Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Da Vinci Code Movie [Official Thread]
- Thread starter Shaun.P
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've not read the book. The impression I got from those who have is (beyond the obligatory "I loved it!") that it's written in a very amateur fashion and would fit well into the Juvenile Fiction section at any bookstore. (In other words, yes: I am too smart for this book to do anything for me.) Add to that the well-founded accusations of plagiarism and outright stealing from other previously-published books, and you get a book that I'm GLAD I didn't read.
And now the movie reviews are very tepid...
I think the only reason I might go now is just to see Audrey Tautou on the big screen.
And now the movie reviews are very tepid...
I think the only reason I might go now is just to see Audrey Tautou on the big screen.
clayj said:
I'm torn on the plagerism aspect. On one hand, Dan Brown outright mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in the book itself. He obviously used it as a reference. Then again, if you remove all aspects of Holy Blood, Holy Grail from Da Vinci Code you have little else remaining... the actual story of Da Vinci Code feels like its just there to string together Dan Brown's "facts."
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a discussion in itself. That is a book written as nonfiction about a ficticious organization (although the authors didn't know it at the time because they apparently suck at research
)
Well, the other thing I find funny is that DVC is not the first book to raise the notion that Jesus' life was anything other than how it is described in the Bible.
For example, one of my favorite novels, The Light of Other Days, by Arthur C. Clarke (a known atheist) and Stephen Baxter, posits the invention of "wormcam" technology which allows one to view any place, either now or in the past. A project called the 10,000 Days is set up, wherein 10,000 volunteers each watch one day of Jesus' life and record EVERYTHING he did or said (they can read the lips of anyone they watch). Clarke and Baxter speculate that Mary was not a "virgin" in the true sense of the word, but rather a "temple virgin"; that Jesus' father was a Roman centurion; that Jesus' actual name was "Yesho ben Pantera"; that Mary hid the origin of Jesus' conception from Joseph in order to prevent shame to his family; that Jesus spent much time traveling around the Roman Empire, even as far as England, with Joseph of Arimathea; and that Jesus was sort of a New Age philosopher who wanted nothing more than for people to be nice to each other.
The only concession that Clarke and Baxter make to Jesus' possible divinity is that the moments of crucifixion remain hidden, presumably because the huge number of wormhole cameras open to that moment, both from now and from in the future, caused a disruption in the fabric of spacetime around that event... so no one can see what REALLY happened.
I guess the reason why a book like The Light of Other Days doesn't get the sort of negative attention that DVC is getting is because it's not wildly popular.
For example, one of my favorite novels, The Light of Other Days, by Arthur C. Clarke (a known atheist) and Stephen Baxter, posits the invention of "wormcam" technology which allows one to view any place, either now or in the past. A project called the 10,000 Days is set up, wherein 10,000 volunteers each watch one day of Jesus' life and record EVERYTHING he did or said (they can read the lips of anyone they watch). Clarke and Baxter speculate that Mary was not a "virgin" in the true sense of the word, but rather a "temple virgin"; that Jesus' father was a Roman centurion; that Jesus' actual name was "Yesho ben Pantera"; that Mary hid the origin of Jesus' conception from Joseph in order to prevent shame to his family; that Jesus spent much time traveling around the Roman Empire, even as far as England, with Joseph of Arimathea; and that Jesus was sort of a New Age philosopher who wanted nothing more than for people to be nice to each other.
The only concession that Clarke and Baxter make to Jesus' possible divinity is that the moments of crucifixion remain hidden, presumably because the huge number of wormhole cameras open to that moment, both from now and from in the future, caused a disruption in the fabric of spacetime around that event... so no one can see what REALLY happened.
I guess the reason why a book like The Light of Other Days doesn't get the sort of negative attention that DVC is getting is because it's not wildly popular.
I read the book and enjoyed it as a work of fiction. It was fun. I haven't read ANY of the articles and 'news' stories about the movie. I'm bored by the whole thing and don't really care if I see the movie now. Maybe I'll rent it in 6 months....
It wasn't the first piece of fiction to base itself off of Holy Blood Holy Grail either. The game Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned was pretty much based on the book. Only GK3 was far far FAR more entertaining.
i am actually very interested in seeing the film, and i am going to check it out, just since i liked the book so much. I dont think that the movie will be nearly as good, but just going to see hit in hopes that it might be good. The book in my opinion was fantastic.
The more I think about it, I have to say that I would not recommend this film. Halfway through, I found myself bored. The beginning is the best.
Some of the acting was dodgy.
In the book, the FBI guy asks what Robert Langdon things of the Glass Pyramid and he says he likes it, or whatever, and the FBI says that it's a scar on the face of paris.
In the film the same thing happens but when the guy says "Scar on the face of Paris' it feels as if it was just said because it was in the book, and when he says it, it's so fake. You need to see this to know what I'm talking about.
Also, when Silias kills the old nun, people in the film were laughing! Lol, it was slightly funny for some reason. Also, in the book, I imagined Teabing as Niles Crane from Frasier for some reason Sir Ian McClellan doesn't do the character justice.
Some of the acting was dodgy.
In the book, the FBI guy asks what Robert Langdon things of the Glass Pyramid and he says he likes it, or whatever, and the FBI says that it's a scar on the face of paris.
In the film the same thing happens but when the guy says "Scar on the face of Paris' it feels as if it was just said because it was in the book, and when he says it, it's so fake. You need to see this to know what I'm talking about.
Also, when Silias kills the old nun, people in the film were laughing! Lol, it was slightly funny for some reason. Also, in the book, I imagined Teabing as Niles Crane from Frasier for some reason Sir Ian McClellan doesn't do the character justice.
MovieCutter said:Just remember, it's a movie of FICTION, based on a book of FICTION, based on a book of FICTION
Best summation so far.
/word
Taken for what it is, it's not a bad movie. It's pretty fun, albeit too long. I forgot how much I hate Tom Hanks though.
Just saw it. A digital projection, too.
Reviews I had read said the French accents were hard to understand, that the movie had too much talking, that the flashbacks weren't handled well, that the movie was too rushed because it tried to cram in so many details at the expense of the story line, that showing puzzle solving is boring, and that Hanks had a lousy haircut. I found only the last of those to be true.
However, it was essentially the book performed by actors, with a bit left out in the middle and a bit added to the end. It couldn't really have been perfect for anyone because it had to contend with two audiences: we millions who read the book and already know the "secrets", and the other millions who didn't read the book and probably find the story too confusing.
Reviews I had read said the French accents were hard to understand, that the movie had too much talking, that the flashbacks weren't handled well, that the movie was too rushed because it tried to cram in so many details at the expense of the story line, that showing puzzle solving is boring, and that Hanks had a lousy haircut. I found only the last of those to be true.
However, it was essentially the book performed by actors, with a bit left out in the middle and a bit added to the end. It couldn't really have been perfect for anyone because it had to contend with two audiences: we millions who read the book and already know the "secrets", and the other millions who didn't read the book and probably find the story too confusing.