Variety/Cannes:"DaVinci Code" not fun

[Dr Mordrid]

OR that there were castes w/differing practices re: celebracy.

[Nowhere]

OR "she" didn't have his children

[schmosef]

OR that there were castes w/differing practices re: celebracy.

like I said, "incomplete".

[Jessterw]

It's fiction. It's controversial only because it goes against traditional Christian thought, specifically that of the Catholic Church. While some things 'revealed' in the book are within the realm of possibility, such as Jesus being married and having kids, most others have been disproven time and time again; before the book was ever written in many cases. Nevermind that the book was intended as fiction.

Always surprised to hear someone thinking the book was anything but just okay. Maybe it's just Brown's horrid composition of sentences that throws it off for me.

[Jammrock]

is it fiction or fact by the way? some of the things mentioned in the book are quite controversial.

You find it in the fiction section of the library don't you?

A lot of what Brown says is theory and conspiracy regarding Jesus and his post-death (or ressurected if your Christian) church. It has been theorized for many years that Christ was married. It would never be mentioned because it would be 1) considered not important compared to the message, and 2) so common place it wasn't worth really mentioning.

The "hybridization" of old Roman paganism and chrisitianity is farily well documented. There were several conferences held by Constantine (is that the right emperor?) to standardize the Christian dogma, as "the church" was not very organized back then.

As for the Catholic church ... that's well documented too. How much of what Brown says is truth versus stuff he made up for the book I can't say. Though it is true that the old, and to some extent present, Catholic church would do anything to maintain power and control ... and get a little more.

As for Mary Magdalene giving birth the child of Jesus? Pure speculation. If it happened there is no historical documentation ... of any creditable historical source at least. Could it have happened? Absolutely. If you look at the ressurection of Christ, the first person he visited was not his mother, it was not his beloved disciples ... it was Mary Magdalene. Why would he do that? The theory is because they were married. And if they were married there is a good chance she bore, or was about to bear, a child.

As for the Sacred Femanine ... I just think Dan Brown needs to get laid to get over his obssesion with it By the end of the book I wanted to burn it not for the "anti-Christian" theories, but so I would have to read one more plug about the sacred femanine. As for whether the Catholic church purposefully killed 5 million women who worshipped the sacred femanine to abolish the practice ... well, it was the Catholic church after all.

And there is no such thing as the Priory of Sion (Zion). That was totally fictional. The only reference to it was from a known con man. The documents referenced in teh book were proven forgeries by historians. But that's part of the cover up, right?

Like I said, a little truth mixed with wild theory and conspiracy and you make a million dollar. Go figure.

[Jammrock]

Always surprised to hear someone thinking the book was anything but just okay. Maybe it's just Brown's horrid composition of sentences that throws it off for me.

I think the only reason Brown even got published was because his publisher knew it would strike enough nerves to gain unpaid publicity, and thus sell. Dan Brown may be good at striking nerves, but he can't write worth a damn.

[Dr Mordrid]

[Jon P. Inghram]

Sneaked it last night, and it was so boring I just about fell asleep. Tom Hanks' face is getting really creepy, like someone glued a tiny face onto a giant head. I had no clue what the movie was about going into it, but the story was still terribly predictable.

On a much more positive note, it's been really busy which is good for our theater. Even better, it drew out the wackos who were protesting the movie in the square in front of the store!

[Umfriend]

To those saying Brown can'tr write: I read two of his books (not the DVC though) and I found him about as good, or bad if you like, as Ludlum, who has sold millions as well and strikingly similar stories repeatedly at that.

[Gurm]

To those saying Brown can'tr write: I read two of his books (not the DVC though) and I found him about as good, or bad if you like, as Ludlum, who has sold millions as well and strikingly similar stories repeatedly at that.

Eh, I have to respectfully disagree. While Ludlum can be a tediously slow read due to his extensive use of excess verbiage, I am always stunned at how well he conveys location, description, and even action.

Dan Brown, on the other hand... well, it was painful. No GLARING grammatical errors, but we're definitely talking about someone writing on an eighth-grade level.

[Tempest]

It's fiction. It's controversial only because it goes against traditional Christian thought.

A-yup. Someone should have told me that before I bought and read the book - having no religious ambitions of any kind, it was the D.U.L.L.E.S.T book I've read in a LONG time. Heck, if I wanted to find out about fictitious Templar secrets, I'd much rather play some Gabriel Knight 3. Hearing that the movie is even DULLER, I don't think I'd watch it even if I got the tickets for FREE

[KRSESQ]

Dan Brown, on the other hand... well, it was painful. No GLARING grammatical errors, but we're definitely talking about someone writing on an eighth-grade level.

Considering that's the reading level of most American adults, it should be right on the money.

Wifey got the book for Mother's Day from a friend, so I should get to read it in a week or two. I'm still recovering from my slog through the "Lord of The Ring" trilogy.

Kevin

[Rakido]

watched the movie on friday and yes, i liked it. It isn't the big mega-blockbuster many people hoped it would be (i guess especially the critics that slam the movie now) but it is far away from being that bad.

The actors were absolute ok for me and the story wasn't that confusing (my girlfriend understood perfectly what it was about and she hasn't read the book before).

I really don't know why the "movie's key moment" should be laughable?? Absolute no one laughed at the showing.

Only gripe i have is the length; could have done better with 20 minutes less.

I felt well entertained when i left the cinema and i guess that is the important point when watching a movie.

If you wanna see a boring movie, watch King Kong or the last two Star Wars again (or wait for the next Superman )


R.

[Jammrock]

It isn't the big mega-blockbuster many people hoped it would be (i guess especially the critics that slam the movie now) but it is far away from being that bad.

It pulled in $77 million opening weekend in the US alone. I would say it's going to make a profit. I think a lot of people will see it just to spite the wacko protestors, or to find out what all the hoopla is about.

[Marshmallowman]

defintely not on my to see list, but looks like sony/Columbia is happy with it

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17172