Never read the book. Nearly fell asleep during the movie.

I forgot what it was (I'd have to watch the stinker again), but there was a logic hole in the story that had it not been missed, the plot would have never happened.

The book was brilliant but the movie was terrible!

tango victor: The book was brilliant

You probably thought that Dick and Jane were continually conquering new frontiers of literature, as well.

The_Flatline: a logic hole


Besides "suspension of disbelief", what logic hole? C'mon, I liked Star Wars but I don't expect that space battles will involves screeching sound effects.

Do you also like sudoko?

If you look closely at the Campbell's Soup Can painting in the movie "I shot Andy Warhol", you can deduce that I am Jesus Christ's neighbor's cousin's boss's neighbor's landlord's brother's wife's father's roommate's lover's hairdresser's grandfather's uncle's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson's drugdealer's bookie's sister's postman's second delivery every first Monday of the month except September.

Which means I'm like... holy and shiat.

But if you try to shoot me to reclaim the sanctity of the church then some birds or something are going to distract you just long enough for me to run away and stare at a wall in some church while you inexplicably get run over by a car.

In the bookseller community, most of us regard Dan Brown and Da Vinci Code as tripe, but recognize he's one of those authors and that's one of those books that makes people who don't read much exclaim "It's a REALLY good book!" because they haven't been exposed to anything with better pacing, plot, characterizations, character development, and dialogue.

In other words, booksellers see Da Vinci Code as a book that is great to recommend to the non-sophisticates of the world.

Of course, here I am trying to find a politically-correct, non-insulting antonym for the word "sophisticate", so perhaps I'm being a bit of a snob and a hypocrite, to boot.

Still, people within the literary world find Dan Brown's work to be pretty simple and dim. He basically takes nonfiction research books and writes a little dialogue around them in a weak effort to write something that is barely passable as a suspense novel.

The sad thing is that Da Vinci Code isn't even a "stepping stone" book like Eragon or most of Stephen King's work (which varies in quality, but even at his worst, King is still way better than Dan Brown at his best.) --- People who read Dan Brown generally don't branch out into Phillip K. Dick, Patterson, Koontz, or any other authors. They just keep reading Dan Brown and anything with a vaguely Da Vinci Code-like cover.

In fact, the romance fans have more sophisticated taste than Dan Brown fans.

Thankfully, there are those with less sophisticated tastes: The manga fans, and the people who read Christian fiction; especially the Left Behind series.

But hey, I'm a bookworm geekette, so my opinion is my own.

I believe Ebert and Roper called it the worst movie of 2006, if that's any help.

The crypt-o-something... the thing with the alphabet on it, isn't it supposed to be really old? You're supposed to break the code, and it's like latin letters?

I saw the thing in a magazine. Movie Artists had to make it from the book's description. They did the worst job I've ever seen.

This thing was supposed to be hundreds of years old. Yet, it looks like Times New Roman typefont on it. And there are letters that do not exist in the old Roman alphabet.

Details like this really piss me off in movies.

I_C_Weener:
Besides "suspension of disbelief", what logic hole? C'mon, I liked Star Wars but I don't expect that space battles will involves screeching sound effects.

This was the logic hole I found (both in book and movie), there are probably others:

In DaVinci Code, the apostle sitting to Jesus's right is not John, but Mary, his wife, and she's there to represent their union and bloodline.

The problem is this: DaVinci drew a portrait of the last supper without John? John has a huge role in the Last Supper story, and leaving him out wouldn't make sense.

I especially hated the ending of both, where langdon drops to one knee. he's supposedly overwhelmed by the power and sriousness of his discovery that he can't help but fall. it was so pretentious and insulting. I really thought it couldn't get worse after the orgy/scion reveal, but that just infuriated me.

I thought that it was the funniest film of last year...

Cerebral Ballsy

You have it wrong. The one they were using was made by her grandfather, not one hundreds of years old.

Once upon a time...

...and they all lived happily ever after.

Yep.

Overrated.

Holly_Wight: Of course, here I am trying to find a politically-correct, non-insulting antonym for the word "sophisticate", so perhaps I'm being a bit of a snob and a hypocrite, to boot.

yeah, just a bit.

its a damn shame when authors have the gall to write something that millions of people enjoy. what the hell are they trying to do? entertainment is for the ignorant masses

Holly_Wight

Try reading a manga like Monster, Akira or Elfen Lied and tell me thats not on par with any of the fiction you've ever read. Way to be a generalizing asshole buddy.

dan brown isnt the problem, people who like him are

WTF? (sponsored)?

Oh noes, you've pissed off a manga fan!

Holly_Wight

In the bookseller community, most of us regard Dan Brown and Da Vinci Code as tripe, but recognize he's one of those authors and that's one of those books that makes people who don't read much exclaim "It's a REALLY good book!" because they haven't been exposed to anything with better pacing, plot, characterizations, character development, and dialogue.

Still, people within the literary world find Dan Brown's work to be pretty simple and dim. He basically takes nonfiction research books and writes a little dialogue around them in a weak effort to write something that is barely passable as a suspense novel.

I would say it is bad fiction based on bad 'nonfiction'

Didn't like the book or the movie. Am I the only one who is really annoyed by wooden-Tom Hanks. What I really love is how the film totes "controversial" as its selling point but, then blocks out the full-frontal nude of the murdered curator by strategically placing a light over his nether region. I guess they dont like that much controversy. I mean give me a break.

Holly_Wight: In the bookseller community, most of us regard Dan Brown and Da Vinci Code as tripe, but recognize he's one of those authors and that's one of those books that makes people who don't read much exclaim "It's a REALLY good book!" because they haven't been exposed to anything with better pacing, plot, characterizations, character development, and dialogue.

In other words, booksellers see Da Vinci Code as a book that is great to recommend to the non-sophisticates of the world.

Of course, here I am trying to find a politically-correct, non-insulting antonym for the word "sophisticate", so perhaps I'm being a bit of a snob and a hypocrite, to boot.

Still, people within the literary world find Dan Brown's work to be pretty simple and dim. He basically takes nonfiction research books and writes a little dialogue around them in a weak effort to write something that is barely passable as a suspense novel.

The sad thing is that Da Vinci Code isn't even a "stepping stone" book like Eragon or most of Stephen King's work (which varies in quality, but even at his worst, King is still way better than Dan Brown at his best.) --- People who read Dan Brown generally don't branch out into Phillip K. Dick, Patterson, Koontz, or any other authors. They just keep reading Dan Brown and anything with a vaguely Da Vinci Code-like cover.

In fact, the romance fans have more sophisticated taste than Dan Brown fans.

Thankfully, there are those with less sophisticated tastes: The manga fans, and the people who read Christian fiction; especially the Left Behind series.

But hey, I'm a bookworm geekette, so my opinion is my own.


ASSSSSSSHHHHOOOOOOLLLLLEEEEE

This is the part when I magnanimously declare that I have a double major in English and History, so I can out- bookworm geek you, but really, it's just a farkin' book, and if it makes someone who doesn't normally read spend an afternoon reading instead of watching Big Brother Survives Eating Really Gross shiat on Fox, well that's great.

My problem is assholes like you pretend you're better than assholes that don't read, and you scare the assholes that don't read into thinking they can never get into your "smart club of book readering assholes".

Everyone is an asshole, but you think your some kind of better asshole cause you think you understand Joyce's existential angst with you chamomille tea. Moreover, you're an exclusionary asshole.

And what's with the "Bookseller Community"? Do you work at Chapters or something? Gawd, if you're going to get all high and mighty, at least go with the library as a vehicle to pomposity -- it has more credibility.


/sorry, channeling some kind of smart Ricky today.
//Hey Bubs, wanna smoke a joint and play some video games?
///Ok Ricky.

SageTemple
Ohhh, common, the person is entitled to their opinion, let she/he voice it, snark (on both sides) is always welcome on Fark ;) Alot of people think the book is pretty sucky. Then again, dare I say it, so is Harry Potter. As letapecul rightly pointed out, entertainment is for the masses, most of it sucks anyhow. Look at Lost.

/flame on

Funny video :D Enjoy!

Tom Hanks is James Bond; Click here

Meh, that book got on my nerves after every chapter ended like this:


...and then something frightening, and possibly deadly came around the corner.

Chapter 2.
And as Langdon Alger rounded the corner, he jumped back with a fright - as he saw his briefly illuminated visage in a mirror.
"Whew. That really was a startle." said Langdon.

And blah blah blah - the story was interesting enough, but Dan Brown pisses me off.

letapecul: its a damn shame when authors have the gall to write something that millions of people enjoy.

There's nothing wrong with writing something for the enjoyment of millions. It's just that this doesn't imply great literary talent, artistic vision, etc.

Millions of people enjoy McDonald's hamburgers. Do you mean to tell me that they're as good as filet mignon?

I believe Ebert and Roper called it the worst movie of 2006, if that's any help.

It couldn't possibly be worse than Little Man.

I prefer the Da Vinci Load.

SageTemple

Goddam, she must have hit a nerve. . .

Nice popcorn movie, pretty much Indiana Jones and the Holy Grial redux.

not over-rated, simply got a ton of undeserved attention because so many people got their panties in a bunch at the same time.

And no, Stephen Kind at his worst is baaad as in lousy. Much worse than a Dan Brown potboiler.

///still hoping to see a movie version of Clans of the Alphane Moon or Shadowland if they don't get hacked to bits
//slashy overload!

"Yep, that's how we roll in 'Vinci'."

/MST3K FTW

the book was retarded. There was a cliffhanger after every chapter, and after about the first dozen times of going "wow! I wonder what happened!" I just got really, really angry and said "fark you, dan brown. Learn how to write a farking novel without using the same farking device every chapter, you asshole."

After about the 12th time of the same bullshiat over and over again, you really, really, really begin to hate the man. The book was stupid.

tango victor: The book was brilliant but the movie was terrible!

I'm with you. The movie was a totally dumbed down version of the book.

I would say it is bad fiction based on bad 'nonfiction'

torch

I believe Ebert and Roper called it the worst movie of 2006, if that's any help.

Sadly, Ebert gave the movie a pass:

While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown's formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment ~ Roger Ebert

It did make the 2nd worst movie of the year on Ebert and Roeper though.

I saw it while stuck in my seat on an eleven hour flight from Amsterdam to Memphis. While I would never have rented
it(much less paid money to see it in a theater or buy the DVD) it was a decent way to kill part of the flight.

I never read the book so that might have helped me enjoy it for the time I was a prisoner of KLM.

Holly_Wight

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you just refer to "Koontz" as good literature?

Bevets is a tool.

jeanwearinfool

You can effect him. He's like the wow thing from south park. Just walk away.

Holly_Wight

I'm a bookseller, too. (And not an apron-wearing mega-chain store employee, either. I own an independent.) I'll make my point cleanly and concisely as I can so as not to encourage trolls: I don't care what people read, as long as they are reading.

This was absolutely one of the worst books I've ever read. On all levels. I mean, first of all, it absolutely fails as fiction. He makes the middle-school mistake of having all his good-guys be supermen without flaws and all his bad guys be evil, coniving, greedy, deceptive imbeciles. Yes, that even counts for the big bad guy who was really a good guy, he just got a too enthusiastic. The formula of Christian = evil idiot, skeptic = brilliant superman hold across the entire novel.

Second, it certainly fails as a mystery because if you couldn't guess every part of the ending then you're dumb. When a big part of the book revolves around this set of three riddles that are supposed to be hard to solve -- creating all the tension -- and he as the author has to keep the actual text of the riddles hidden for many chapters until the characters solve them so you don't solve them first... Well, that speaks for itself.

It fails as a thriller as all the situations are completely unbelievable. Besides, you KNOW the good guys are going to escape because they are supermen being opposed by the legions of the mentally retarted. The fact that he then makes how they escape even more improbable than any of the situations they were in anyway just makes it worse.

This book fails as fiction. It wants to be judged by the merit of its supposedly non-fiction content. But there it fails as well, as the history it reveals is so very, very different from anything any real historian or theologian would recognize. And it seems to be bad for two reasons -- Brown did shoddy research and then he manipulated the facts into outright lies to fit his thesis. He seems to want to do anything he can to support his main conclusion -- that there is some historical flaw in traditional Christianity especially as it comes to sex and the relationship between men and women.

Even here he is inconsistent. Christians are wrong to worship Christ as God because He was just a man, but the Priory is better because it worships Mary Magdalene who was also merely human. He calls her "The Goddess" more than once and goes on and on about the "sacred feminine." Wait, wasn't his complaint about Christianity the elevation of a human being to the status of divinity?

The only reason people like this book at all is that it feeds their own ideologies. The only reason anyone would ever possibly call it "brilliant" is that it tells them what they want to hear. It's tripe. Worse than that, it is deceptive tripe built on lies.

I enjoyed both the book, and the movie.
I mean, are they great art? Nope, but I admit that while the book is far from great, it was a fun read, one of the most mindless, enjoyable books I had read ina while up to that point. I picked up his other books, and while they are all pretty much the same thing, I did enjoy the one just before davinci far more.
Is it going to take the place of a really good book? Nope, but for something to read in a day, that doesnt tax the mind (or expand it either) its worthwhile. But a steady diet of any junk food, literary or other, is a bad idea. But every once in awhile, it can be fun.

Bevets I am confused as to what you are implying with your quotes concerning The Da Vinci Code. Is it that the Non-fiction books he based it on (i.e. The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail) and all of the other books in that vein written by those authors, as well as the ones concerning the Templars -> Masons and their tie in to the Priory and Roslin Chapel are true? That there is a bloodline of European roaylty/pseudo-royalty descended from Jesus? That sort of deal.

I've read all of those books, and found them highly interesting but the authors scholarship at times is highly dubious. While I do think that there is SOMETHING buried deep within the piles of trash I highly doubt they are that accurate.

As for the Priory of Sion it was exposed as a hoax long ago. Although it could be one of those double-fakes or as some have speculated it is a hoax based on a truth.

If you could clear it up for me a little bit (your opinion) without quotes please that would be interesting.

I have read The Da Vinci Code, and didn't think much of it. I saw the movie, and other than the soundtrack, didn't think much of it either. Though I do prefer awesome books/movies that grab you by the throat and don't let go until the end (like Snow Crash. Can't recommend that book enough).

While it is a bad book, I'd rather have people read bad books than watch bad TV.

Though I would like people to read good books rather than bad books.

Meh, I've read Star Wars tie-in novels AND Umberto Eco and as long as I'm entertained, I'm happy, though I prefer it if the story is reasonably well put together. I shift my expectations according to the type of book. However, I hate it when an author plainly thinks he's composing grand literature, yet you can see him clumsily assembling the story and crudely attempting to manipulate the reader. I haven't read The DaVinci Code because it sounds like that kind of book.

I hated The Horse Whisperer but I read it to the end, because I just had to see where he was going to lead the lovesick, disenchanted housewives reading that clap-trap next. Good God did he yank the emotional chains. That book has one of the worst opening lines in a novel ever: "There was death at its beginning as there would be death at its end". It's like he felt he needed an "It was the best of times it was the worst of times..." opening line and just tacked it on (probably with Dickens in mind too). Gah.

Speaking of manga, I agree that making a blanket dismissal of any genre is unwise. "Manga" isn't just romance comic books from Japan, just as western comic books aren't just stories about superpowered underpants enthusiasts. I hadn't read any manga until really recently. I'm currently reading the epic "Buddha" by Osamu Tezuka, generally regarded as the father of manga. It's very engaging, although I find the artwork annoying at times. I can't say that I'm ever likely to become a big fan of classic manga style, but I like Tezuka's story-telling.

I enjoyed the book, but certainly don't consider it to be "literature" or anything of the sort. It entertained me, kept me turning the pages etc. etc. Sure it was a bit simplistic, and it bastardized some interesting (although not necessarily academically rigorous) non-fiction, but in the end it was overall an enjoyable read to me. That said it wasn't a "tour de force" definitely used hackneyed plot and character devices over and over. "Simplistic" would be the nicest way to describe the writing style. The movie was definitely a "dumbed down" version of the book (as basically every move based off a book is) and some of the random plot/character changes annoyed me. That said I'd give the book a 7/10 (enjoyable, but nothing deep or significant) and the movie a 5/10 (sort of fun, rent it don't buy it).

I know Fark is full of the next Prousts and James Joyces who know more than I about writing, but I thought the book was good. I was bored one night, picked it up and was fully entertained by it. I must be an uneducated doofus to like it.

However, I thought the movie was worse. Tom Hanks did a horrible job of acting in this one.

Literature is no different than music or film. If you want to appeal to a wide audience, you have to exploit the lowest common denominator. The ideas in Brown's book aren't unique or original, his writing is very basic and simple, and the structuring of his plot is incredibly predictable. It's like an Indiana Jones movie without the passion and integrity.

That said, that's just my opinion. My mother isn't as well read as I am. She read the book and loved it. And that's good for her. It doesn't make a difference to me whether or not other people enjoy the book. But I know that the next time Brown comes out with a book, I'll skip it and read something a little less bland.

Jurassic park: great movie, mediocre book
Dune: loved the movie, hated the book
Lion, witch, wardrobe: mediocre movie, great book
LOTR: awesome movies, I used the books to put me to sleep

I'm sure there's more but that's all I can think of.

SageTemple: My problem is assholes like you pretend you're better than assholes that don't read, and you scare the assholes that don't read into thinking they can never get into your "smart club of book readering assholes".

The obvious elitism aside, I think she had a bit of a point: many people who read Brown's book go on about it because they haven't been exposed to anything good (or "better" even). And they never really bother to move past it.

It's great that people are enjoying his novels, but it's a damn shame they're not enjoying stuff that's actually written well.

And no, I'm not an English major, and I often don't read anything more enjoyable than technical journals. I'm just appalled that Brown, whose stuff isn't even at the level of the stuff I read in high school, is the be-all-end-all of literature for so many.