into a common misconception due to the fact a group of right wing French Nationalists used that name and planted docs in the National Library to try to back their cause - they stole an old religious orders name. The name DID belong to an order of monks with links to the Templars - with the fall of the Templars said order also fell out of favor and eventually died out. If they had anything to do with a Christ having kids conspiracy however is a stretch but since much of the fate of the Templars is speculation its impossible to be 100% certain.
-
Final verdict: an okay thriller with a silly sequence or two. In many spots it's a bit overblown and filled with self-importance. The critics' reviews were right about Ian Mckellen; the man brings a much needed levity to the whole enterprise. He seemed to be one of the few in the movie having fun with the whole thing. Paul Bettany is a great, threatening villain. In his albino make-up it made me easily able to picture him as a potential Joker in a Batman Begins sequel.
Hanks was a shadow, almost a cipher in his Robert Langdon role. He was a non-entity. You could have cast any generic B-list leading man and had the same performance.
The silliest sequence were the cop chase getaway in the little mini car through the Paris streets and the escape from the British cops in the airplane hanger. It was cheeseball stuff you usually find on lame brained syndicated TV action shows like VIP.
In essence it was a chase movie/treasure hunt. The treasure hunt aspect worked while the chase aspect, not so much.
I've read Sony is adapting a sequel, another Langdon mystery. How do they do that with such a cardboard character? -
Sony has just greenlit The First Langdon novel, Angels and Demons and Avika Goldsman has been locked into write it. I havent read it, from what i hear it has to do with a plot kill the pope and the illuminati.
-
and have him to a version of Indy. god, i hate the illuminati
-
And even though I'm a big fan, that's not really much of a reason.
-
I saw this movie. Overall I thought it was okay, a near perfect adaptation of the book, and I think therein lies the problem for a lot of critics and audiences. This film is being marketed as a thriller, and the book and movie is devoid of any big thrills. Sure, there's a chase here, a killing there, and so on, but on this level it's fairly generic. What made the book compelling is the conspiracy elements and the code breaking, intellectual content that is fascinating to read because we're reading the characters thoughts and how, step by step, they go about breaking the codes. On screen, this stuff is much less interesting because the audience is limited to only what they can see. Ron Howard does his best by visualizing some of it with fancy graphics and re-creations, but the bottom line is that code breaking is not that viscerally exciting. What we're left with is some marginally suspenseful action. A lot of critics are bagging Tom Hanks, but I thought he did a solid job. I think the problem is that a lot of the "action" this character does is in his head, breaking codes, so other than that he just gets chased and beaten up a lot. This makes him a less compelling hero to watch on screen than he is in the book, where we have the benefit of hearing his internal dialogue. Again, an okay, but flawed movie.
-
I'm halfway through reading it. It's the first Robert Langdon adventure and is basically identical in structure so far. Instead of the super secret organization The Priory of Sion, we have The Illuminati. Instead of Silas, we have another fanatical, sinister assassin after the protagonists. Instead of a Vatican conspiracy, well, we have a Vatican conspiracy. Instead of a girl who's father figure was just murdedred, and who follows Robert Langdon's in searhc of the killer, we get a girl who's father figure was just murdedred, and who follows Robert Langdon's in search of the killer. They might as well Xerox the Da Vinci script, replace some names and start shooting.
-
If Hollywood is onto these religious pics that are just "fiction", will they make this movie?
-
Deception Point is basically the same, the characters just have different names.
-
He writes of the New Testament:"They may well be totally accurate or completely false and we will never really know for sure in this life". Yet the New Testament is considered legitimate history, and the most reliable of ancient history based on criteria historians use to judge such history. There are simply too many manuscripts from various geographical locations in different languages that are practically identical to make a case against the events being legitimate history. The only reason many modern skeptics choose to question it are that the miraculous events are reported, not as metaphor, but as real historical events. In addition, if those miracles did not occur, the events that follow, to this day: the endurance , influence, growth and power of the Church throughout the world would not make historical sense, without resorting to conspiracy theories. Johnno chooses to focus," less on the specific details and more on the moral messages contained therin. I think no matter what Jesus as portrayed has a strong moral core and anyone could do a lot worse than try to follow his example." Such a comment reflects a misunderstanding of the historical Jesus. If you do not believe Jesus is God then Jesus is a liar. That's hardly having a strong 'moral core.' Johnno says of the Church, "...disagreement often led to extreme violence. The Catholic Church of today is largely benign but even the most devout Catholic will admit that it has not been without its problems especially during the middle ages." In the context of history, to say that disagreement 'often' led to violence is inaccurate. In addition, the middle ages was a time the Church flourished and planted the seeds for the modern day university with an encouragment of open intellectual and logical debate between religions, and over heresies. Violence is emphasized by modern skeptics to attack the Church, but it was the exception. Debate was encouraged. And it was open debate, uncensored with modern day political correctness. There was no fear of offending. Only an interest in getting to the truth. What was the most violent period in history? The 20th century, where more violent deaths occurred than all other previous centuries combined.
-
The history of St. Patrick is questioned, by those like Emerldboy, on the same basis the New Testament and the history of Jesus is questioned: the historical reporting of miracles. The miraculous events cannot logically be separated from the non-miraculous events. They are intertwined. One does not make sense without the other, especially with the events that follow. Emerald has a problem with St. Pat not being Irish, well he wasn't, but he did save Ireland from the dominating Pagan culture. How could he possibly achieve this historically impossible task without the miraculous events being true? Essentially, St. Patrick had a supernatural showdown with the Pagans. A cool story that would make a great flick(I know Gibson considered it). But the history of Jesus is similar. You can't logically separate the miracle-worker Jesus with the good and honest teacher Jesus. It doesn't make sense. Without the Resurrection, the major events that follow in history, to this day, do not make sense. The NT straight up reports the resurrected Jesus appeared to hundreds as the basis for the sudden turn around for the apostles who were hopeless before that. Only based on the reality of the miraculous events could Christianity eventually overtake one of the most powerful empires in history.
-
Sorry Johnny. Alpha writes of the New Testament:"They may well be totally accurate or completely false and we will never really know for sure in this life". Yet the New Testament is considered legitimate history, and the most reliable of ancient history based on criteria historians use to judge such history. There are simply too many manuscripts from various geographical locations in different languages that are practically identical to make a case against the events being legitimate history. The only reason many modern skeptics choose to question it are that the miraculous events are reported, not as metaphor, but as real historical events. In addition, if those miracles did not occur, the events that follow, to this day: the endurance , influence, growth and power of the Church throughout the world would not make historical sense, without resorting to conspiracy theories. Johnno chooses to focus," less on the specific details and more on the moral messages contained therin. I think no matter what Jesus as portrayed has a strong moral core and anyone could do a lot worse than try to follow his example." Such a comment reflects a misunderstanding of the historical Jesus. If you do not believe Jesus is God then Jesus is a liar. That's hardly having a strong 'moral core.' Johnno says of the Church, "...disagreement often led to extreme violence. The Catholic Church of today is largely benign but even the most devout Catholic will admit that it has not been without its problems especially during the middle ages." In the context of history, to say that disagreement 'often' led to violence is inaccurate. In addition, the middle ages was a time the Church flourished and planted the seeds for the modern day university with an encouragment of open intellectual and logical debate between religions, and over heresies. Violence is emphasized by modern skeptics to attack the Church, but it was the exception. Debate was encouraged. And it was open debate, uncensored with modern day political correctness. There was no fear of offending. Only an interest in getting to the truth. What was the most violent period in history? The 20th century, where more violent deaths occurred than all other previous centuries combined.
-
Alpha writes of the New Testament:"They may well be totally accurate or completely false and we will never really know for sure in this life". Yet the New Testament is considered legitimate history, and the most reliable of ancient history based on criteria historians use to judge such history. There are simply too many manuscripts from various geographical locations in different languages that are practically identical to make a case against the events being legitimate history. The only reason many modern skeptics choose to question it are that the miraculous events are reported, not as metaphor, but as real historical events. In addition, if those miracles did not occur, the events that follow, to this day: the endurance , influence, growth and power of the Church throughout the world would not make historical sense, without resorting to conspiracy theories. Alpha chooses to focus," less on the specific details and more on the moral messages contained therin. I think no matter what Jesus as portrayed has a strong moral core and anyone could do a lot worse than try to follow his example." Such a comment reflects a misunderstanding of the historical Jesus. If you do not believe Jesus is God then Jesus is a liar. That's hardly having a strong 'moral core.' Alpha says of the Church, "...disagreement often led to extreme violence. The Catholic Church of today is largely benign but even the most devout Catholic will admit that it has not been without its problems especially during the middle ages." In the context of history, to say that disagreement 'often' led to violence is inaccurate. In addition, the middle ages was a time the Church flourished and planted the seeds for the modern day university with an encouragment of open intellectual and logical debate between religions, and over heresies. Violence is emphasized by modern skeptics to attack the Church, but it was the exception. Debate was encouraged. And it was open debate, uncensored with modern day political correctness. There was no fear of offending. Only an interest in getting to the truth. What was the most violent period in history? The 20th century, where more violent deaths occurred than all other previous centuries combined.
-
I'm glad I screwed up because I felt obligated to find your original post and its awesome. I couldn't agree more. Here it is again for others:
Johnno: "Actually the point of the Bible and Christ, alpha, is not because of Christ's teachings or the morals, though of course they are a big part, but the point is to inform us that Christ came down to Earth as a perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind from death as a result of sin begun during the Fall when Adam and Eve rebelled, eating the forbidden fruit in order to be 'like God', independant and not having to rely on anyone to sustain them like God. However this separation brought about the process of decay, death and sufferring. All the ills we experience in the world today. The God of the old and New Testament is still the same. The Old Testament focused on the trials and problems the Hebrews and Israelites went through as God led them out of Egypt to establish that very plan for salvation through Christ. This also was to demonstrate his power to them and the surrounding pagan nations at the time who all believed that the most powerful god was the one that brought victory to them through battle. The Old Testament God that leads them to do battle with the surrounding nations even outlines the reasons why hey must attack specific groups of people and leave others alone. In the New Testament, there is no need for any full scale war as everything is in place, leading to the violent crucifixion of Christ, the paschal lamb, all still under God's supervision. Even the Book of Revelation goes on to tell us that there will be tragic times, it's just that the focus of the New Testament is different, but essentially everything is still the same. As for other claims about slavery in Egypt, and Moses and the Exodus, and the dates of writings of the Old Testament, you can find many apologetic articles online that deal with those issues. It is true that the Catholic Church has had it's very very low points in history, and it's likely that there will be more occasions, however these scandals usually involve personal and political reasons beyond religious dogma and always contradictory to what it teaches, and where issues of dogma are concerned there is very little debate and practically universal agreement. The Church's track record of maintaining correct dogma, teachings and tradition, thanks to the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, is excellent. -
"The Church's track record of maintaining correct dogma, teachings and tradition, thanks to the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, is excellent." ahahahaha wow. i'm not even gonna read anymore of this talkback, let me guess, it's full of Christian wacko's who think anybody who doesn't accept Christ is doomed to Hell. Oh, and yeah, God was so pissed about that apple thing, he had to send his son down to get beat and whipped just so God could go... ok I forgive you now. Story makes perfect sense! You might ask, well couldn't God have just forgiven us? But d'uh, the story wouldn't work then! I mean, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. hahahaha wow... I love idiots.
-
and the Passion was *utterly* poetic
-
ok i read a bit more. even worse than i expected. of COURSE the bible has historical points in it. what, do people think it was all just made up? going... well other stuff backs it up too, so it has to be absolute truth. i am stunned by this ignorance. absolutely stunned. people want to believe so many stupid things, and so many of the stuff in the Bible when taken literally makes so little sense. like Noah's Ark. and I also love how dumbass Christians who think they know everything haven't actually looked at any other religions, except besides reading some Christian source on them. otherwise they'd realize, all religions have historical elements to them, and one of the greatest killers of people is from religion, where people who believe different things kill each other to prove they're right. now Islam is the biggest offender. before, it was Christianity. grow up blind people, grow up.
-
...who has the TIME to read all of this crap?? I think there's another website out there for all of this incessant yammering, so get to it! Meanwhile, the Da Vinci Code provided a nice 2hr+ escape from the heat and was well worth the $4 I paid to see the matinee. Script sucked and as Moriarty pointed out, it was treated all wrong. I also agree on two other points - McKellan and Tatou made the movie whatever it's worth. Feh!
-
u moron! IT MOCKS THE TRUE LORD, THE SAVIOR JESUS THE CHRIST! IF UR NOT OUTRAGED, THEN U WILL BURN IN HELL! FOREVER! Jesus bless!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts