Da vinci...

[drunkengamer]

the obvious christian bashing aside this movie was a, decent murder mystery. the historical inacuracies are glaring.(for example opus dei wasnt founded until the mid 1950's)

[Furrykitty]

This theory is shot down every 15-20 years when - for some reason - it rears its ugly head... then it goes away for a while... THEN... lather/rinse/repeat.

What gets me is there are people that believe it. No matter how many times it is shot down it keeps coming back over and over and over... feels like a Robert Jordan story line doesn't it? (oh... wrong thread :))

The few people at work that have seen the movie seem to talk about it like it's a viable theory. I have to laugh it off.

This movie is good if you treat it like The Terminator - good story line but wouldn't/didn't happen. Popcorn anyone? :)

[Erling E.]

I've not read the whole book (just a bit of it), but I thought the movie was very well done. It was exciting, it had a bit of action and of course a very interesting story that was just sufficiently deep. You can say whatever you want about the whole theory behind it, but they definetly make it believable in the movie.

[Aurric]

I enjoyed the movie (Tom Hanks's hairstyle aside), and I think they did a good adaptation of the book, but obviously had to take some liberties in making the movie.

I still think the book was better, but I can really only think of one or two movies where the movie was as good as the book.

[Aren31]

I thought the movie was a nearly perfect imaging of the book, but having read the book I wasn't in any sort of suspense, the movie failed to engage me the same way the book did, but I did think it was very well done.

As for the story, it is a fiction based on theories

these theories are real, and they have real evidience to back them up, but no they are about as provable as the statement "Jesus is the only path to heaven" is provable.

If you want to read some of the historical analysis and reasoning behind the theories behind the Davinci Code definitely read "The Templar Revelation" and what I believe was the first major book to publish the bloodline theory, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail"

Both have very interesting analysis of the Gnostic Gospels as well as regional dialogue and era specific mistranslations that allow you to see the possibilities.

However, if your mind is made up already, don't bother exposing youself to these books, your gut will tell you what is the truth.

[Zarithar]

I thought the movie was ok but not great. Frankly I don't understand the hype or the controversy. If you are a Christian and seeing this movie somehow challenges your faith, then I would say to you that maybe your faith wasn't all that strong to begin with.

The only thing I could see as controversial was the portrayal of Opus Dei, which is more than a little skewed... but hey, it's Hollywood, they do things like that all the time right? However, I challenge a director to make a movie which portrays Islam in a bad light. Christianity is about the only religion that it is politically correct to bash these days (the Catholic Church in particular).

Ian McKellen was outstanding as usual in the movie... and the Hans Zimmer score was good enough to make me buy the soundtrack (I love Zimmer scores).

Just a note on the book. I was working part time (Saturdays & Sundays) at Barnes and Noble when the book first hit the bestseller list. I mean... that book FLEW off the shelves and we had trouble keeping it in stock. It drew in alot of folks who normally don't read books without pictures in them, which is a good thing... however... being the snob that I am it actually made me reluctant to read the book.

I've heard that the movie was a pretty faithful adaptation, and based on that I now have no interest in the book! The movie told me enough, and as I said... it was a good story, but not a great one imo.

[Erling E.]

I enjoyed the movie (Tom Hanks's hairstyle aside)...

Whaaat? When I first saw him on screen I thought "man, I want that hairstyle".

[Cobble]

I really enjoyed the book and really enjoyed the movie. I thought the movie was pretty well faithfull to the book minus some small bits and quite an enjoyable couple of hours.

The biggest problem is that people seem to be taking one side of the fence or the other. Aren31 made a good point, its a fiction piece based on real theories that have been in contention for a long time. Also, I would really like to sit down with one of the church bigwigs that are making all the fuss and ask them if they truely believe that protesting will stop people from seeing it. They are drawing attention to a book and a movie that probably would have gone by relatively quietly. Ron Howard I'm sure isnt unhappy by the protests at all, I bet he would lend them his bullhorn.

Just as an aside, not that I believe anything the movie says because i really dont care much, but opus dei was founded in Spain in 1928 (not the mid 50s) and have been inside controversy numourous times well before the book was even an idea. And in the movie itself when Tom Hanks asks if opus dei is behind the murders Ian Mcellen directly says.. not opus dei itself but a sect of members.

Just to keep everything straight.

[EvilPetRock]

Due to ze controversy surrounding zis movie, zis thread vill be vatched closely. Keep ze discussions to ze movie, not religious debates.

[One-Winged Angel]

Loved the book, and the movie, to me, was close to its equal. Acting was top-notch, especially Ian McKellan, who I always enjoy. He played a perfect Lea Teabing. Rumors and such aside, the story was very well thought out. His other books are the same way, based on fact or something that sounds a lot like fact.

[Aurric]

Whaaat? When I first saw him on screen I thought "man, I want that hairstyle".

Oh, come on, let's face it, the hairstyle is the bastard child of a mullet and a combover. :P ;)

[Erling E.]

I thought it was cool. :-D

[Stagecoach]

I enjoyed it as a mystery, but I can understand why some critics may have panned it.

In the movie, it seems like the victim had a lot of time on his hands. But without his actions, it would be a rather short movie ;)

[KaiTenSatsuma]

meh i liked the book when i was still blissfully unaware of all of the mistakes

though all the "complexions" between the v not being a chalace but a woman, and the wiccan pentical, i knew were wrong, and badly confused.

that guy needs to do his research before publishing a theologically f***ed up book, hell, they published a book with all of the mistakes he made, it was like 100 pages long.

[Kaylen]

Wicca was a religion created in the 1900s. The pentacle has been around for quite a bit longer than that. Additionally, the book was fiction. Obviously Mr. Brown took some liberties.

As for it being alright to bash Christians and only Christians, how many times have you heard people say "religion of peace" in a mocking tone? The difference is that in Christianity, some extremes of the religion are considered quite normal, so people objectively outside the faith see many more things to nitpick than with Islam.

If anything, the theories in this book make me want to start practicing the religion I was born into again. Frankly, taking away Jesus' divinity, making him merely a great man, makes the whole thing much more appealing.

As for the movie, it was boring because I'd read the book and it followed the book so well. This was made worse by the horrible performance delivered by Tom Hanks (though I did like his hair). Half the time he seemed to be confused, reading lines right out of a script. Watch the Terminal, and then watch this; it's a very big low for him. There wasn't much to work with, with a character like Robert Langdon, but I expected more.

Sir Ian McKellen stole the show as Sir Lee Teabing, and I absolutely loved him in this role. Jean Reno was also excellent, and I hope this gets him into some better roles, as he's one of my favorite actors.

Paul Bettany also went the extra mile.

They did leave some things out, like Sophie's familial ties to the boy in the church at the end, but that may be changed in the DVD.

[One-Winged Angel]

It does seem that people routinely avoid the fact that this book is fiction. Yes, it's based on some rumors and even some facts, but to make a great story, the author took a lot of liberties.

Also, I agree on Jean Reno. I've liked him ever since The Professional, and he just isn't used enough. He's a great actor.

[Muindaur]

I enjoyed the movie (Tom Hanks's hairstyle aside), and I think they did a good adaptation of the book, but obviously had to take some liberties in making the movie.

I still think the book was better, but I can really only think of one or two movies where the movie was as good as the book.


Forest Gump. The movie was better than the book because there wasn't that way out there tangent that made you go WTF, that must of been the author on drugs section of the book.