DaVinci Code review ... (AKA how I will save you $8.00 +) (Spoilers)

[tropical_fishy]

For God's sake, everyone, this book was FICTION. It was not intellectual. Everyone and their mother has read it, listened to it on tape, heard the Church denouncing it, or watched any of the plethora of TV shows on it. NO ONE, unless they have lived under a rock for the past few years, is going into this movie not knowing what's going on. You want an intellectual novel? Read Brave New World, or Childhood's End, or 1984, or Blindness. Read books like Dan Brown's for fun, sure. But don't read them and pretend they're something they aren't.

Dan Brown wrote a fiction novel, cleverly (or not so cleverly) disguised as fact. There was just enough fact in the book to make people believe it. I think that the Church's complaints about the DaVinci Code just makes them look like petulant children, who dislike it when things don't go their way. I have a neighbor who is born-again and a total nutjob (which I suspect is unrelated to her religion, but I'm not entirely certain) who freaks out whenever the DaVinci Code is mentioned, and goes into this whole long list of reasons why it's heresy, etc. But then, this is the woman whose children (aged 6 and 8) have lectured me on "why blowjobs are bad."

[SCpoloRicker]

Well, a lot of people may think it's an intellectual book in the sense that it inspires a lot of radical ideas about the church. However, it really is more of an entertainment source. While there very well could be a bloodline of Jesus, most of Dan Brown's theories are easily shot down using historical facts and objectively proven findings. Too many people take it the wrong way, as if this story is feasible and that Brown is really on to something. This is probably the reason the movie failed. It was written as a screenplay to be entertaining. In order to do this they felt they needed to cut or edit some things. Readers of the novel thought that it had to follow the exact same story to protect the integrity of Brown's "theory". I put "theory" in quotations because in the basic definition of the word, it is based upon facts. I'm sure if you look at the movie the same as the book, simply a source of entertainment, it's not that bad. If you're looking for a feasible theory that really strikes a deep, intellectual chord, neither the book or the movie are going to satisfy you. Again though, most people just don't seem to grasp that.

O RLY?

[Lohman446]

But then, this is the woman whose children (aged 6 and 8) have lectured me on "why blowjobs are bad."

You do explain the other side of the argument of why they are good right?

[warbeak2099]

O RLY?

QUITE RLY!

Hahahaha, Tropical Fishy is also right. This book is a bit of airline reading for sheer entertainment. It certainly does not deserve entry into the list of novels by Faulkner, Orwell, Vonnegut, Tolkein, etc. It is by no means a masterpeice of the english language nor will ti ebcome a classic novel. Dan Brown is nothing more than a pop culture / entertainment writer. His glaring innacuracies challenge even that.

Oh, and blowjobs are great. I don't care what the church says. Road head is a novelty however, and should be experienced once only. It just gets old people.

[tropical_fishy]

You do explain the other side of the argument of why they are good right?

I was too busy picking my jaw off the floor and wondering how a 6 year old knows about blowjobs.

[Thordic]

I was too busy picking my jaw off the floor and wondering how a 6 year old knows about blowjobs.