The Da Vinci Code

[flat-top]

I just got back from seeing it. It was good. I never read the book, and only knew what everyone else knows about it. It's long,and moves kinda slow, but it's all interesting. And Tom Hanks doesn't really get a chance to "act" here..he's just there. Ian McKellan had the juiciest role I'd say.
I'd give it a B+.

 

[scotrace]

Just back as well.

Why does the book/film generate so much interest? Why was the theatre so hushed? You could have heard the proverbial pin throughout, and viewers filed out silently.
I read the book. I also wanted to give up by page three. But in chapter two, it picked up, and I didn't put it down again. It isn't the sort of literary achievement that will have professors honoring its poetry in centuries to come. But it's a damn fine tale that clearly plucks at a string buried deeply within our species.
As a film, there's no reason why we here should not like it. In many ways, it is Indiana Jones without the hat; the search for ancient and holy treasure, following a series of clues, a beautiful girl, chases, near misses, betrayals. There is even an actor from Raiders.
I liked it as a piece of filmmaking, and you may too, even if you feel the book is lightweight. Tom Hanks is one of my very favorites, and in this does very well as cypher (his hands... his hands become almost another character, as in Saving Private Ryan). Audrey Tautou is remarkable and completely believable. There's no mugging with her at all, and yet her face speaks volumes for us. (Ian McKellen carries the baton for mugging, not to worry)
The outside-the-theatre backstory of controversy, of side-taking fervor, of the many who seem to have some need to buy into a story that is woven of demonstrable wholecloth - these things only add to my own enjoyment.
Go see it as a story that has generated huge worldwide interest and have a good time. I'm sure Dan Brown is smiling to himself at our gullibility.
My favorite: The scenes of Paris and London, Europe in general. Reminded me how much I loved being there and miss it.

 

[Zemke Fan]

The movie reviewer whose judgment I find most like my own -- is Roger Ebert. His review of The Da Vinci Code (three stars) is here: Ebert's Review in Chicago Sun Times

I think that Ebert (who has been reviewing movies weekly since the 1960s) largely got it right, although I would give this 2.5 stars and not three.

POSITIVES

• The story is terrific. Well developed and interesting. (NOTE: I didn't say I believed any of this hooey outside the context of the movie.)
• The locations are spectacular. Lee Teabing's chateau specifically.
• The casting is first-rate. Best to worst: Paul Bettany (as Silas), Audrey Tatou (as Sophie), Ian McKellen (as Teabing), Alfred Molina (Bishop Aringarosa), Tom Hanks (as Langdon), and Jean Reno (as Captain Fache).
• The cinematography is spot-on, excellent.
• The SFX were just right (minimal). Scenes with Langdon at the podium and the main characters in Teabing's library worked well and added visual interest.

NEGATIVES

• Editing could have been tighter; in a little faster/out a little faster. This was a 2.25 hour film that ran 2.5 hours.
• The tension between Langdon and Fache wasn't as crackling strong as it was in the book. Would have made both these characters a little more interesting.
• The post-denouement scenes could have been a LOT shorter. It seemed as if these were added just to appease the movie's religious critics.

I generally see most action/adventure/thriller films that come out unless they're obvious dogs. This one was better than many, but not as good as: Inside Man, Flightplan, The Interpreter, or National Treasure.

Go to see it? Depends... 2006 has been a disappointing year (so far) for movies. This one is pretty good. Not great, but pretty good.

Colonel Z

 

[Quigley Brown]

It seemed a bit like National Treasure w/Nicholas Cage...just a bit more serious, though.

 

[Mrs. MK]

The truth about The DaVinci Code

I know a lot of people are interested in this movie, and it may be an entertaining movie. However, I have reason to believe that the "facts" the author cites are bogus. I found a good article about it if you want to check it out: http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/

Respectfully,
Mrs. MK

 

[Benny Holiday]

Only to be taken as a work of fiction

I haven't got any interest in it. I've heard some people go overboard, as though it's a history book and not a work of fiction, which is weird. There were real cults, such as a group of Knights Templars in the Middle Ages, who believed that the Grail was not the cup Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper, but was actually Jesus' mummified head! The point is, if the Grail was His head, then what's the interest in it - it wouldn't be a holy artifact worth chasing, because then He wouldn't be who He said and showed He was.

I'm wondering if the same people who think the Da Vinci Code is real are gonna be searching the skies for Superman once it's released?

 

[Feraud]

I do not want this discussion to degerate or get the thread locked...

How about a quick yes or no question?

Does anyone think if the DaVinci Code were attacking the tenets of Islam or Judaism Tom Hanks or Ron Howard would have attached themselves to the project?

A yes or no will do before we proceed to the next part of this question.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes.

Which tenets was it attacking, by the way? I couldn't find where the trouble comes in.

bk

 

[Feraud]

Yes.

Which tenets was it attacking, by the way? I couldn't find where the trouble comes in.

bk

The minor plotline about Jesus and Mary M doing their thing.

 

[Salv]

The minor plotline about Jesus and Mary M doing their thing.

But is Jesus' virginity one of the major tenets of Christianity?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The major problem, of course, is for the Catholic hierarchy. A Jesus bloodline would possibly deny the primacy of the Pope, thus challenging the entire church structure. (would the church properly be led by the descendants of Jesus, or the continuous -- non-blood -- line from Peter to today?)

Why are the Catholics so up in arms about the book/movie? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? OOooooohhhh ... conspiracy theory. (all in jest )

Reading the quote from Dan Brown in the website posted my Mrs. MK (good site by the way :eusa_clap ) confirms my idea that he did not say that the theory about the "royal bloodline" was Truth:

Quoth Brown ...
"Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies-all of that is historical fact."

... not a word about the Jesus bloodline. He really doesn't believe that the "royal bloodline" idea is more than just theorising - the original proponents of the theory do not promote it as Truth, in the religious sense of the word; just a plausible theory on the nature of the grail. Brown used what he could, read a little and made up a bad story to hook it on. The question is: Is it blasphemous to theorise about these matters?

Very poor, tame stuff all around ... though the movie may be good. The reviews here seem to be generally positive.

bk

 

[Salv]

Reading the quote from Dan Brown in the website posted my Mrs. MK (good site by the way :eusa_clap ) confirms my idea that he did not say that the theory about the "royal bloodline" was Truth:

Quoth Brown ...
"Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies-all of that is historical fact."

bk

There was a programme on TV last week, fronted by Tony Robinson (a.k.a. Baldric) which tried to debunk some of the DVC 'facts' - among other things it claimed that The Priory of Sion was not a medieval organisation dedicated to protecting Christ's bloodline, but a hoax invented in France in the late 1950's by Pierre Plantard. The Priory of Sion stuff had been covered before on TV, firstly by Timewatch on BBC2 in 1996, but this latest programme tied all the DVC myths together. They spoke to the writers of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail who remain convinced that all the PoS documentation is real. But of course they would say that.

 

[jamespowers]

I do not want this discussion to degerate or get the thread locked...

How about a quick yes or no question?

Does anyone think if the DaVinci Code were attacking the tenets of Islam or Judaism Tom Hanks or Ron Howard would have attached themselves to the project?

A yes or no will do before we proceed to the next part of this question.

Of course we know the answer is NO. It is just fashionable now to attack any type of Chrisitianity.
If they tried to make a film showing Mohamed as a polygamous, pedophile who married a man then you would REALLY see protests. If a cartoon caused death threats then what would a movie do?[huh]

Regards,

J

 

[JoyfulGirl]

I haven't got any interest in it. I've heard some people go overboard, as though it's a history book and not a work of fiction, which is weird. There were real cults, such as a group of Knights Templars in the Middle Ages, who believed that the Grail was not the cup Jesus drank out of at the Last Supper, but was actually Jesus' mummified head! The point is, if the Grail was His head, then what's the interest in it - it wouldn't be a holy artifact worth chasing, because then He wouldn't be who He said and showed He was.

I'm wondering if the same people who think the Da Vinci Code is real are gonna be searching the skies for Superman once it's released?

I actually read an interesting book that theorized that the Knights of Templar actually thought the Holy Grail was John the Baptist's head. And the Disciples and Jesus literally drank from his severed head at the Last Supper! So I guess the grail in that theory is both a cup and a head. Ew.

I saw the movie and thought it was interesting to see just to see how Ron Howard adapted it, but it was too long to go see a second time. Somehow, the movie didn't manage to capture the urgency of the chase that the book had. The pacing was off. The editors of this movie should be ashamed of themselves!

The minor plotline about Jesus and Mary M doing their thing.

I don't quite think that's attacking Islam or Judaism as neither of those religions believe that Jesus was divine - they've always believed him to be human. Him and Mary doing their thing wouldn't really matter to them.

Jesus' virginity isn't a large tenet in Christianity that I've ever seen. I thought the problem the Church had with the DaVinci Code was that the characters question the history and validity of the Catholic Church. They questioned things like the divinity of Christ (a pretty important part of Christianity's doctrine) and whether St. Peter was truly the one to carry on Jesus' Chruch (and if he wasn't supposed to, that would put a cramp in the Papacy).

I honestly saw the whole Catholic Church Cover-up thing to be the McGuffin of the story. It was the background to make the chase that much more high stake, to get the characters more invested and make it a chase worth risking your life for. I mean, it's an entertaining story; why can't we just leave it at that? Why does there have to be all this controversy? I, personally, think it's silly of the Church to ban books and rail against a book (and now movie) like the DaVinci Code. I also find it strange how some people immediately took Dan Brown's word that this was the Absolute Truth. It's like the people who got angry at Arthur Golden (author of Memoirs of a Geisha) because they found out that it wasn't real. I mean, come on people, you find these books in the Fiction section!

Sorry, I'm now off-topic. Oh, and I would vote Yes.

 

[jamespowers]

I also find it strange how some people immediately took Dan Brown's word that this was the Absolute Truth. It's like the people who got angry at Arthur Golden (author of Memoirs of a Geisha) because they found out that it wasn't real. I mean, come on people, you find these books in the Fiction section!

And you just answered your question about why the church would rail against it. Perception becomes reality in many people's minds. They just figured they would nip it in the bud. :eusa_booh

Regards to all,

J

 

[Salv]

And you just answered your question about why the church would rail against it. Perception becomes reality in many people's minds. They just figured they would nip it in the bud. :eusa_booh

Regards to all,

J

They can't have much trust in the depth of faith of some Christians then.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Or, the church leaders KNOW that Dan Brown is speaking the Truth. He must be silenced. Release the hounds.

All seems like a storm in an incredibly small tea cup to me. I don't see any real attack on Christianity as an entity. Just a reinterpretation of some things from the bible (i'm being incredibly generous to Brown by suggesting he interpreted anything, but that's the lot of a Devils Advocate, i guess). And a whole lot of paranoia.

bk

 

[Salv]

Careful bk - they'll be after you next.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I've been avoiding them for years. Scots Presbyterians can be quite tenacious

Really, the vicar in my home town won't leave my parents alone about me ... At least that was the case about 5 years ago. Apparently i'm already "burning in the fires of the Pit that is Bottomless".

bk

 

[jamespowers]

They can't have much trust in the depth of faith of some Christians then.

It is not the faith of Chrisitians they are worried about it is the perception of the religion by people who have no idea about it.
Fortunately this is a small tempest but the fact is that if some other religion were attacked you would have gotten this:

Regards,

J