What a huge, steaming pile of twisted crapola. I am truly confused about this frantic search for Mary Magdalene. I thought the point made by just about everybody who explained anything in the film was that Jesus was a sweet guy, but not the son of God.
Okay, fine, but why then are we desperate to find the "Holy Grail" when, by the movie's definition, it's not holy? She's just some ancient guy's wife, no?
And then even if, under this movie's logic, we decide that Jesus was divine, how the heck does that render his bed buddy worthy of all this to-do? We're not talking about the Mary who was the mother of Jesus, for whom a coherent argument can be made that by bearing a divine being she herself became to some degree divine. No, under the divine-Jesus interpretation, the movie can only be saying that God's Brood Cow, not herself of the royal blood, is somehow worthy of a huge fuss. Why?
Assuming Jesus's divinity, she's worth nothing except to those who wish to denounce the Roman Catholic Church (and I'm still hazy over how, according to the movie, this was going to rock the foundations of those grouchy old papists).
But then why all the bother over Mary Magdalene herself by the Templars and Priories and Keepers? What is the logic of why she mattered, in this story, to them? Okay, I can see that if a divine Jesus bore children with Mary, this might be interesting, and you might want to keep her for reliquary purposes. But the important persons in such a set of facts, are thsoe who are "the bloodline of God". That means the direct descendants themselves, not the "human" side of any couple necessary to bear a new generation. Sheesh. So for the divine-Jesus set, Sophie should be the entire point, not Mary Magdalene.
And finally, what is to be made of this prayerful pose that a kneeling Tom Hank's takes as he determines that the Mag is buried under the crystal pyramid at the entrance of The Louvre? (And in the movie did anybody wonder to ask who wrote the note in the cryptex, or when it was written, and when the pyramid under the entrance at the Louvre was placed, or when Mag's sarcophagus was moved there, and whether it's all chronologically possible?) There's nothing about what Langdon's just experiecned in the past 18 or so hours as portrayed in the movie that in any logical way could have renewed his lapsed faith as a Catholic. If anything it should have hardened his disbelief. So what is worshipful of?
IMO here Ron Howard is throwing what he means to be a bone to what he thinks are Christian objections to the movie, by having Hanks kneeling and looking all spiritual and worshipful at the movie's end. But worshipful of what and of whom? The brass plaque in the street? Might as well be, because by the movie's logic there is nothing and no one else left worthy of worship. Except maybe Sophie, assuming the divine-Jesus theory. In which case, she should be more interesting to any Robert Langdon that kneels at, or is even desperate to find, the grave of Mary Magdalene.
It's the same quasi-religious gibberish that Steven Spielberg made in "Indiana Jones and The Lost Ark" when he turned the ark into some kind of bearer-bond of doomsday weapons, where whoever has it has a deepfreeze-sized neutron bomb. But neither vision comports with any actual version of a Judeo-Christian religon with which I'm familiar. But in Hollywood, it passes for evidence of a deep faith.
I know I'm about 8 months late with all this, but God, what a screwed-up movie.
Not to mention Dan Brown's "writing" makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon.
What?! you dare too compare Indiana Jones with The da vinci code?:eek: For shame jumjum, for shame. At least Indiana Jones had a plot worth paying to see, and it's story was stolen from some other persons book:rolleyes:
I love the Indy movies, despite Speilberg's grotesque mangling of three religions (four, if you count the quasi-Kali cult in Temple Of Doom). But he didn't claim historic truth, as does Dan Brown in the vile putrescence which is his book.
Oh well thats okay then.:) Maybe in two years time Steven Spielberg will 'grotesquely mangle' another religion again;)
I liked it. Whatever
not to mention the main character's "claustraphobia" was blatantly tacked on in a desperate attempt to give him some sort of depth as a person, despite it not mattering an iota in the plot.
and for a film about how the catholics repressed women unjustly....audrey tautau was basically EYE CANDY for the whole movie!!! every suggestion to the puzzle she had was WRONG and she had to be "rescued" by hanks countless times and was, in the end, helpless.
the world is unfair when a hack like brown can make millions from this shit.
charlesbian;3379646the world is unfair when a hack like brown can make millions from this shit.
It's even more unfair when he steals it first and then makes millions from it. Prison showers have nothing on that kind of rape.
charlesbian;3379646 the world is unfair when a hack like brown can make millions from this shit.
The world is not unfair about this at all as long as rubes keep buying it. Hey man, you know what PT Barnum said.."there's one born every minute." Frankly, having grown up in an extremely catholic village and been ram-fed the horseshit that passese for their dogma, I'm happy to see someone, even a hack, make some cash off the lot of them.
The book was crud but vaguely entertaining crud. If you're reading it looking for high intelligentsia, don't bother, but you should know that going into it, shouldn't you?
For far better tie-random-stuff-together reading, have a look at Neal Stevenson's Cryptonomicon and Snow Crash as well as Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.
Foucault's Pendulum kicks ass.
Never read "The Davinci Code", never really felt a urge to see the movie.