| Author |
Message |
    
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3467
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:02 pm: | 
|
and it was okay? Lil Miss was really angry and annoyed cause she felt they changed too much (She reread the book for the 9th time last night). I liked it but felt it was a little too long and very confusing. Mr. LL thought it was a blockbluster and spells big trouble for the Catholic Church. He says that millions of people who never thought about it will now have their consciousnesses raised seening this on the screen. Also that it undid some of the "damage" of Mel Gibson's film. |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 441
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Easy folks...its a murder mystery with a really intriguing fictitious plot. Did Jurassic Park make you think someone was really growing dinosaurs off the coast of Ecuador? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15056
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Actually, after she saw Jurassic Park Librarylady went to Expedia and did book 2 tickets to Ecuador along with a private boat to try and find them.
So I wouldn't put anything past her.
A few months ago, after seeing King Kong, she drove into the city to see if she could still see the beast on the Empire State Building. So with her, it's important to clearly point out fantasy from reality.
I think we all thank you in this regard Joe R. The last thing we need in this area is an expert on the dewey decimal system getting into cryptography. |
Josh Holtz
Citizen
Username: Jholtz
Post Number: 435
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Wait a minute ... are you telling me dinosaur DNA cannot be extracted from fossilised mosquitos? |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6353
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 7:49 am: |
|
interesting review on NPR yesterday making the very valid point that the pare the story down to a film made it a really plain and ordinary and gasp predictable thriller. I might rent it though, cause I love Ron Howard as a director. I think he is really good at staying with story. So this one was probably a real challenge for him. |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3957
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 9:25 am: |
|
-s. |
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 141
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Soda, you could of posted a way better picture of her. She's hot! |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6366
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Like this one
 |
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 143
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Thanks Duncan, Muy Better!!!
 |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9599
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
Acting was a bit wooden except for McKellen, who had the only interesting role in the entire script. It may not be fair to blame the acting, though, as it was likely inspired from a pretty lame script. And some story points changed. Overall, it wasn't a bad way to spend 2 and a half hours. |
buzzsaw
Citizen
Username: Buzzsaw
Post Number: 4815
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
I feel like the movie is a showcase for Tom Hanks' new hair do. |
Travis
Citizen
Username: Travis
Post Number: 433
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Quote:Mr. LL thought it was a blockbluster and spells big trouble for the Catholic Church. He says that millions of people who never thought about it will now have their consciousnesses raised seening this on the screen. Also that it undid some of the "damage" of Mel Gibson's film.
So this is one of the reasons I hate Da Vinci code. Its appeal is a thinly disguised anti-Catholic propaganda conspiracy piece. It is of a piece with theories that all Jewish employees at the WTC took the day off on 9/11. Replace Catholics with Jews and you might as well be watching a film version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Coincidentally, the conspiracy theories about the Priory of Sion were a hoax, invented by an anti-Semite named Pierre Plantard in France in 1956. This has been widely publicized, including a 60 Minutes piece on April 30. I know, 60 Minutes is part of the cover-up.
More broadly, there are fascinating aspects of the early Church that were air-brushed out of history once it was co-opted by the Roman emperors. For instance, recent scholarship has revealed that Mary Magdalene was heavily involved in the early days of the Church, in an era where women had status not much above cattle. To have this brave and strong woman, and others like her (Thecla etc), air-brushed out of history and then reduced to bit-parts in a stupid anti-Catholic conspiracy theory, just makes you want to cry.
And it isn't even a decent thriller. Goddamit! |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 7:18 pm: |
|
Travis,
Quote:Its appeal is a thinly disguised anti-Catholic propaganda conspiracy piece. It is of a piece with theories that all Jewish employees at the WTC took the day off on 9/11
I saw Da Vinci this afternoon, it was a good way to spend two hours, I read the book so long ago I'd forgotten most of the plot details.
I don't understand why the movie has gotten Catholics so up in arms. Or I think I do understand.
The movie/book raises many important questions about science, fact, faith and the role of the church - did they record history, or re-write/invent it?
I think Jesus was an influential man who lived and died. I don't believe in divinities. That isn't because I'm "anti" anything, or out to slam the church, it's just what I believe is true.
I can't prove there isn't a god (God) anymore than anyone else can prove their God or Gods exist.
It's not "anti" Christian to weave a story with a plot centered on Christian beliefs. It's a work of semi-historical fiction, not an attack.
|
Travis
Citizen
Username: Travis
Post Number: 435
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Lydia,
If you are genuinely curious about the early history of Christianity, I suggest you read A World Full of Gods by Keith Hopkins. It is written by an atheist historian, trying to communicate a sense of that time while overcoming the prejudices and preconceptions of the 20th/21st century reader.
Saying the DaVinci code "raises many important questions" is quite simply an insult to the intelligence:
Quote:The Da Vinci Code phenomenon is a sign of spiritual cowardice. Those who are fascinated by the conspiracy theory lack the courage either to accept Christianity in some form or to reject it entirely. So they inhabit a strange limbo of cultic fascination, parasitic on the religion it claims to unmask. They do not exactly believe Dan Brown's theory (no more than he does himself), but they flirt with believing it. Maybe it was like this, they say. Maybe we have not been told the truth about the real Jesus. Maybe he married Mary Magdalene and started a royal bloodline. That would really put the cat among the clerical pigeons! No wonder the churches have always denied the possibility so defensively.
It is a cowardly and inauthentic response to religion, a failure to be serious about what is serious. Religion is a serious, grown-up business. It involves a claim to truth that must either be accepted or rejected. Either you believe some form of Christianity to be the meaning of life or you reject it in all its forms. In the latter case, you will either prefer another religion or you will dismiss every religion as erroneous. Both options are intellectually respectable. What is not intellectually respectable is the conspiracy theorist's attempt to duck the question of the truth or falsity of Christianity, by wondering whether another story might be concealed within the conventional one.
|
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1898
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Travis.
Quote:Religion is a serious, grown-up business.
I agree it's serious, but I don't follow the ins and outs as closely as theists do.
What I observe as an outsider is believers pick and choose.
Forinstance on St. Patricks day this year, scores of Bishops allowed Catholics to eat meat on Friday because St. Patricks' day fell on a Friday during Lent.
What I've found astounding is the outcry from the church about the Da Vinci Code before the movie, and a bit after the book, about the accuracy of a work of fiction.
The argument seems to be that Jesus was NOT mortal, he was born to a woman who never had sexual intercourse - her son was killed, and emerged several days later alive and well from a cave, only to be killed again.
OR - Jesus was mortal and inspired many stories.
350 years between events and telling - that's longer than the timeline between - I was going to say the bicycle, matches, or ice, but 350 years ago we didn't have any of those luxuries.
Consider the time of bibical events and when they were recorded - the church makes it sound like a blink - but considering the life expectancy at the time, it was 100 generations.
|
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 454
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 9:54 pm: |
|
"The argument seems to be that Jesus was NOT mortal, he was born to a woman who never had sexual intercourse - her son was killed, and emerged several days later alive and well from a cave, only to be killed again."
Lydia: Where do you get this stuff. Did someone tell you this or did you read the scriptures and misunderstand them? The argument seems to be????? No, factual screwups aside (several days later.....three days; only to be killed again?????.....no, they only killed him once), these things are articles of faith for millions of human beings. Don't be flippant.
"350 years between events and telling". Again false.
I've got a good one for you......everything we see and touch and know...everything that ever was and will ever be....popped into existence out of NOTHING and all for NO GOOD REASON! That doesn't make any sense to me, but it might make sense to you.
|
Travis
Citizen
Username: Travis
Post Number: 437
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 6:39 am: |
|
Quote:I agree it's serious, but I don't follow the ins and outs as closely as theists do.
At least educate yourself a bit before getting on a public forum to discuss it.
And don't use garbage like DaVinci code as an excuse for discussing Christianity, it's insulting and stupid.
I've given you a reference on the early history of the Church, read it if you're interested. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2809
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 6:40 am: |
|
My nearly 13-year old and I saw it last night. I'd read the book, and am not rabidly interested in the questions in sort of addresses -- but I do like Brown and I do like thrillers.
I thought it was pretty good. Some slow spots. Surprisingly, my kid quite liked it -- but then she likes puzzles. Neither of us liked seeing the monk scourging himself, and that brought up some discussion.
I do think the Catholic church is over-reacting. Most all religions are given the business sooner or later, conspiracies, the etc. My feeling is the Catholic church has just been through the wringer in the last 10 years or so due to the child molestation cover-ups etc. It's pretty natural that they feel attacked, and that people are suspicious. What they forget is that the Jesus and Mary have roles in the rest of the Christian churches, too. As a sort of loose Methodist, it didn't bug me and I thought it was an okey-doke movie. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Joe R - You're right, sometimes I forget the sequence of events - Jesus WAS mortal, he was murdered, then he was resurrected, and then he ascended to heaven because he was divine - right?
There are a lot of back stories to keep straight, I always mix up the Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses names too.
Sorry if I pissed you off. |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 455
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Lydia: Nobody should piss anybody off here. It's just a conversation such as we might have if we were all in a pub somewhere. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2195
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
The movie surprised me because I had EXTREMELY low expectations from little Richie Cunningham. The book surprised me too. I expected to hate it due to all of the hype. Oddly enough, I dug the book and I was satisfied (ENOUGH) to get my $10 worth of pleasure out of the movie. Admittedly, Audrey Tattou supplied $8 worth of my entertainment.
Having said that, I don't really care what the church or it's followers think. Honestly. Let them make a big stink it will just make more people want to see it. I see it as payback for the Mel Gibson debacle. Enough jews made a stink about that one to make every christian feel the need to see that lame movie which told a mere sliver of a story. If I want to see only a portion of a story being told, I'll watch any of the Star Wars flicks, thank you. At least Davinci Code was a fully told story. At least it was only 1/100th self-flagellation. At least only 1/200th of it was subtitled.
I want to preface what I am going to say about the movie by stating that as much as I enjoyed the book, it was what I would call a quick summer beach read. Not much more. This is NO classic work of art. However, it worked as a page turner thriller that climaxed about 5/8ths the way through, oddly enough. The book didn't have that sense of urgency for me. About 2/3 through the first scene in the museum, I looked at my wife and stated, "I'm not hooked yet, in the book I was way absorbed into the story and had to know what was going on". Also later in the movie suddenly all of the intrigue was gone and the scenes started to feel over-long to me. I was losing interest. So I would say the movie was lacking in the good pacing that the book had.
I would agree with everyone elese criticisms that the characters were mostly uninteresting in the movie with Ian Mckellen being the only one who was able to make his character sort of POP off the screen. I'm sure some of this is due to the acting but I also suspect it's a bad translation to the screen. In the book Agent Fache (the Bull) was a really interesting character -- and I love Jean Reno but c'mon there wasn't much to work with there. Same goes for Inspector Collet. Both seemed more integral into the story in the book.
I guess when push comes to shove, the movie is probably more fun for someone who hasn't read the book. It wasn't so much that I knew what was going to happen but rather it just fell flat and didn't live up to the pleasure I got from the book. I know that very few movies are able to do that. So I will let Opie off the hook this time. Tom Hanks was a horrible casting decision, but he didn't RUIN the movie (wow, I've resorted to using the KEANU test on Tom Hanks). As far as summer thrillers go, I'll give it a solid B, which for me is actually pretty good. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
If you like prose poetry, Alleygater, I'd love to hear your reaction to v. Balthasaar's, The Heart of the World; if you like medieval poetry, The Dream of the Rood. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page