• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

The Official da Vinci Code (Film) Poll

What do you think of da Vinci Code film?

  • It was awesome, better than the book.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It was as good as the book.

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Twas worse than the book.

    Votes: 10 29.4%
  • Twas absolutely awful.

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Havn't read the book, but the film is really good.

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • Haven't read the book, and the film was really bad.

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • I have never heard of the da Vinci Code...

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    34
sysyphus said:
I did watch the documentary hosted by Balderick. That was more than enough to tell me it's not worth the bother, but then again most hype isn't.


he should really just stick to being Baldrick.

Anywhoo i thought the book was better as the film seemed to lag in parts.
 
CivGeneral said:
I believe that Da Vinci Code is just a pile of heretical rubbish and misconceptions of Jesus himself. Jesus never had a wife nor an heir, The Priory of Sion is created in 1956 as a hoax by Pierre Plantard, as well as other conspirices that are false.

The Da Vinci Code is a novel. It's fiction. The film is not a documentary. It is fiction as well. Everyone connected with both projects, the writer, the publisher, the director, producer and film studio say that it's fiction. Anyone who believes it's factual, is afraid of it, or has their faith changed by it, well....
 
7ronin said:
Anyone who believes it's factual, is afraid of it, or has their faith changed by it, well....

... is fictional? :D
 
You should have asked the Internet Theologian

No. It's what I call "faction": Historically true facts interspersed with car chases. In the very first page of his masterpiece, Brown writes, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
 
I saw it today and thought it was okay. Robert Langdon isn't a Tom Hanks kind of role.
 
7ronin said:
The Da Vinci Code is a novel. It's fiction. The film is not a documentary. It is fiction as well. Everyone connected with both projects, the writer, the publisher, the director, producer and film studio say that it's fiction. Anyone who believes it's factual, is afraid of it, or has their faith changed by it, well....
The bottom line is that Da Vinci Code contains heretical conspiricy theories and would cause many Christians as well as non-Christians to become hostile to the Catholic Church.
 
The only people who would feel hostility to the Catholic Church from the Da Vinci code are already hostile to the Catholic Church.
 
Haven't read the book, and the film was really boring. Only went to watch it because of the fuss that Christian made of it.

Bloody hell, the church should give a refund for promoting this stupid movie!
 
I have shuffled through the book and also seen the documentary about it.

What I have seen about the movie, it's not worth a penny.

If it gets broadcasted in TV one day I might check it out still. Just out of curiosity.
 
CivGeneral said:
The bottom line is that Da Vinci Code contains heretical conspiricy theories and would cause many Christians as well as non-Christians to become hostile to the Catholic Church.

this is true, but any film is going to offend some people; this time it happened to be catholics. the next blockbuster might be taking the mick out of protestants. who knows?
 
The film was alrite, but I liked the book better. I would give it a 7 out of 10, not bad, but not really all that good.
 
I have two questions.

Why not tell that woman about her past right from the start of her early childhood, since it seems that the whole movie was just about her learning who she was, but those people at the temple all knew it.

Secondly, what was with the grandfather and the sex scene? What was the point of the sex scene?
 
Lambert Simnel said:
Sex scenes don't normally need a point.

Well, the viewers have no idea what was going on, or who the people participating were. All we knew was that the grandfather was behind a mask watching these two people bang on a table. No further explanation was presented, and I want to know why that was there.
 
Godwynn said:
Well, the viewers have no idea what was going on, or who the people participating were. All we knew was that the grandfather was behind a mask watching these two people bang on a table. No further explanation was presented, and I want to know why that was there.

the two people having sex were the grandfather, and Sophie's grandmother. it was supposed to be some Priory of Sion secret sex ritual.
 
greekguy said:
the two people having sex were the grandfather, and Sophie's grandmother. it was supposed to be some Priory of Sion secret sex ritual.

the sex scene was representing the priory of sion's belief of a balance between the male and female. this ritual was the "joining" of the two balances, and was celebrated.
 
Godwynn said:
Well, the viewers have no idea what was going on, or who the people participating were. All we knew was that the grandfather was behind a mask watching these two people bang on a table. No further explanation was presented, and I want to know why that was there.

It's a standard technique used when the production team realise film is a bit of a turkey. Throw some sex in, and you should be able to get a few more viewers, or at least do reasonably on the DVD sales later.
 
Read a chapter of the book, and got disgusted by it.
Watched 1/4 of the movie, ignored 1/4 and had fun with my girlfriend the other 1/2. After all that I still knew the entire plot, pointless, yes, stupid, yes, a nice way to be in a dark theater for 2 1/2 hours, definately.
 
Back
Top Bottom