<p>Yes, my typo,should reads DID NOT ban or ask for boycott. Individuals, may be doing this, but the Church has not. I work for a large archdiocese and there has been much discussion, but the bottom line is it is fiction. There is an article By Archbishop George Niederauer, “How dark the con of Dan” which really puts it into perspective. I don’t have a direct link, but he is from San Francisco. I certainly believe that the book makes people think about how bureaucracies of all kinds can get out of control when power is involved.</p>
<p>Here’s the link to Niederauer’s article:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0512/niederauer.htm[/url]”>http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0512/niederauer.htm</a></p>
<p>Well, I was disappointed in the book when I finally got around to reading it. I thought it was a moderately entertaining read, but the riddles were way to easy, and it made no sense to me that a supposedly expert “symbologist” and code breaker did not immediately see things such as simple anagrams, or recognize mirror-writing in the style of Leonardo’s codex notes. Plot turns suffered from being far too predictable, or simply unbelievable. Harry Potter is a better mystery, as well as being more cohesive. </p>
<p>Plus the geography was messed up: I was glad I recently visited Paris when I read the book, but I found it hard to follow the escape route, and was relieved when I learned later that I am in fact correct: Dan Brown apparently never bothered to check a map of Paris when writing the book. </p>
<p>I did, however, feel it would make a really good movie: all of the elements were there for a bunch of really great chase scenes. Plus, I figured, in a fast-paced movie, I wouldn’t have to wade through pages of text frustrated that the protagonists couldn’t solve a simple anagram (like “apple”???) – they could be depicted on film as thinking fast. Like The Bourne Identity.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, based on the movie reviews, it sounds like this is not the case. So I shall skip the theatrical showing, wait for the DVD, enjoy the on-location shots of Paris & the Louvre, & then fast-forward through all the boring and sillly parts.</p>
<p>What bothers some of the religions is the questions it poses and the fact that some people may take it literally. But, as a Catholic, I enjoyed the book for all its inconsistencies, and saw the movie last night. As usual, the book is better than the movie. Rarely do I see it differently. I was let down at the end. It wasn’t a horrible movie, it just wasn’t wonderful. I loved the Harry Potter books, and felt the same about the movies. I saw the movies, but give me the books!!!</p>
<p>evitajr1, I didn’t mean that I didn’t know what bothered some about the book and movie. I think that’s fairly obvious. What I don’t understand is the WHY! Are the people who are bothered, worried that those who may take it literally will somehow lose their faith? That doesn’t give much credit to their followers, does it?</p>
<p>In any case, I’m quite curious about some of the changes they made in the movie, especially the ending details. I don’t want to post any spoilers here so if anyone knows the reason they did it, please PM me! :)</p>
<p>I’ve always found it better to have seen the movie before reading the book, not vice versa. Much less disappointment that way when the movie mangles the book. The one movie that was better than the book by a wide margin–The Godfather. Haven’t read or seen The Da Vinci Code, but I think I will try to see the movie…then read the book.</p>
<p>I found Angels and Demons to be riveting! But then I used to read Robert Ludlum books when younger…</p>
<p>I did see the movie this afternoon. Not half bad, not half bad. I haven’t read the book and I probably would have been bored with the book. But it isn’t a waste of 2.5 hours to see the movie if you haven’t read the book. This movie or the book for that matter (from what I’ve heard second-hand) did not go too deep into Christian theology or philosophy, it would not win any prizes for historical accuracy and in the end was rather preachy…but I just had to go and see it and see what the fuss was about.</p>
<p>p.s - I am agnostic, probably bordering on being an atheist…just haven’t given up completely on God.</p>
<p>The movie was decent, but nothing outstanding. I liked it to about when they get to Teabing’s mansion. It kinda falls apart piece by piece after that.</p>
<p>Ellemenope, I almost always read the book first and thus find movies from books generally unsatifying. TheMom has a theory that any given story has its one best medium of expression and that a good novel is unlikely to make a good movie and vice versa. There’s also the problem that sequels to movies are seldom as good as the original, “Toy Story” being an exception that comes to mind.</p>
<p>Agree with you about THE GODFATHER. </p>
<p>But Roger Ludlum potboilers I could never stomach. The better Jack Higgins and Allistair MacLean were the lowest that I could go.</p>
<p>well I didn’t go to the movies- I rented “Wallace and Gromit- The curse of the Were-Rabbit” instead ;)</p>
<p>I would generally agree with you Thedad, although there have been a few instances where I didn’t think I would like the book, but I liked the movie so much that I went back and read the book- * The English Patient* for instance.</p>
<p>We rented “The New World” yesterday. If you want to watch something long and excruciating, at least it should be magnficently beautiful, with each frame a painting.</p>
<p>I knew better than that mini 
even though “Days of Heaven” is one of my all time favorite movies-
I hope you had a big screen.</p>
<p>No big screen, but it really is gorgeous (music was poor as well.)</p>
<p>EK, an LOL, mainly on myself…TheMom and I found THE ENGLISH PATIENT to be excruciating. But this brings to mind one of my favorite quotes: In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is chosen by others. --Andre Maurois</p>
<p>H & I saw it last night after my S saw it and thought it was pretty good.
I fell asleep 1/3 of the way through it, awakening to see Tom Hanks cut himself shaving, allowing me to conclude that Ron Howard didn’t follow the book well ;)</p>
<p>the movie or the book Thedad?-
( I didn’t think I would like the book either when it came out- but I think it is well written- it even made me search out my daughters copy of Herotodus)</p>
<p>I have liked Ralph Fiennes in most of the things I have seen him in & Naveen Andrews was just a bonus
BUt then I like slower paced movies if they are well written and photographed- ( see above Days of Heaven as favorite movie)</p>
<p>EK, slower pace isn’t a problem in this house. P&P and S&S, after all, are old faves. We loathed the characters (the movie) of THE ENGLISH PATIENT. </p>
<p>We’re off to see TDVC in a little over an hour.</p>
<p>see I am the opposite- I cannot stand Jane Austen
we recently read several for book group and then watched the movies and ugh- generally I am not a great shoulder for the upper crust to cry on- get some “real” problems I say
I did like the go-between though</p>
<p>Back to the Future 2, Godfather 2 were both great sequels. But have to agree with TheDad that most sequels are pretty awful.</p>
<p>Jane Austen–ugh?? emeraldkity, say it ain’t so!</p>
<p>I generally agree with the statement that rarely are the movies as good as the books. One exception in my opinion is To Kill a Mockingbird. I still think after all this time since it came out, that both the book and the movie were wonderful.</p>
<p>Just saw The Da Vincin Code tonight. As a thriller, not a bad movie. Filming was good, and acting - particularly McKellan - was excellent. </p>
<p>I think various details were changed in order to not appear so anti-Catholic. For instance, it is Teabring who states the main thesis as fact, while Langdon is the skeptic. Quite different from the book. </p>
<p>One thing I find rather bizarre - but only a genealogist would even care! - is the theory that there is only one person descended from Jesus. If you assume that the thesis was correct (and it almost seems as if Brown has strong sympathies in that direction), then how could a family determined to carry on, and aware of their importance, only have one member left? After all, the Pilgrims had few people on the Mayflower in the 1600’s, and there are now 4 million descendents of those Pilgrims. </p>
<p>But the Vatican, when it points out the book’s errors, never even mentions that.</p>