Da Vinci Code

[Catty1]

Meanwhile, I am ignoring all the DVC book-and-movie hype and enjoying a reread of The Life And Death of Peter Sellers.

Most of it seems to be fact, so far....

[midget gem]

Well, Victoria, Zara and I went to see the film today and it was BRILLIANT . Anyone who wants to see it should, it stays close to the plot and is exciting. I don't think it is offensive, it's simply an enjoyable film . Quite scary, too. I want to see it again!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Unless there was a photographer from Life Magazine. a news crew from CNN, and Geraldo there to do the behind the scenes interviews-the bible is as much fact as the DVC.

Actually there were eye witness accounts and records in the Bible, a FACT that many choose to ignore. John of the book of John and Revoluiton and the 3 letters of John was an apostle of Jesus. He witnessed the crucifiction and also the empty tomb. Matthew was also an apostle of Jesus. Mark was a companion of Peter, also an apostle of Jesus.

Excuse me if I believe their eye witness accounts rather than fables that were made up hundreds (and even thousands) of years after the event!!!!!!!!!!!

[JenBKR]

haha it's getting horrible reviews - who would have guessed it? I've heard that it is Tom Hanks' worst performance,and that it's just plain not an exciting movie.....

[cocker_luva]

ok well i finally saw it last night and i absolutely LOVED IT!!! it was soo good, my mom even liked it and she read the book first. and like most people, she usually likes the book better. but she said it was still very good!!

[Argranade]

Yep the movie is getting it bad oh well...

I was gona see it and prove stuff but then ill start a mob lol sorry to say but i dont belive any of it but i do belive in god for shur.

[wolf_Q]

I'm confused as to how it is portrayed as fact? It's a FICTION book, in the fiction section. The movie is fiction it's not shown as "based on a true story" or anything to my knowledge.

My opinion is if you don't like ideas portrayed the book or the movie, then don't read/see it. Getting all riled up about it just gives it more attention, which I would think would be the opposite effect those opposed to it would want...

[Rie Rie]

I saw it last night and found it boring. When we got to the theatre, there was a man and two women standing on the curb holding signs, protesting the movie.

[Miss Z]

It was an amazing film I reckon, I think those critics are mad if they don't give it good reviews, they are focusing on the actors rather than the plot. As Katherine said, I want to see it again. I am getting it as soon as it comes out on DVD.

Kinda like Photoshop in oil?

Unless there was a photographer from Life Magazine. a news crew from CNN, and Geraldo there to do the behind the scenes interviews-the bible is as much fact as the DVC.

Not to challenge Christians/RCs on the board.....

The DVC is fiction. it challenges belief.

Belief is something that cannot be proved with facts.

I can see where the RC church is up in arms about the whole deal...


Now pardon me, I need to go whip myself.

Richard, I love the way you word stuff! And I completely agree. The Da Vinci Code and the Bible in a way are similar. For some it's fact and for some it's fiction. Personally, I believe next to nothing about what the Bible says. That's just me. And some people believe everything in it. Belief is about what makes sense to you, and solely you, and of course everyone is different, so everyone's beliefs are different. Belief is not fact for everyone. The Da Vinci code is a fictional book, but it uses the beliefs of others, and the beliefs used make sense to me. A lot of the points raised in the book sort of explained why I have no faith in religion, so maybe that's why I love the book and now the film. But on this sort of topic, isn't it good to ask questions about such things? People who may have changed their minds about religion after reading the Da Vinci Code may have made the right decision. Why? If they changed their minds, they must have had questions about their religion, and if they are not 100% in agreement with the religion, can they call themselves religious? If you don't change your mind, then it proves you love your God very much and are obviously passionate about your faith, which of course is very good. I have been atheist for a while, but do understand about religion. I don't think you can be atheist without understanding religion. Otherwise you wouldn't know what you're missing out on. It's like trying banoffee pie, some like it and some don't, but those who never try it will never know. You have to sample a bit of both before you make up your mind.

Belief will always be disagreed on. It's just the way the human mind works IMHO.

[dogzr#1]

I really don't think what the big thing is about. It is FICTION. I really want to see it. My parents read the book and really liked it. I might be part of the minority here, but it is my opinion. We are entitled to our opinion, just like the guy who wrote the book. (can't remember his name )

[lvpets2002]

Ok I just got back from the movies && I went in with an open mind & knowing it is a Drama = I do understand Leornordo Da Vinci & his painting of the Mona Lisa & his painting of the Lord's Supper better in which he was the one that conspired the Da Vinci Code of the 1500//1600 era.. Now if your Faith & Beliefs are strong then this movie will have no affect.. It was a good drama & will state that 2 1/2 hours could have been done in 1 1/2 hour.. This is Only Just My Understandings..
Ok here is the kicker that = Over The Hedge was showing right behind Da Vinci Code so I just had to go see it too & WOW the whole movie was hullarious funny funny.. For sure go see Over The Hedge = You will laugh thru the whole movie ..

[wolf_Q]

I just came back from seeing the movie. I read the book and enjoyed it. The movie was okay...I was disappointed. I thought the book was much better. They changed quite a few things which I know some has to be done because of time, but the changes just irritated me. Just my opinion.

[Tralee]

I saw it today and loved it!! I thought Ron Howard did a great job of portraying the book. Some of the history parts (not the flash backs) i found a little boring. I would reconmend going to see it with an open mind. I though the man who played Silas did a superb job. I was not dissapointed at all. Obviously some things had to be changed (one cryptex vs two) for time restraints. It was a tough movie to make and IMO Ron Howard did the best job he could do.

[Lady's Human]

Not to turn this into a religious discussion, but the book of Revelations was not written by John the Apostle. It was written by John the Divine, approximately 300 years after the crucifixion. Different John.

[Pam]

Not to turn this into a religious discussion, but the book of Revelations was not written by John the Apostle. It was written by John the Divine, approximately 300 years after the crucifixion. Different John.

Normally I am in agreement with you on most things Lady's Human but I believe you are incorrect here. This is from a Bible commentary and is what I have been taught since childhood.

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, ch. 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation.

I believe the Book of Revelation was finished in 70 A.D.