I read the book and am looking forward to seeing the film and seeing how they adapted it. Good cast, good director…could be good.
However, there seems to be a lot of people who think even going to see the film is an act of betrayal to religious faith.
My own personal opinion is that this is a film, based on a novel that is sold in the fiction (not non-fiction) sections of your local book store. You should take it with a grain of salt.
I have gone to other movies that do not necessarily follow my code of beliefs, so what is the big deal?
Granted, there seems to be no love lost for the book here on the boards, but just wondering:
Yes. Thought it a fascinating look into what I believe to be psuedo-history. It was entertaining in a page-turning way, but gawd-awfully written.
Yes. My girlfriend and I are invited to a screening next Monday here in Chicago. I’m really looking forward to it.
As bad as the book was written, I think it has much more potential to be a good movie than most well-written books. The book is written so cinematically, I can see it really working well on the big screen.
Yes. I love the way he mixes bits of historic facts with conjecture and outright fantasy for this fun fictional romp. I don’t think it is quite as bad as HelloNinja makes it out to be, but it certainly isn’t a great work of literature or anything.
Yes. It seems like just the sort of book that’ll convert well to the big screen, and the director and cast seem like a good match for the subject matter.
I didn’t read the book, but do intend to see the film. It sounds interesting but I decided for sure to see it when I found out Sir Ian McKellen is in it.
It would appear they’re not screening it for critics until the night before. Cite. They claim it’s to avoid buzzkill. Usually studios do this when they know the movie sucks. As the critics lack time to have their reviews published before the opening night, avertising and hype aren’t cancelled by lots of thumbs pointing down.
I’m definitely not seeing it opening night, anyway. And if I find out they don’t deviate much from the book, I won’t see it at all, since I thought the book was attrocious.
I read some of the book, but couldn’t finish it. I think I know too much about church history that I would have had to set aside to enjoy the book. I guess I could have pretended it was an alternate universe or something.
I doubt I’ll go see it in the theater but maybe, someday, I’ll catch it on video, if the reviews are positive.
Sunday school teacher checking in. Yes I’m going to see it, but I want to go to church one more time first so I can say goodbye to my friends up there. I’m certain my gentle faith will be far too shaken to continue on after Opie leads me astray.
Seriously though:
Yep. I found it to be pretty entertaining. Nothing classic, and I won’t need to read it again, but I enjoyed it. It’s a quick read too.
I intend to see it, but probably not right away. I agree with HelloNinja and Ponder Stibbons - the book was practically a screenplay to begin with, so it should translate pretty well.
1.Yes, but only because it was somewhat of a sequel to Angels and Demons, which I had already read, and I enjoy revisiting familiar characters. I agree that it’s also almost the silliest book regarding religion since The Celestine Prophesy, but it made for an entertaining afternoon.
2.Nope. I don’t like Hanks, but besides that I hate when movies ruin the mental pictures that I have after reading a book.
I concur with points 1 and 3 whole-heartedly. All I kept thinking while I was reading the book was “What horrible, horrible writing. And I can’t put it down!” I do intend to see it someday, and probably in the theater, but I probably won’t rush right out to contribute to the opening-weekend gross (or, the crowds).
The casting seems good - I’m particularly interested to see Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen. Opie’s direction can lean toward the ham-handed, but then again that seems pretty appropriate for something like this. I’m hoping for it to be entertaining, but not expecting it to be smothered in Oscars.
IANACatholic, but I don’t see why the idea that Jesus may have had a wife and child is such horrifying blasphemy. It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility. After all, it was a long time ago. As I understand, scholars have long established that the various texts selected to become The Bible have been added, modified, deleted or edited out over the centuries - often for political reasons.
By no means do I think that The DaVinci Code is non-fiction in any sense, but I don’t see why the idea behind its plot is so threatening to some.
…but I suppose those questions have been covered here before. If so, I’m not interested in stirring up yet another debate!
Yes, but I checked it out of the library. I thought it was rotten–badly written as well as stupid–but people kept asking me what I thought of it, so I had to read it so as to be able to discuss it with them (and let them know about all the bad ‘information’ in it).
No.
I refuse to give one penny to Dan Brown, a hack who plays on people’s gullibility. I won’t pay to see the film, period. If someone lends it to me, I might watch it so to enjoy the sensation of my head exploding.
And don’t give me that “It’s only a novel” junk; DB likes to claim it’s all true, and thousands believe him because they don’t know any better and won’t bother to look into it. Blech.
Without getting into GD territory, let me just say that this is untrue. The text of the books of the Bible that we have today is virtually identical (with very minor exceptions) to what the church had as early as the second century AD. There is some scholarly debate about when and by whom they were originally written, but they have not been “added, modified, deleted or edited out over the centuries.”
Sorry for the hijack, but it kind of demonstrates why I’m not too enamored with the book or eager to see the movie.
Read the book. I enjoyed it, no its not a great piece of literature but so what? Books can be meant to be FUN, this book is clearly that.
I do intend to see the movie. Not on opening night. I can’t imagine why anyone would actually want to see a movie when it first comes out. So many damn people.
I know I said I will see this movie, but if I don’t it will be because I can’t stand Tom Hanks. I find him very annoying and not that good of an actor. I am not a big fan of Ron Howard either, but at least Peter Jackson didn’t direct. God then the movie would be like 5 hours.
Read the book in it’s natural environment. I picked it up in an airport to read during my flight. It was exactly what I was looking for. Interesting story, quick pace, but I knew I wouln’t be investing much in it.
I intend to see the movie. I think it will be entertaining, and it will allow a little nose thumbing at the idiots who are calling for boycotts. Nothing makes me want to do something like being told I shouldn’t.
I think the books of the apocrypha are hardly “minor.”
Anyway, I doubt I’ll see the movie. I read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as humourous crackpottery, and can’t really see myself checking out derivative work.
I’d just as soon watch National Treasure again. :rolleyes:
