Anyone wishes to give an opinion on Da Vinci Code... The movie or the book. Your thoughts straight up?
549853
I think the writing is so simple, and although Brown is not a spectuacular "writer" through critics, I think the simpler the better. Furthermore, the storyline is just so intriguing that it's hard to not be captivated in his plots.\n\nThe movie should be equally as interesting!
1160748
The book was better ,the movie was great . If you havent read the book read it 1st then watch the movie.
616439
I don't believe it for at all either. I think that movie makes a joke out of Jesus and I feel sorry for all the fools who find a stupid book and movie to be giving out real information. If anyone wants to read a book that tells you the way it really is..then read the bible. Stop being stupid!!!!!!!!!!
619937
Dan Brown talks about the controversy surrounding the movie.\n\nHOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?\nThe Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.
641191
hi, yes i have seen the Da Vinci Code, and i agree with Professer Drex - it is very good despite what a lot of people have said about it. if you like this kind of film, go and see it. if you have read the book already, be prepared..it may not be exactly as you expect it to be....you know what they say about a film based on the book...although i haven't read the book yet..\nbut it is still great and so is Tom Hanks....enjoy!\none more thing, it may seem boring to some people because it doesn't have as much action as some films i.e MI3etc, only because it isn't that sort of film but just as mysterious. it does have some exciting bits, if a little predictable at times, but with a twist at others.....
1134367
the Da Vinci Code is pretty good, better if you've read the book. Definatley not a out-with-your-friends movie though. The Break Up was unexpectedly good, funny. Pretty predictable though.
1149623
I believe in it. The book especially is too compelling not to. I don't understand it, though, but I do think there's too much evidence to support some sort of occurance going on...not sure if it's aliens or what, but I'm convinced that there are many things abound that we just don't know about. \n\nIf you haven't read the book, do so. The movie is hollywoodized and nothing like the book.
248806
The book or the movie?
231457
This book is Harper Lee's masterpiece. I like the symbolism it inculdes very much. Are you a good reader? Did you read the Da Vinci Code? Tell me what you think about it.
912409
Ok the most easy way to get around such a question would be :The book is better than the movie".It actually counts for 98% of the adaptations.But The DaVinci code fits in the 2% of the cases where the movie is actually better than the book.\n \n       First of all Ron Howard (a beautiful mind) is a great director.The book itself did not appear so great to me having a rather bad character development (leading to the dissapointing revelation of the finale) and having the scientist explain it everything so that anybody can grasp the action is too much artifialism for me.For example Langdon dont need to explain the history of Paris to a french woman who herself is an Academic.This appears to a point in the movie but since the action is preety more spectacular it covers it uo.\n\nAlso the book has no fluidity.The chaptres last 2 1&#92;2 half pages maximum and the action is cut much to often.This leads to a confusion because you get to a point where the change of background-people leaves you with a strange sence.The movie is far better.The director not willing to follow all the cuts and changes of the author produces a more solid scenaro leaving the audience understand the changes.For example Langdon and the girl in the book seem (not ARE )the same in the beginning and the end which does not happen to the movie.\n    The standard motto is "go with the book".But this time I will choose the film instead
722242
I liked the book and cant wait for the movie to come out. I think the reason why most people don't like it is because it challenges religion and most of the nations beliefs. I see it this way anything is possible........
553568
no, the da vinci code is a fictional book, it is just a theory. no truth to it.
654433
I'm an ordained evangelical minister and see no problem with either the movie or the book. The problem is that Dan Brown has stated that the book and movie are fictional, but Christians say it's misleading--but their problem is that they are trying to pick apart DVC without going to the Bible to find out what is true in DVC and what isn't. If they'd just stick with the Bible as their source for truth and read it and absorb it, and keep in mind that DVC is fiction, then it's absolutely no problem. I just wonder how many Christians are seeing the movie or reading the book without opening their Bibles. :-(
563850
Well I´ve read the book and enjoyed it throughly! But sad to say there is a lot of thingd in the book that is false, \nbut it does makes you wonder. \n\nWhat I can´t understand is that a few years ago there were some old scripures found, but wouldn´d be accepted by the church. These scriptures underwent all the neccassary test to prove its validity(and it was found to be written the time Jesus was alive and 100 after he died).But it was a little bit contridicting to what is in the bible.\n\nAnyway what the da vinci code does is start to put doubt in the minds of people, and why did  the church reacted so strange to this book which is a novel! \n\nAnd okay the thought that Jesus actually has a living heir is strange, but Dan Brown was not the first to write about this there are many other listed books. And ´if´ that were true then the church would clear not want that knowledge to be known because it would loss a lot of credibility.\nSome modern writers,including Dan Brown, have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. These writers cite Gnostic writings to support their argument. Sources like the ´Gospel of Philip´ do depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple. \nHowever, there is no known ancient document that claims she was his wife and Gnosticism was generally non-supportive of sexuality. The closeness described in these writings depicts Mary Magdalene, representing the Gnostics, as understanding Jesus and his teaching while the other disciples, representing the Church, did not.\nMary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation, this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.\n\nAn argument for support of the married status of Jesus is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment) — "Be fruitful and multiply". According to this reasoning, it would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi.\nA counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.\nPaul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among Christians. Jesus himself approved of voluntary celibacy for religious reasons and explicitly rejected a duty to marry: "There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (Matthew 19,12)\n\nThe idea that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus was popularized by books like the pseudo-historical Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) and The Da Vinci Code (2003), a novel heavily influenced by the former book. These assertions have found no acceptance from scholarly circles.\n\nAnd secret societcy are meant to be kept secret so I don´t expect the historians to find a lot of concrete information about the Priory of Sion. \n\nAnd maybe Leonardo did discover something and instead of just saying or exposing it out right he decided to be clever and hide it within his works of art. After all he was known as a genuis.\n\nSo I(am born and raised catholic, but was taught to have an open mind about things.) personally an very intrigued by this idea of Dan Browns, but I am neither for it nor against it. I
639083
The Da Vinci Code is centered to Mary Magdalene "the holy grail"\n\nand here are the summarizes:\n\nWhile in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon ('Tom Hanks') receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. Solving the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci - clues visible for all to see, and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter. Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion - an actual secret society. In a breathless race through Paris, London and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who appears to work for Opus Dei - a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic organization believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's secret - and a stunning historical truth - will be lost forever.\n\nSummary written by bondish\n\nProfessor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is in Paris on business when he's summoned to The Louvre. A dead body has been found, setting Langdon off on an adventure as he attempts to unravel an ancient code and uncover the greatest mystery of all time.\n\nSummary written by comicfan\n\nWhen respected American religious symbology expert Dr. Robert Langdon(Hanks) is summoned to the Louvre by the French version of the FBI, led by Captain Bezu Fache(Reno), he soon discovered that he is the #1 suspect for the murder of a historian Langdon had been scheduled to meet with.. Assisted by a French cryptographer and government agent named Sophie(Tautou), Langdon is challenged to decipher a chain of cryptic codes and puzzles, all the while trying to stay ahead of Fache's lawmen in a chase through the Louvre, and out into the Parisian cityscape, and finally across the channel to England. Can Langdon and Sophie decipher the nature of a secret dating back to Leonardo Da Vinci and earlier before those responsible for the historian's murder add them to their hit list..?\n\nSummary written by Austin4577@aol.com
693099
You raise a good point, about what standard we use to determine credibility.\n\nThe problem with the Da Vinci Code is that Dan Brown is basically saying, "Okay, here's a novel for you, but I'm basing it on facts." He begins his novel, with a page titled "Fact" in which he says: "The Priory of Sion--a European secret society founded in 1099--is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's[sic] Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci..." The problem with that statement of fact, is that it's absolutely not true.\n\nThe Priory of Sion was founded in 1956 and the list of members a complete fabrication. You can go and research the Priory of Sion online(and I think the wikpedia has a good starting point)and discover for yourself that the claims Dan Brown makes in his book are false.\n\nI don't think there is any solid extra-biblical information that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalene or anyone else. I have to admit that there is a personal bias here, because I think Jesus was fully God and fully man. I think he channelled his sexual desires into an immense love for everyone. We as mere humans are not capable of that kind of love. That's just my personal opinion there.\n\nAlso, if Jesus was fully God, how is it possible for God to love just one woman?\n\nNow, if he's just man then there are no theological problems with him getting married and having children and if he's just a man, then we'd be stupid to follow him too.\n\nI don't care if people want to see the movie or read the book. I read the book and didn't think it was well written. It contained laughable dialogue and situations. Especially the dialogue between Sophie and Langdon. But they need to realize it's fiction! Of course, if people want to read a novel and see a movie and believe that it's true, then that's their problem, I suppose.\n\nIn regards to the Bible, Christians who are inquisitive do wonder about bias, error and fiction. That's what Bible study is for. There are mountains of books on the Bible, with differing viewpoints. As the movie tagline says, "Seek The Truth".
152995
I am amazed that this question was asked. I thought the book too obscure to be noticed in this day and age. \n\nI loved it. A bit convoluted but brilliant. It has the potential to be a fantastic movie but it has to be done to match its brothers. Peter Jackson is a must here.