Davinci Code

[SilentLoner]

Okay, I got back from seeing the Davinci code about three hours ago. Seeing it wasnt excatly at the top of my priority list, partly due to all the negative reviews, but the female parental unit managed to guilt-talk me into going.

And since I had nothing to do, having decided to skip prom, I went along, hoping to at least run into protestors or something.

 

Unfortunately, no protestors, (though I noticed the theater had some extra security guards) but I have to say the movie wasnt bad at all. The book was definitely more detail-oriented and had more plot, but the movie does a fairly good job of telling the story. ian McKellen was awesome (as ususal). The monk Silas was played out really well, and there are some great historic flashback scenes.

 

I was disappointed in the ending tho, but wont go into detail. Overall, I found the movie enjoyable but I'm not sure I'd see it in theaters again.

[Guest Emerson]

The New York Times review said that it was "inoffensive," did Ron Howard water down the main plot of the novel, that jesus married mary magdalene, and that the secret society protected any future heirs?

 

How watered down was it? Hmm sounds like I'd rather wait for the dvd, if the ending was disappointing then what's the point in seeing at the theatres?

[RedPillAddict]

I just saw it too. It seemed like Tom Hanks was defensive of Christianity throughout the movie. It was very good though. I will definately buy it when its released on dvd.

[Ex-COG]

Just saw it today. I was definately glad I read the book first, because I don't think I could have followed everything that was happening, otherwise. It was almost too much info to cram into a two-hour movie. If I had seen this without reading the book, I would have been confused about certain points in the plot. I also was disappointed because there wasn't much character development, as everything was focused on fitting in the details and progression of solving the mystery. I like stories that give you a good background of the main characters; it makes them real and easy to identify. Overall, I'd say it was ok, but I don't think I'll buy the DVD.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

The New York Times review said that it was "inoffensive," did Ron Howard water down the main plot of the novel, that jesus married mary magdalene, and that the secret society protected any future heirs?

 

How watered down was it? Hmm sounds like I'd rather wait for the dvd, if the ending was disappointing then what's the point in seeing at the theatres?

 

 

I believe Ronny removed the references questioning Jesus' divinity, mostly. And made Langdon less of a questioner than a defense attorney of Christianity.

 

 

This is one reader who won't bother seeing it; the book sucked monkey balls. It was a chore to finish it; Dan Brown is not a particularly good writer.

[Guest Emerson]

Ugh that's what I feared. Maybe Ron Howard and probably the studio were afraid at pissing off the xians because of how the passion of the christ did in theatres, but hell controversy is what made the book sell millions of copies. I just don't understand why they couldn't apply the same thing to the movie. I'm definitely not seeing it, seems they want to appease both sides and they should've just stayed true to the book itself.

[ChristiaNazi]

The New York Times review said that it was "inoffensive," did Ron Howard water down the main plot of the novel, that jesus married mary magdalene, and that the secret society protected any future heirs?

 

How watered down was it? Hmm sounds like I'd rather wait for the dvd, if the ending was disappointing then what's the point in seeing at the theatres?

 

I believe Ronny removed the references questioning Jesus' divinity, mostly. And made Langdon less of a questioner than a defense attorney of Christianity.

 

This is one reader who won't bother seeing it; the book sucked monkey balls.

As I interpreted it Langdon (Hanks) was questioning Teabing's (McKellen's) rather dogmatic beliefs, not defending Chrisitanity. The difference in perspective allowed Teabing a vehicle to expound on the history of the allegation, origins of the New Testament, Knights Templar, Church control, etc. The scene would have been dull if both characters had the same point of view. Also, many in the audience probably needed a brief education on the history of the New Testament scriptures, Council of Nicaea, etc.

 

I had a several question throughout the movie about several holes in the logic. First, how would a DNA comparison between Audrey and the ancient remains prove that the remains were those of Mary Magdaline? Beyond that, how would this prove anything about Jesus having married her or Audrey being a descendant of Jesus?

 

If you're avoiding the movie because the book sucked, fine. Avoiding it because it isn't "anti-Christian" enough though is about as narrowminded as the Xians who are picketing it.

[rising_L]

I saw It too and I thought it was fantasitic. Not as good as the book, as it did have more detail in it. I brought my Christian/Ex-Christian (She don't know what she is) to see it and she too really enjoyed it. Event though is was quite pissed off that Leigh Teabing was using the Last Supper as historical document of the time of Christ. Anyways, It was a good filim that I would see again. But what struck me about the film, maybe it was in the book but I just missed it, was when Robert and Sophie were discussing weather or not to come out with the "truth". It was how Robert said, more or less, that faith in anything makes people fell better, weather what you believe in is true or not, which I think is true. The problem is when those people try to force their faith upon others.

 

There was only abround 4 protesters at the cinema I was at!! Weather It was due to the fact that I went to the last showing I don't know. But they were in no way hostile, which I was completly surprised.

[Beowulf]

I just saw it too. It seemed like Tom Hanks was defensive of Christianity throughout the movie. It was very good though. I will definately buy it when its released on dvd.

 

It looks like Howard threw that in to blunt some of the criticism. However, it creates a situation where the movie is now internally inconsistent. Langdon is supposed to be an expert in the Sacred Feminine, and has a book on the subject (or an unpublished manuscript, if you're following the novel.) He is personally summoned as part of Saunier's last wishes because of his knowledge in the area. Yet he reacts to Teabing's tails of the Holy Grail as if he's hearing it for the first time and is outraged at the implications. [insert whopping plot hole here.]

 

Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

 

Even so, dismissing the plot hole and book-novel inconsistencies, it was enjoyable, albeit a bit long.

[The Sage Nabooru]

It was a chore to finish it; Dan Brown is not a particularly good writer.

 

Tell me about it. I almost bought the book when it first exploded in sales. I picked up a copy at Barnes & Noble and, as usual, randomly opened it to a page that I couldn't bear to finish.

 

I wonder if we'll ever hear from Dan Brown again.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

It was a chore to finish it; Dan Brown is not a particularly good writer.

 

Tell me about it. I almost bought the book when it first exploded in sales. I picked up a copy at Barnes & Noble and, as usual, randomly opened it to a page that I couldn't bear to finish.

 

I wonder if we'll ever hear from Dan Brown again.

 

I hear he is working on a new book (The Solomon Key). His others weren't bad either (Angels and Demons, Deception Point, and Digital Fortress). Don't know why so many here have such a poor view of Code. He does seem to follow a very formulaic pattern in his books though. There seems to always be a trusted father figure that turns out to be the bad guy.