My wife and I saw it last night (a double-feature with "RV"). I was underwhelmed by the book, but I was pretty entertained by the movie. I think Brown wrote a better basis for a screenplay than he did a novel.
I wonder about something, though. As I said, I had a pretty good time watching it. But over at
the Rotten Tomatoes site, the movie has, at this writing, a score of 18%. While I don't think the film is brilliant (it's still based on Brown's book, after all, so it's got a mark against it; sorry, but I just thought the book was horribly overrated), I find such low score to be out of proportion with the kind of film it is and the experience I had watching it. Heck, "RV" scored higher, and that seems ludicrous. ("RV" summary: very formulaic vacation comedy with Robin Williams instead of Chevy Chase. There are some moments that inspired giggling, but there's nothing hilarious, IMHO.)
Are critics biased against "The Da Vinci Code" due to the controversial content? Are those that aren't biased covering their asses? Does a large portion of the critic population not want to be seen liking this film? Even Roger Ebert, who gave the film a largely positive review, said the plot was "preposterous" and went out of the way to reiterate that it's "fiction". While I don't disagree, I think that's a gross oversimplification, and, yes, it sounds like ass-covering to me.
cobalt79 Wrote:Kenji is correct. It is just fiction, meant to entertain. A plot, a conspiracy, a defamation............IMHO.......I think not. I've enjoyed Dan Brown's books.........yes I've read them all. Do I believe they are based in fact, no.......that's what fiction is for.....suppose this or that.
But again, that's really a gross oversimplification: The basic premise of the book comes from non-fiction research, primarily the book
Holy Blood, Holy Grail. While many jump up and cry "fiction" and a variety of other defamatory things about that book--and I'd bet better than 99.99% of its critics have never read it--it's still presented as a challenge to the accuracy of the accepted historical record(s). That warrants discussion, and it seems like few are willing to really discuss it or even be
seen willing to discuss it. And most of the criticism of it seems reactionary rather than reasoned and researched. Thus my question about critics above.
Speaking for myself, I'm most of the way through
Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's somewhat slow reading because it's written with about as much charm as a calculus textbook. I haven't completely gotten to the really juicy stuff yet (or at least what's considered the really juicy stuff here in the States: the issues relating directly to Jesus and his bloodline), but my own take so far is... that I'm pretty skeptical. The authors bring up a lot of compelling points and historical tidbits, but aside from the fact that some of those are up to debate (and the authors, to their credit, are often good at pointing this out themselves), I find that they often rely on material or make leaps in logic that I find questionable (though I also grant that I'm a layperson). That doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate, but it raises questions. And again, it just seems like people aren't willing to really
discuss, just discount.
Blake