da vinci code

well I don't plan on seeing it.
it makes me sick that hollywood is so desperate for ideas they are now running to best-selling books.
I read the book and liked it for the most part, but I know the movie will be almost nothing like the book. They never are.

this movie is just a way to make garunteed millions of dollars b/c most of the world is so lethargic they can watch the movie but not read the book.
so I guess hats off to them for cashing in on that, but I don't respect them making it a movie. At all.

my :twocents:

I thought that Tom Hanks wasn't comfortable in his role as Robert Langdon, and I thought that the producers had to trim too much to fit it in to the expected movie time, which I guess makes sense, but it was disappointing nonetheless. Sophie's performance was decent. Silas' role was spot-on.

I don't like the book or movie..but that is based on a clashing personal viewpoint about it from the beginning.

I wouldn't mind seeing it. Or maybe not. I hate religion all together, even if this movie says to prove there is no God. Didn't Homer do that too, and make photocopies and put them on everyone's windsheild? ;) Whatever, I'm talking out of my ass again. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nochowderforyou

I wouldn't mind seeing it. Or maybe not. I hate religion all together, even if this movie says to prove there is no God. Didn't Homer do that too, and make photocopies and put them on everyone's windsheild? ;) Whatever, I'm talking out of my ass again. :p

---

fuckin stoner...
jeez stop using that evil reefer

Just got back from seeing it...
Umm I agree with the sentiment that Tom Hanks wasnt really a good pic for Langdon. Sophie was good, ands Silas was awesome. A good movie...followed the book. Didnt see exciting as the book but overall i would give it a B.

By the way... Nochowder and Shelby both have it wrong...
It is not by any means against religeon. It is a fictional novel written by a guy that wanted to make money, and get people interested in christian history. The fact that he has acomplished this with all the show about the templars, crusades...ect on the hist channel are good evidence that he succeeded. Dan Brown admits to being a christian and is not bashing christianity in this book.

Oh, I was told and heard that the movie is suppose to prove there is no God. I know my bro's wife, who is mega religious, got offended big time when she saw the commercial for it, she said, "how dare they!" So I just assumed I guess.

I know nothing of it, so I'll just shut up. :p

First off, I never read the book, and I'm an atheist, but I loved the movie. It's not going to make me go out and read about Christian history, or even break out the bible... but I thought it was a very interesting story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeGuy

Just got back from seeing it...
Umm I agree with the sentiment that Tom Hanks wasnt really a good pic for Langdon. Sophie was good, ands Silas was awesome. A good movie...followed the book. Didnt see exciting as the book but overall i would give it a B.

By the way... Nochowder and Shelby both have it wrong...
It is not by any means against religeon. It is a fictional novel written by a guy that wanted to make money, and get people interested in christian history. The fact that he has acomplished this with all the show about the templars, crusades...ect on the hist channel are good evidence that he succeeded. Dan Brown admits to being a christian and is not bashing christianity in this book.

---

When did a personal viewpoint become wrong? Because it does not support your viewpoint..that would be wrong.

Just to be the devil's advocate, if I write a book about flying people then it's accepted as a work of fiction, but as soon as I say the word Jesus your viewpoint is "clashing"?

I somewhere can meet you on a middle ground, though, Shelbay. I didn't see Passion of the Christ, because, well, it's nothing but Mel Gibson's self-indulgent crap. Different Strokes I guess.