Quote :

"Also read that the puzzles and stuff are aimed at a 2nd grade reading level and aren't nearly as elaborate as "National Treasure"."

did we see the same National Treasure?? there were elaborate puzzles? I thought that was one of the dumbest movies I'd seen in a whiiiile. And I watch lots of dumb movies.

5/19/2006 9:21:18 AM

I think that's the point he was making.

5/19/2006 9:35:06 AM

Yeah that's what I was saying, they said that compared to National Treasure these things were dumbed down, so that says something.

They said they'd have rather had the person solve a medium-level sudoku than the puzzles they had in the movie, haha.

5/19/2006 9:46:11 AM

I thought the book was terrible. It's the same fucking thing as Angels & Demons (which I enjoyed) only not nearly as interesting or as well paced. From what I hear the movie is the same way with Tom Hanks and a mullet.

I'm going to watch Dogma if I feel like seeing anymore religious controversy. If anyone remembers it has the exact same theory about Jesus and Mary Magdelene.

5/19/2006 10:21:13 AM

I thought the theory in Dogma was that Jesus had brothers and sisters, not that he got it on with with MM.

5/19/2006 10:31:28 AM

nah, if you remember, that hot chick was a descendent of jesus.

5/19/2006 10:36:56 AM

Quote :

"I thought the theory in Dogma was that Jesus had brothers and sisters, not that he got it on with with MM."

You may be right. It's been awhile since I've seen it. Even so it still tampers with people's beliefs.

5/19/2006 10:40:22 AM

Quote :

"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married. And I know the Catholic church has problems with gay people and so this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay."

-Ian McKellen

Oh, you old queen!

p.s. Dogma was brothers and sisters.

5/19/2006 11:03:14 AM

wait this movie is about religion?

great, the religious people are already complaining im sure

It will sound something like this:

Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble

listen for it

5/19/2006 11:05:31 AM

^where the hell have you been?

5/19/2006 11:59:36 AM

^^ wow are you an idiot?

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2006 1:26:33 PM

I wasn't impressed with the book.

And I don't see Tom Hanks as a good actor for the role.

5/19/2006 1:47:25 PM

Quote :

"Even so it still tampers with people's beliefs."

Why would Jesus having brothers and sisters tamper with people's beliefs? You can believe in the immaculate conception and also believe that Joseph and Mary went on to have children of their own after the birth of Jesus.

In fact there is a Bible precedence to indicate that he had brothers and sisters:

Quote :

"Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 1:51 PM. Reason : /]

5/19/2006 1:50:59 PM

Quote :

"Why would Jesus having brothers and sisters tamper with people's beliefs? You can believe in the immaculate conception and also believe that Joseph and Mary went on to have children of their own after the birth of Jesus."

Jesus having brothers and sisters is a lot more believable and less faith shattering than a direct lineage from Jesus himself. However, I have never heard any accounts of his siblings (I'm not doubting that there may be written sources). One would think that if Jesus were to have brothers and sisters that they would definitely have played a major part in the formation of christianity, maybe even more so than the apostles. The church would either recognize the siblings of Christ in the same way they do Mary and Joseph or they would cover up any knowledge of a blood relation to Jesus Christ (like the Da Vinci code).

You could come up with any number of conspiracy theories about the siblings of Jesus Christ that would enrage people.

5/19/2006 2:07:06 PM

Quote :

"And I don't see Tom Hanks as a good actor for the role."

i saw the movie.

you are wrong.

continue.

5/19/2006 2:54:45 PM

dogma > > > > > > da vinchi

5/19/2006 3:03:08 PM

Jesus christ.

5/19/2006 3:03:13 PM

If i remember correctly, in Dogma the decendent of Jesus wasnt of his own off spring it was that of his siblings. In fact i think Rufus says that in the movie. So Jesus was her Great.....Uncle

5/19/2006 3:44:23 PM

what the fuck.. what a damn pathetic movie that was. I feel like asking for 3 hours of my life back. (2 and a half for the movie itself, and an extra half hour as a penalty).

Of course throughout the whole movie I was cheering for Silas and Bishop Aringarosa. "Come on! Kick his ass!"

Quote :

"Why would Jesus having brothers and sisters tamper with people's beliefs? You can believe in the immaculate conception and also believe that Joseph and Mary went on to have children of their own after the birth of Jesus. In fact there is a Bible precedence to indicate that he had brothers and sisters: "

Two things. One, the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus' conception.

Two, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters, at least in the way we use those words today. The words as used in the Bible to mean "brother" and "sister" also refer to other relatives, like cousins, for example, not just children of the same parent like we understand it today.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 4:22 AM. Reason : add]

5/20/2006 4:20:22 AM

Quote :

"Two, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters, at least in the way we use those words today. "

The Bible uses it in the way black people use it.

Which is more meaningful, I think.

5/20/2006 4:33:35 AM

first of all, tom hanks is fucking garbage

second of all, if you provide financial support to this piece of shit, you are fucking garbage

5/20/2006 10:06:28 AM

i dont think you said fucking garbage enough.....

5/20/2006 10:10:10 AM

Quote :

"what the fuck.. what a damn pathetic movie that was. I feel like asking for 3 hours of my life back. (2 and a half for the movie itself, and an extra half hour as a penalty). "

Aren't you one of TWW bible beaters?

I'll wait to hear a response from someone else.

5/20/2006 10:12:52 AM

i really enjoyed the movie...but then again, I never read the book.

I reccomend it for people who arent trying to solve the mysteries of the universe and just want to be entertained for a few hours.


and if you're a bible thumper:

1) gtfo
2) suicide.

5/20/2006 10:27:48 AM

i saw the movie yesterday @ 3:30pm, and the theatre was about 90% full. i never read the book either. however, i did watch some of the special documentaries on the history channel during the week. the shows on the knights templar and the free masons were particulary interesting, and helpful for when i watched the movie.

i didn't think the movie was all that good. i give it a C. the only thing it had going for it was that the subject matter is rather interesting. however, the history channel docs were much better. the movie pretty much seemed accurate for the most part in comparison to the documentaries. however, it wasn't really easy to follow, because the flow wasn't smooth. on the other hand the documentaries followed a chronological explaination, so everything was very clear. the movie also was too dramatic - the music especially. the movie bordered on the corny. the "suprises" were also very obvious. i assumed at the very introduction of a character that he/she was actually someone else.

thanks to watching the history channel docs, i noticed a couple of suttle inserts of various masonic and templar symbology. i'm sure i would notice several more if i watched the movie again, but i don't plan on it.

in conclusion, go watch it at the theatres if you must. however, i recommend the history channel instead. it's much more interesting, and informative. the movie really didn't do anything for me. it's also 2:30 long. when i left the theater, the christian protestors were just setting up. my friend and i just laughed at them when they tried to hand us flyers.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 12:36:12 PM

^thanks

anybody else that has actually seen the movie have any thoughts

or is this thread just going to be "Da Vinci Code" bashing, and religious debates???

5/20/2006 12:56:58 PM

i'm not maliciously trying to bash the movie. it's just my honest opinion on it. it's not that good of a movie. the christians should be protesting the history channel.

5/20/2006 1:00:40 PM

okay for one you can't compare the da vinci code to documenaties....it's a FICTION movie...they made it so dramatic because of that

5/20/2006 2:41:10 PM

hopefully i'm not the only one who did this, but did anyone else laugh their ass off when silas hit the nun??

5/20/2006 3:01:49 PM

i say again

if you know this is a fiction movie and don't get offended by the notion of "the con of man"...you will enjoy this movie

5/20/2006 4:06:05 PM

it's fiction, but the premises aren't. all the shit the talk about in terms of the knights templar and the priory (masons in actuality) are real. sir issac newton was a mason, as they implied in the movie. roslyn (sp?) castle in scotland does exist. it actually was owned by the st. clair clan, and built for the knights templar by the free masons of that period. there are in fact underground chambers beneath it that has be fiercely guarded. in the mid-90's, some people bought a plot of land adjacent to it, and began to dig diagonally underground in the direction of the castle. they were trying to dig to the underground chambers, but were stopped by the law before they got to it.

one of the things the movie embellished was the inquisition of the knights templar on friday, october 13, 1307. king philip the fair, of france, did mandate all the knights templars to be round up (by order of the pope clemens, i believe). the movie said that the knights templar were almost wiped out, but the scholars say otherwise. they believe thousands of knights templar did escape due to their vast numbers, and that only a few hundered templars were captured. also, the french didn't find any of the knights templars secrets or treasures. it is believed that the templars who escaped took the treasures with them, and hid them. the sites of where they've hid the treasures are speculations, but most believe roslyn castle is a logical site for atleast some of the treasures. the castle bears several templar and masonic symbols (some of which you can see in the movie). for those that saw the movie, you may remember a very ornate column in the castle - it had vines around it. that is called the "apprentice's column", and there was an great story about it in the history channel documentary. the movie is full of symbols that you'd recognize if you knew them, or simply watched the history channel. another example: when silas dies, the position in which he is lying is the exact position an initiate of the free masons lies during their ritual.

basically, all the shit of the secret societies and shit are real, and there are facts that support it. alot of them still exist to this day, such as the free masons and opus dieu. the only thing the movie really fictionalized is the plot of the movie itself, with tom hanks' character and shit, and their interpretation of what the holy grail is. like i said, watch the documentary specials on the history channel. it'll help you understand the movie better. not only that, the history of the subject itself is very interesting. they go into much, much more detail about all that stuff. it's not just conjecture or speculations either. most of the stuff are undeniable facts with countless amounts of supporting evidences, including the bible itself.

don't get it twisted and think i believe the stuff in the movie about jesus' descendants and stuff. for one, i'm not religious at all. secondly, my interest simply lies in the history aspect - the templars, the crusades, the masons, the inquisitions, etc.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 4:24:00 PM

I went into reading the book without knowing anything about the story. That being said, what the holy grail is in the book came to me as a surprise. Did this not surprise anyone else? I hadn't watched any of the documentaries (and my husband has watched some, but they also didn't mention the theory of the holy grail that the book uses), so basically by talking about what it is in a couple above posts, you all posted spoilers, and should have included a warning.

Plus, superchevy, your review was well-thought out. However, you also included a spoiler. Now it won't be as much of a surprise to those that didn't read the book.

5/20/2006 4:44:19 PM

i'm sorry for the spoilers, but i thought all the movie threads in entertainment had warnings about spoilers, and it was understood by all.

ATTENTION: THERE ARE SPOILERS IN MY POSTS ABOVE!!!

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 4:45:59 PM

I'm saying that mostly because the holy grail info isn't known by the average joe. Not everyone watches documentaries about it all, and as a Christian it's a theory that never occurred to me, and that I never heard/read about. Your spoiler I think was just a slip of the tongue.

5/20/2006 4:48:57 PM

WHAT

THE

FUCK

WAS THE POINT OF THAT MOVIE?


That was so fucking contrived and hackneyed, the plot was riduculously predictable, the handful of twists and reveals were obvious WAY before they happened....

JESUS. Come on, Audrey, let's go back to France.

5/20/2006 4:52:30 PM

It sounds like everyone is going into this thinking it's going to be a lot of action and puzzles, when in fact the puzzles take a long time, with a loooooot of discussion, in the book. There is a decent amount of action, but you won't be able to understand what's going on without the talking. So if you go into the movie expecting to be entertained, that'll likely happen. But if you go into it expecting to be completely enthralled with the journey the characters have to make, then you're likely to be disappointed.

The book was very interesting, and a little slow at times. I'm expecting the movie to do the same, and it sounds like that's the case from comments so far, only with possibly a couple missteps in the direction.

5/20/2006 5:09:33 PM

I'm not sure if this was posted or not but I just wanted to say something about this:

Quote :

"You can believe in the immaculate conception and also believe that Joseph and Mary went on to have children of their own after the birth of Jesus."

No, you can't, not if you understand the meaning of IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Immaculate conception, in case maybe I dont understand you or you dont know a bit about catholicism, is about Mary's conception within Saint Anne, Mary was conceived in the normal fashion but the holy spirit removed from her original sin. The heavenly Father made her sinless so that when the holy spirit descended upon Mary and she conceived she would be sinless and without sin for eternity. "The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings." Hence the angel addressed Mary "Hail Mary, Full of Grace"
Therefore according to Catholicism, Mary is perfect, ever-virgin, never to procreate with man. In short that's a really short explanation of why Mary never procreated with Joseph, according to Catholicism.

I am catholic and I enjoyed the book and movie. While I know some vatican officials have urged other catholics to boycott the film I don't know any local catholics boycotting the movie here, or even protesting.... Most of the protestors I have spoken to were Protestant.

I enjoyed the book, as a quick read on a plane to Paris it wasn't half bad. But I enjoy thillers. I thought the writing was a bit bland but the plot was good, I enjoyed Angels and Demons a lot more. The movie was good, I wouldnt say it should win an award or anything but it was entertaining. I'm really looking forward to Pirates!!!!!

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2006 6:08:54 PM

i'm glad i hate religion and am not subject to it's absolutely ridiculous stories

http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-06242005.wmv

5/20/2006 6:19:54 PM

Quote :

"It sounds like everyone is going into this thinking it's going to be a lot of action and puzzles, when in fact the puzzles take a long time, with a loooooot of discussion, in the book. There is a decent amount of action, but you won't be able to understand what's going on without the talking."

I wasn't expecting a lot of action. The weak-ass puzzles were the worst part.

5/20/2006 6:30:41 PM

Ian made the movie palatable. It had good parts, and a lot of bad parts… but it was the kind of movie where you could enjoy hating the bad parts rather than having a bad time. The end was a real let down. They built up so much, to have so little happen. I don't want to say anything specific, but I feel like that they wanted to keep it believable even though it was fictional so they just didn't go anywhere with the movie.

The Ninth Gate came to mind when watching this movie… which I found to be a much better movie. It was on sale at circuit city in cary behind mcdonalds, several copies of it in fact, for like $7 or less. It’s also a thriller/mystery based off a book, club duma, that is of a similar genre.

[Edited on May 20, 2006 at 7:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2006 7:27:00 PM

IanAudrey made the movie palatable.

5/20/2006 7:35:04 PM

Quote :

""And I don't see Tom Hanks as a good actor for the role." i saw the movie. you are wrong. continue. "

I saw the movie as well.

I think the roll could have been better cast

continue.

(PS: Silas was VERY well cast)

5/20/2006 10:58:22 PM

I'm sorry, but there is no good way to cast a such a cartoonish villain in this kind of movie.

5/20/2006 11:14:04 PM

"the ninth gate" have heath ledger in it? if so, i've seen it. that is a better movie than "the davinci code".

5/20/2006 11:17:19 PM

No, you're thinking of The Order.

5/20/2006 11:28:11 PM

yeah, 9th Gate has Johnny Depp in it.

And I highly disagree with you on The Order being better than....anything

5/21/2006 1:05:12 AM

Micheal C. is not a great author

He's a mediocre screenplay writer

5/21/2006 1:21:41 AM

Friend of mine really enjoyed it and I appreciate a lot of his movie interests, and he's watched the History Channel stuff.

5/21/2006 2:21:34 AM

^^yeah, i found a trailer for the ninth gate so people can see which one i was talking about since there was some confusion

http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=482444

i like that it has more of a cultish feel and takes you more on the inside than I feel da vinci code did. this movie is a little darker than the pg 13 da vinci code. its worth seeing though.

5/21/2006 3:26:31 AM

meh, it was pretty decent, read the book, they did a ok job of making a movie out of it....

5/21/2006 4:48:55 AM