The Da Vinci Code

I haven't read the book because it sounds like a badly written book. Perhaps I'm a snob, but any book that specializes in anticlimactic endings (unless the blogger described the ending wrongly) and hundreds of tiny chapters is not worth my time. Such books read as though they were written specifically to be made into a movie, so just watch the film!

I havn't read the book.

Do you feel guilty about not keeping up with the New York Times Bestseller list?

If not, don't feel guilty about this one, either.

There are plenty of people who haven't read it, and won't judge you for not reading it.

I really enjoyed the book. I didn't read it because of any best seller list and, Satan's Advocate, Dan Brown is an extremely good writer. I don't think that DC was his best though. I actually enjoyed Angels and Demons a lot more.

The movie is getting bombed by the critics. I was looking forward to it but am dissappointed that they didn't just go with an unknown for the lead. I love Tom Hanks but have heard he was all wrong for this part. I still intend to see the movie though.

I would suggest seeing the movie and then reading the book. Books are always better.

Definately read the book first. I've read the book and seen the movie, and the movie people do a good job of following the book, but nothing can replace the movie your mind creates while reading a book. At least, that's my opinion.

The critics are panning the movie.  The one critique that has stuck with me is the one that said "No other movie took longer than the book to read it orginated from.  Except the Grinch".

I would read the book.  Sounds like the movie is a big boor!

You do have a dilemma.

Only two books I know of were translated to film so well that everything in the book was in the "film" - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People - and they weren't really "films," they were miniseries on Masterpiece Theater. But they didn't leave a thing out, used world-class actors and were truly phenomenal. I have both on DVD sets and watch them periodically just for the enjoyment of the acting and the richness of the stories.

If you read the book first, the movie will inevitably be less satisfying than the book - you are right about that. If you see the movie first, you may then have no interest in reading the book. I tend to agree with Amanda Pearl that "nothing can replace the movie your mind creates," the two miniseries above being the exceptions that prove the rule.

I enjoyed Dan Brown's book and found it a very entertaining puzzle-solving exercise, despite some critic calling it a 5th-grade level mystery. In fact, couldn't put it down & finished it in one sitting (took me longer than the movie's running time, though ). Haven't decided if I'm going to catch the movie or not - I may wait for the DVD.

Perhaps I'm a snob, but any book that specializes in anticlimactic endings (unless the blogger described the ending wrongly) and hundreds of tiny chapters is not worth my time. Such books read as though they were written specifically to be made into a movie, so just watch the film!

I have heard great things about the book, I haven't met many people who have bad things to say about it! I don't mind small chapters either, I have a short attention span, hehe! Was this book written to be made into a movie?

Do you feel guilty about not keeping up with the New York Times Bestseller list?If not, don't feel guilty about this one, either.

No not at all. It's not so much that so many people have read it, it's that people have thoughts on it, and say how great it is. Even if I don't like it, at least I will be able to have an opinion on it, you know what I mean?

The movie is getting bombed by the critics. I was looking forward to it but am dissappointed that they didn't just go with an unknown for the lead. I love Tom Hanks but have heard he was all wrong for this part. I still intend to see the movie though.

Yes, I have heard some bad things about the film, and the only reason I am considering not seeing it first is so it doesn't put me off reading the book! Ohh...decisions....

Definately read the book first. I've read the book and seen the movie, and the movie people do a good job of following the book, but nothing can replace the movie your mind creates while reading a book.

Yes I know what you mean. If I see the film, a picture will already be formed for me. I won't be able to shake Tom Hanks from my thoughts, and everytime I think of him, I see him as a big kig in the film BIG, hehe!

The one critique that has stuck with me is the one that said "No other movie took longer than the book to read it orginated from. Except the Grinch".

Hehe...that made me giggle, thanks Dr!

If you read the book first, the movie will inevitably be less satisfying than the book - you are right about that. If you see the movie first, you may then have no interest in reading the book. I tend to agree with Amanda Pearl that "nothing can replace the movie your mind creates," the two miniseries above being the exceptions that prove the rule.

Ahh you sum it up soooo well! This is my whole problem! With all this moaning I am doing, I could have the book read! I will end up just going to see the film, because I'm a lazy sausage!

enjoyed Dan Brown's book and found it a very entertaining puzzle-solving exercise, despite some critic calling it a 5th-grade level mystery. In fact, couldn't put it down & finished it in one sitting (took me longer than the movie's running time, though ).

This is another question I have, does anyone know how long the film is? I don't do well with films that are longer than two hours...

Thanks for all the comments guys!

I think the paper said 149 minutes - I like how the movie industry always avoids using hours for movie run times, like we're too stupid to figure out that's 2.5 of 'em. I guess any number of minutes sounds smaller than any multiple of hours, but gimme a break. Same marketing theory behind gas prices & $19.95, I guess.

Personally, I'd prefer using the round of golf as the standard unit of measure. 1 Standard Round of Golf being defined as 4.5 hours, The Da Vinci Code would be rated at 0.55 SRG.

Hehe....I'm giggling away to myself here! At the moment Golf is sounding more appealing.....I really struggle with long films, especially at the cinema. At home it's not to bad, but there is nowhere to escape at the cinema! I think you have it right, I'll read the book and wait for the DVD! Ohh and thanks for letting me know how long it's on for!

I am now going to read a few chapters which will take me approx 0.35 SRG

Sally, I have read the book and thought it was B-grade fiction at best. To me, Dan Brown is completely over-rated. While I will admit 'Da Vinci Code' held my fascination long enough for me to finish the book, I tackled another of his books, 'Angels & Demons', to see if maybe he could actually write. I didn't even get half way through before I threw it away.

I'm am not interested at all in seeing the movie, especially as it stars Tom Hanks. But don't let me stop you. In fact, if you do see it, I'd be interested in your opinion.

Seeing the movie first will have you most like not interested in reading the book. I know I'm less inclined to read a book once I have seen the movie. Sure a movie doesn't have everything from the book, but its already painted a picture for me. I prefer to paint my own, and then see what the movie made of it as well. I have read all of Dan Browns books and they are very intriguing. I found them very worth reading, and just wish Dan Brown would get some more books done. I haven't seen the movie yet but hope to soon.

I had a number of friends tell me that Angels & Demons was better, too, but I was also disappointed in it. Point Deception wasn't too bad, despite the completely ludicrous premise... kinda like The Da Vinci Code, I guess. I've seen Dan Brown in interviews try to bolster the possibility that some of the book is based in fact, but he fails miserably, then sulks off to the bank to admire his lucre.

Someone else suggested The Rule of Four as a similar, though non-religious, and better puzzler - I found it incredibly boring, though I forced myself all the way through it waiting for a payoff that never came. I don't recommend buying it.

While I will admit 'Da Vinci Code' held my fascination long enough for me to finish the book, I tackled another of his books, 'Angels & Demons', to see if maybe he could actually write. I didn't even get half way through before I threw it away.

My Mums read both of them, and though she loved Da Vinci Code, she couldn't manage Angels and Demons. Which did make me wonder if he is a one hit wonder or not!

I'm am not interested at all in seeing the movie, especially as it stars Tom Hanks. But don't let me stop you. In fact, if you do see it, I'd be interested in your opinion.

Oh yes, I'll write a review when I see it! Ahh poor Tom Hanks....I've seen his son in a few things, and he looks like an alien. I find that quite worrying!

Sure a movie doesn't have everything from the book, but its already painted a picture for me. I prefer to paint my own, and then see what the movie made of it as well

I agree, and I know that if I see the film first as I read I will be picturing all the people in the film, rather than painting my own picture. Which will take away from it I think.

I've seen Dan Brown in interviews try to bolster the possibility that some of the book is based in fact, but he fails miserably, then sulks off to the bank to admire his lucre.

Yes I've seen this, and also found it quite unbelievable. He should be happy with the success he's had instead of trying to create more hysteria around it.

Someone else suggested The Rule of Four as a similar, though non-religious, and better puzzler - I found it incredibly boring, though I forced myself all the way through it waiting for a payoff that never came. I don't recommend buying it.

The only way you're going to get me to read that now, is if there is a really sweet love story at the core of it, hehe!

Ahh poor Tom Hanks....

Phooey... Sorry, but I am just not a fan of Tom at all. He is a prime examples, as far as I'm concerned, of a line from a song by the band Ok Go... "Mediocre people do exceptional things all the time..."

While I love Tom Hanks I will not see this movie. Actually I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that Tom is doing this film. IMHO it only serves to hurt his career not help it.

My local newspaper said that the movie was almost unamimously panned at the Cannes Festival and viewers greeted it with "laughter" and sat in "stony silence" when it ended.

I'm sure it will rake in tons of money tho. So much controversy is almost the guarantee here.

Sorry i didnt read all the comments here so what I'll say has probably been said already so forgive me

I think if you were not interested in the first place why force yourself? Because everyone is pressuring you to know about the Da Vinci Code? Bah I read it and it was an ok book. But it hasnt changed my beliefs in any way. It was written ok, nothing exceptional. I havent watched the movie and i dont intend to coz i already know the story. And I dont like Audrey Tautou, heh.

I think if you want people to stop nagging you about this, just watch the movie and then tell them in a snob tone while attending a cocktail 'oh yeah the book is much better I was disappointed with the movie, caviar anyone?'

"Mediocre people do exceptional things all the time..."

Haha....that gives me hope!

My local newspaper said that the movie was almost unamimously panned at the Cannes Festival and viewers greeted it with "laughter" and sat in "stony silence" when it ended.

Yer I've heard that it's not that great, but you never know. People were excpecting alot from this film, and whilst it might not be up to the standard people were expecting, that doesn't mean it is terrible......maybe....hehe

Because everyone is pressuring you to know about the Da Vinci Code? Bah I read it and it was an ok book. But it hasnt changed my beliefs in any way. It was written ok, nothing exceptional.

People have said I would like it, but you are right. If I didin't want to in the first place, why be pressured?

just watch the movie and then tell them in a snob tone while attending a cocktail 'oh yeah the book is much better I was disappointed with the movie, caviar anyone?'

Hehe! Oh yes darling I shall do that! *walks off with nose in the air*

Thanks for the comments x

I've heard an art historian refer to the scholarship in the book as rubbish. He said that if the book had been a sports novel about American football, it would have the characters in the story referring to "three-pointers", "free-throws", "penalty-kicks", etc., which are all sports terminology from other sports besides football. The art historian said that if you know anything at all about Da Vinci and the rennaisance painters, you just can't enjoy the book. One example is that ALL painters in Da Vinci's day painted John (the youngest apostle) as a young, feminine person, i.e., a young man with long hair and no beard, and since the bible refers to John 'leaning on' Jesus' breast, the painters of that time almost always painted John leaning on Jesus. To then take Da Vinci's painting and make this figure out to be a 'Magdalene' figure that is 'secretly' intended to be seen as leaning on Jesus is ridiculous, at least to art historians. Also, it was common for painters in that day to place 'inside jokes' into their paintings, such as painting themselves or their friends faces as the faces of their famous subjects. With regards to Da Vinci's fondness of 'code', he was having men dig up bodies so that he could study them inside and out for his anatomy drawings. It's a serious crime today to dig up bodies and disect them in your home. In Da Vinci's day, it was nothing less than 'satanic', in the view of the church and the general population. He had a very good reason to encode many of his notes and documents.

I will say that if you want the full effect, you need to read the book, since I've heard that the movie tends to 'dumb' down Brown's attacks on the veracity of the New Testament and Christianity, and Tom Hank's performance has been described as being so bad. Of course, Brown's attacks on the New Testament are equally as ham-handed as his handling of the historical Da Vinci. The use of the 'Gnostic Gospels' to try to discredit some aspect or doctrine of the New Testament is getting to be very old (and tired, if you follow the arguments), and the only 'novel' thing in Brown's book is wrapping the whole thing up with Da Vinci and a grand conspiracy/murder mystery.

Thanks Jay for that comment! I've heard the arguments about this book go back and fourth, and I can't really comment as I haven't read or seen the film, and this is the kind of think I would like to have an opinion on. Your comment was very thoughtful, and informative, and made me want to read the book even more, so thank you.

Jay is correct and a little off-point at the same time. There is no "scholarship" in The Da Vinci Code, only the pretense of it, used as a pretext for the fictional story line. So little is historically accurate - most of the places and most of the people which are a part of the story all exist or existed, but that's about it. Everything else is pure fantasy, and in many cases, largely jumbled up chronologically.

The genius of Brown, such as it is, is to have led people into believing he's claiming any element of truth to it at all, leveraging the notariety of the book (hence, his profits) quite nicely indeed. I think it is incorrect to accuse Brown of "attacks" on the New Testament or Christianity or of attempts to "discredit" them - all he did was knit existing ideas into a work of fiction, burnishing it's patina with hints of plausibility (requiring some serious stretching of credulity to do even that). Characterizing the book as some sort of attack only plays into Brown's game. The only thing he's "attacked" is his bank, I'm afraid - with massive deposits.

I think it is incorrect to accuse Brown of "attacks" on the New Testament or Christianity or of attempts to "discredit" them - all he did was knit existing ideas into a work of fiction, burnishing it's patina with hints of plausibility (requiring some serious stretching of credulity to do even that). Characterizing the book as some sort of attack only plays into Brown's game. The only thing he's "attacked" is his bank, I'm afraid - with massive deposits.

From my knowledge (which is limited) the clever thing he has done is made people think, and question what they already thought before. He has written a book that has just enough grasp on the truth to make people scratch their heads and think, and to me that is a wonderful gift to have. Books should make you think, and question things, and luckily for Brown he has made a profit from this. Just my opinion....

I don't begrudge him his lucre, either, Sally, although I guess it does sound that way when I re-read my post. I agree with you on the "makes you scratch your head & think about things" aspect, too. Some of Brown's critics claim we're too incurious or too lazy to take it any further, though, with which I disagree.

I agree with you on the "makes you scratch your head & think about things" aspect, too. Some of Brown's critics claim we're too incurious or too lazy to take it any further, though, with which I disagree.

I disagree with that too, surely the response he's recieved should prove that isn't the case? People should be encouraged to think, we are turning into the lazy generation, where everything is done for us, and we are just looking to make life easy for ourseleves. I think that will come back and bite us in the bum at some point!

Interesting that noone who has seen the movie has come back to this thread yet.

I hope to see it this weekend. If I do, I'll let you know what I think of it.

Interesting that noone who has seen the movie has come back to this thread yet.

Back. Boring!