Da Vinci Code movie

[Good2Golf]

Am I the only one that thinks the book was horribly written. The prose was unimaginative and pedantic and did not give any credence to the reader's intelligence. I got so annoyed with the childish style of writing I almost gave up half way through the book, but decided to finish it so I could say with all honesty, "Yes I read it. It's a work of fiction and not well done, at that." The premise is interesting, though. I like the author Kathereine Neville better. She also often uses pseudo-religious and philosophical ideas as plots; she also has neat puzzles placed throughout her books, but her writing itself is infinitely better.

Of Dan Brown's four books (DaVinci Code, Angel and Demons, Digital Fortress, and Deception Point) I think that DaVinci Code was the least favourite of mine.  It was a little simplistic in how it treats the reader, with a lot of, "of course...that must mean....."  I enjoyed Angels and Demons the most followed by Deception Point, Digital Fortress and DaVinci Code in last.

That said, I think the movie was a fair representation of a fair to middling book.

Mein 2 ¢

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Sheerin]

My biggest problem with Brown is that he seems to lose interest in the story he's telling about halfway through.  Its almost as if he writes the first half and then realises he needs to throw an ending on it at the last moment.

 

[winchable]

Just crashed through the book in three days, the premise is interesting enough I suppose but it was actually poorly written, that's not just pretentious literary critics talking.
I called one of the major plot twists 1/4 of the way through the book which really disappointed me because normally I'm wrong.

I will go see the movie out of morbid interest.

 

[Good2Golf]

Just crashed through the book in three days, the premise is interesting enough I suppose but it was actually poorly written, that's not just pretentious literary critics talking.
I called one of the major plot twists 1/4 of the way through the book which really disappointed me because normally I'm wrong.

I will go see the movie out of morbid interest.

Che, it's a bland train wreck but you just can't help yourself...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Matty B.]

Che and Sheerin... you guys are so right.  It's sad to see that Dan Brown has become filthy rich because of the pulp-fiction novel he wrote. I read the novel and saw the movie on the same day (May 19) and thought that both of them weren't that good...

 

[a_majoor]

Che and Sheerin... you guys are so right.  It's sad to see that Dan Brown has become filthy rich because of the pulp-fiction novel he wrote. I read the novel and saw the movie on the same day (May 19) and thought that both of them weren't that good...

Time to pull out some history books and do a plot layout.......

 

[043]

Watch it......you'll have everyone heading to Tweed, Ontario to seek out Elvis, if you keep it up.

He does live in Tweed dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[geo]

It's a good yarn.....
period

That's all it is - a story.

 

[exsemjingo]

well, now, your entire post revolves around one accepting the conventional Christian faith. If one doesn't, it falls apart.

Here we go!
When evaluating any given material, judgements must be drawn from the context of that material.  It is true; one cannot compare apples to oranges.
My post on the other hand compares apples to apples.  If the Gospels are correct about Jesus, then he is important.  If they are not, he is a nobody and why bother with him? 
The Davinci code is not meant to be taken seriously, but if someone does take it seriously, they believe some parts of scripture and not others.  To do that , one needs to do a lot more research and scholarly work than what Dan Brown writes about in the book.
I am only speaking generally about critical biblical scholarship.
To put it another way, a person is free to believe whatever they want.  But if they take themselves seriously, their beliefs will be based on well-researched, fully thought out ideas.
On to the Smalcald war, er, thread!

 

[Michael OLeary]

To put it another way, a person is free to believe whatever they want.  But if they take themselves seriously, their beliefs will be based on well-researched, fully thought out ideas.

Uh, sorry, but an entire (multiple) universe of conspiracy theorists disproves this little hypothesis.  Every tin-foil-beanie-wearing rant monkey actually believes they are right, and that everyone else should take them as serriously as they do themselves.

"Just because my assumptions are wrong, doesn't mean my logic isn't valid."

 

[exsemjingo]

Uh, sorry, but an entire (multiple) universe of conspiracy theorists disproves this little hypothesis.  Every tin-foil-beanie-wearing rant monkey actually believes they are right, and that everyone else should take them as seriously as they do themselves.

"Just because my assumptions are wrong, doesn't mean my logic isn't valid."

So, how do we know who's wearing tinfoil and who's not?  I'm not saying most opinions are well thought out; they definitely are not.  I'm saying they should be, and that there is an evaluation method.
Otherwise we may as well all be black-turtleneck wearing beatnicks.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, how do we know who's wearing tinfoil and who's not?

Occam's razor