Exactly. Online reviews are always wrong for me, I don't care who it is, I almost always have the exact opposite opinion.

I read the book, and I enjoyed it, not because I thought it was true, but because I knew it was well thought out, well put together story (except a few gaps and problems that I found with it, but when you tackle a topic that big, you're bound to stumble somewhere). I call it fiction, although lots would like to take it as a true story. It was just a really neat story, connecting religion/Jesus with little odditys in Da Vincis paintings. A bit of a stretch, but it made for fun reading.

I just hope they put Angels and Demons into a movie, I personally think that was a better book.

I have read the book and I am going to see it. Even though I know everything in the books is basically misleading and crap, and I'm not a Christian, I am still going to see it for entertainment purposes.

That is correct.

Seriously, you don't have to find flaws in Dan Brown's scholarship to dislike his books. The flaws in his writing are enough.

The Da Vinci Code, while an entertaining read, is not literature. It is a fictional "Safeway novel" not to be taken seriously. I'm not sure you can fault Dan Brown for poor scholarship when the book was never meant to be taken as a scholar paper.

Exactly.

So, people arguing about a fictional work which is about more fictional work?

the ideas presented in browns book arent new. in fact very little in his book were things that i hadn't already heard.

the people who were suing him DID publish a book 30 years ago that presented the same ideas, but as a work of non-fiction. which is why their suit is going to go no where.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Non-fiction
Da Vinci Code - Fictional Novel

i dont see why theres all this controversy NOW when i'm sure some of our parents went through the same thing in the 70s.

There was a potential to get a lot of money by suing now. What other reason is there?

I want a Foucault's Pendulum movie.

oh and it cant be the worst movie of the year.

Doom was pretty bad.

ok

thx

Didn't Doom come out last year?

Also, the last 20 minutes of Doom more than made up for the rest of it. 'twas fantastic.

Well I just got back from the Da Vinci Code, and in the words of Comic Book Guy, "Worst.....Movie....Ever."

No it isn't the worst movie ever, but the sentiment certainly applies. It was easily the worst film I have seen in theaters since last year. My worst fears were realized, in that this was a book that should/could not have been made into a movie. Too much of the Grail plot was tossed aside, in the interest of saving time. However, the movie still ran 2 1/2 hours, which by the end was completely unacceptable. I must have been checking my watch every five minutes toward the finale of the film. If you have a problem with long, protracted endings, don't see this film. It makes Return of the King look like an exercise in brevity.

The acting was, unfortunately, horrendous. Tom Hanks, who is one of my favorite actors, easily was at his least effective. For all intents and purposes, it could have been any other actor in his place, and should have. Sophie served the purpose of eye candy, and that was all. Ian McKellan was satisfactory, demonstrating the most enthusiasm out of all the characters. However, I expect more from actors of his caliber. Molina was wasted, and his monk Silas was nothing special.

in terms of style, Ron Howard usually can deliver something that makes you take notice. In the Da Vinci Code, there was no such moment Again, the studio should have had another director take the helm, because Howard didn't bring anything amazing to the table. As far as thrillers go, it was torrid. The action scenes, if you can call them that were totally nondescript, most likely because of the exposition required for the plt.

Again, this was not the worst movie ever, but I could not identify one redeeming feature out of the entire film. MI:III trumps this, and I would imagine Poseidon does too. The Da Vinci Code was a waste of $8.75, and a waste of two hours. If the story interests you that much, read the book instead.

.

MY GOD.

Best thing about seeing the movie was the nut-job christian protestors out front.
"By watching this movie you forfiet your soul!"
Funny, funny stuff.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD movie.

This is a prime example of how movies suck with time constraints and inability to put in thoughts like you can in books.

Tom Hanks' acting was pretty bad, Sophie didn't interest me at all (crappy English), and when I have to read half of the movie anyway because of subtitles, I don't enjoy it. I'm just glad I paid to see MI:III last week, and didn't come with my friends tonight because it was a waste of money. Atleast my mom paid

Its funny, as i was reading the book i was like, wow this is great! As soon as i finished it i realised how gay it actually was.