It is a tribute to Bettany's professionalism that he plays the part without giggling. But he didn't stop me giggling.
Leave it to the Brits to effect a proper skewering of pomposity.
Interesting. A. N. Wilson is a notable anti-Christian scholar (I've read his books on Milton and Oliver Cromwell, which are deeply unsympathetic to both).
I would expect him to sympathize with this attack on Christianity, and he appears to have been chosen to report on the movie for that reason. But even a professional Christian-basher like Wilson finds the movie obnoxious.
We took our youngest to see it and both enjoyed the movie ourselves. Since then we've learned that there are very few film critics that have a clue to what we enjoy...and the Michael Medved needed to get a grip...it was just a cartoon.
I read the book, and thought it was over-hyped. It was a page turner. Always twists and turns and surprises.
The overall story was ho hum. Big deal. The Holy Grail.
I also read his other three books, finding them much the same. More interesting story basics.
It is not surprising the book DVC falls down as a movie. The plot/story are too complex to condense into a two hour movie, IMO.
Doubt I will see it at the theater, but would accompany Mrs. truth_seeker if asked. But she also read the book, and wasn't much impressed.
Look like "The Da Vinci Code" AKA "The Passion of the Tripe" is going to be crucified by its own
How about just ignore it? Part of the marketing strategy was the inevitable "backlash" from the Catholic Church. They were counting on the criticism (a.k.a. free publicity).
Not surprised the movie was a flop. The book looked like a yawn.
but other than that, how did you like it?
This movie must be a real dog if even the libs have turned on it.
Good article. Even though i was an Evangelical I remember with pleasure the mild uproar an elective paper done in a high school history class generated. The title of the paper 'Why We Owe the Inquisition a Vote of thanks'.
Have tickets to go see it Saturday. Will try to post my review by Sunday.
I did not read the book, "The Da Vinci Code". I did read, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (mentioned in the Da Vinci Code) about ten years ago. The HBHG book really had me -- a total page-turner until they revealed that "the Grail" was the "bloodline of Jesus Christ & Mary Magdeline's coupling". Then it was like the bad punchline to a very long but interesting joke -- "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Noooooooooooooooo".
Since the DVC book, there have been multiple documentaries on debunking it's theory. I have studied Christian theology for many years, so instintinctively, I knew that the premise was crap from the HBHG book. Yet, when I was in Italy last October, our guide still felt it necessary to point out to all where, in the DVC book, someone was supposed to have jumped out af a building into the river, but the building and the river were many blocks apart so it was totally impossible. (Like there were those "who needed to know".)
What I find sad about DVC is that so many people seem bent on finding some real "theological mystery revealed" in a simple novel. Are we really that pathetic and easily led, as a people that we are willing to believe any complicated nonsense?
I am seeing the film because a friend of mine bought tickets for us, just assuming that we would want to see it because everyone else does. And all I am looking for in the film is "entertainment value" -- not some preposterous "truth" from what is admittedly "fiction"! If it entertains me, I'll be happy. If it doesn't, I won't. I'll let you know.
OK. Saw the film, yesterday.
As entertainment --it wasn't nearly as bad as its reviewers said, nor was it as good as its intial hype. I'd give it a "B" -- some decent action and thrills, but Tom Hanks, in the lead role, looked like he was in a fog through most of it.
I didn't read the book -- although I had read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, upon which the Da Vinci Code was based -- but the people I was with at the film, had read the DVC book and said it followed the book pretty closely.
The Whole punchline of (the book and) the movie was that here was the last of "the bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdeline", in the form of one female character -- which was to me at least (as entertainment) was a big "who cares?" as "a climax".
The whole concept of the book and the movie overlooks one enormous glaring fact -- The Orthodox Church (which has also been around since the beginning) -- who would have to simultaneously and independently be keeping the same "secret" for all of these years -- and the Orthodox Church is never mentioned in the book or the movie.
Do I think that the DVC is theologicaly "dangerous" -- only for those with little or no Faith to begin with. Because you could make a better "case" for "Jesus Christ having schizophrenia" (He heard voices, didn't he?) than you can for this off-the-wall scenario.
As for the Roman Catholic Church "having conspiracies worth killing for" -- other than than historically documented ones, maybe, probably --but this isn't one of them.
First it was the Virgin Mary, "not being a Virgin at all", then it is "Jesus Christ, not The Son of God, but just a man" -- I suppose that the "logical progression" of this baseless theological tangent had to eventually become "Jesus Christ got married and had kids". Ultimately following this tangent takes you on a train that goes spiritually nowhere, except to leave you sucking your thumb in fetal position in a corner. Thanks, but no thanks -- not a trip for me!