Support NeoGAF

[ManaByte]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/REVIEWS/60419009

:lol He likes it, but points out how stupid it all is.

They say The Da Vinci Code has sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.

:lol

Let us begin, then, by agreeing that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret -- that the movie follows the book religiously. 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, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones.

Opus Dei works within but not with the church, which also harbors a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (the pope and most other Catholics apparently don't have backstage passes).

These men keep a secret that, if known, could destroy the church. That's why they keep it. If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago.

But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that's why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in "The Da Vinci Code" really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for "repairs." A likely story.

:lol

 

[Doth Togo]

 

[Juice]

Wow. That's the first time I've found an Ebert review actually intelligent.

Go Ebert.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Poor guy's theta-count is going to take a hit from that one.

 

[MaverickX9]

I think it is pretty low of Roger Ebert to write this review with a personal agenda against Dan Brown.

Ebert needs to do a little research before he tries to lambast somebodies' theories and that isn't to say that these are even Brown's theories. There are a number of books written on the Grail that proclaim exactly what Brown writes in The Da Vinci Code. It certainly isn't his fantasy in any way, shape, or form.

Of course, last time I checked, The Da Vinci Code was a novel, not a theoretical non-fiction work. Whether or not you choose to believe what it says is irrelevant. I don't think Brown is trying to make any accusations against any organization, either. A novel with real locations and real organizations is a better read and more entertaining than a novel that just makes everything up. It creates a buzz with its audience and bases the story in real life, making it more believable.

I agree that the book wasn't the best written novel, but I thought it was damn entertaining whether you choose to take it as a work of fiction or as non-fiction.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

Yeah, I enjoy eberts reviews, I thoght the book was just okay. Is ebert a christian?

 

[Kevtones]

I often disagree on his overall good/bad opinions, but Ebert is probably the best film critic ever. I like his style, a lot. The best thing I can say about his writing is that his real knowledge of film and all its aspects always come out in his writing, mostly in very clever ways.

 

[Kuroyume]

What makes this story more preposterous than the ones found in the bible?

 

[White Man]

Wow. That's the first time I've found an Ebert review actually intelligent.

Go Ebert.

I'm anti-Da Vinci code, but I largely agree with Ebert's reviews (not counting Lynch reviews). I believe the Cannes premiere, and the one screening beforehand, were the backlash against the Da Vinci Code. I think this is the fair review. The DVC seemed like it would make a great movie because it was hastily written, flashy, and somewhat catching. . .I find it very, very difficult to believe that a film maker as competent (note: not great) as Ron Howard could flub this one.

I still plan on checking out the flick this weekend. I'm not expecting an Oscar winner. I'm expecting to see a pastiche of the Foucault's Pendulum movie that was never meant to be.

Also: DA VINCI BOMBA.

Of course, last time I checked, The Da Vinci Code was a novel, not a theoretical non-fiction work. Whether or not you choose to believe what it says is irrelevant. I don't think Brown is trying to make any accusations against any organization, either.

Have you even read the book? In the forward Dan Brown basically claims "IT"S ALL TRUEE!!!"!

 

[Ash Housewares]

first link isn't working for me, but this one is

 

[ManaByte]

I think it is pretty low of Roger Ebert to write this review with a personal agenda against Dan Brown.

Ebert needs to do a little research before he tries to lambast somebodies' theories and that isn't to say that these are even Brown's theories. There are a number of books written on the Grail that proclaim exactly what Brown writes in The Da Vinci Code. It certainly isn't his fantasy in any way, shape, or form.

Of course, last time I checked, The Da Vinci Code was a novel, not a theoretical non-fiction work. Whether or not you choose to believe what it says is irrelevant. I don't think Brown is trying to make any accusations against any organization, either. A novel with real locations and real organizations is a better read and more entertaining than a novel that just makes everything up. It creates a buzz with its audience and bases the story in real life, making it more believable.

I agree that the book wasn't the best written novel, but I thought it was damn entertaining whether you choose to take it as a work of fiction or as non-fiction.

If you've read the book, you'd know that Dan Brown has a statement of fact in the beginning.

I'm anti-Da Vinci code, but I largely agree with Ebert's reviews (not counting Lynch reviews). I believe the Cannes premiere, and the one screening beforehand, were the backlash against the Da Vinci Code. I think this is the fair review. The DVC seemed like it would make a great movie because it was hastily written, flashy, and somewhat catching. . .I find it very, very difficult to believe that a film maker as competent (note: not great) as Ron Howard could flub this one.

I still plan on checking out the flick this weekend. I'm not expecting an Oscar Winner. I'm expecting to see a pastiche of the Foucault's Pendulum movie that was never meant to be.

Also: DA VINCI BOMBA.

Exactly.

 

[MaverickX9]

I often disagree on his overall good/bad opinions, but Ebert is probably the best film critic ever. I like his style, a lot. The best thing I can say about his writing is that his real knowledge of film and all its aspects always come out in his writing, mostly in very clever ways.

Francois Truffaut FTW.

 

[Pochacco]

Hmm...did Dan Brown eat Ebert's donuts or something? What's with the cheap-shots at the novel? I'll probably watch the movie. I thought the book was good. Not OMG GREAT, but still an entertaining read.

Of course, the book is beyond popular...so GAF hates it.

 

[White Man]

Hmm...did Dan Brown eat Ebert's donuts or something? What's with the cheap-shots at the novel? I'll probably watch the movie. I thought the book was good. Not OMG GREAT, but still an entertaining read.

Of course, the book is beyond popular...so GAF hates it.

Sorry duder. The general concensus is that The Da Vinci Code is only a good book for people that don't like to read much. That doesn't give it very high marks.

 

[way more]

Ebert usually takes shots at dumb ideas. He's just saying it's a dumb idea but great for a movie or thriller novel.

 

[Iceman]

What makes this story more preposterous than the ones found in the bible?

You're all about making friends right?

re: the review.. man, despite all the negative reviews and the fact that the book is hostile to christianity (I'm christian).. I respect Ebert's reviews enough to where I might actually entertain checking the movie out. I do have a soft spot for Ron Howard, and was surprised to find the media not digging his latest work.

 

[Amir0x]

I think it is pretty low of Roger Ebert to write this review with a personal agenda against Dan Brown.

Ebert needs to do a little research before he tries to lambast somebodies' theories and that isn't to say that these are even Brown's theories. There are a number of books written on the Grail that proclaim exactly what Brown writes in The Da Vinci Code. It certainly isn't his fantasy in any way, shape, or form.

Of course, last time I checked, The Da Vinci Code was a novel, not a theoretical non-fiction work. Whether or not you choose to believe what it says is irrelevant. I don't think Brown is trying to make any accusations against any organization, either. A novel with real locations and real organizations is a better read and more entertaining than a novel that just makes everything up. It creates a buzz with its audience and bases the story in real life, making it more believable.

I agree that the book wasn't the best written novel, but I thought it was damn entertaining whether you choose to take it as a work of fiction or as non-fiction.

Then you better not read the review of the CHUB!

Basically, Dan Brown is fair game. He has gone on various morning shows and conducted many interviews where he talks about how much extensive 'research' he has done and how such and such is certainly true. He even asserted that the 'Priory of Sion' and 'Les Dossiers Secrets' really had these historic roots in 1099, when it was basically a hilarious hoax that was disproven at least fifty times, even by the person who helped start it all.

To reiterate, THIS IS NOT A FACT EVEN THOUGH HE CLAIMS IT IS AT THE START OF THE BOOK:

FACT: The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

I mean if he finished this 'fact' by saying "just kidding, the Les Dossiers Secrets were forged documents made as a joke by bored aristocrats' then maybe we'd have a start.

If he's gonna bullshit to his readers, on top of the fact that the dude can't write for his fucking life, then he deserves to get lambasted.

Da Vinci Code is fiction because it has to be; it's a bunch of made up crap thinly tied together by naming real-world locations and organization and hoping the people who read the book don't know shit about them. And apparently it worked 'cause some people STILL believe any of this is remotely plausible, and he certainly doesn't do a damn thing to try to change it.

Just because others came before him and wrote about the subject (equally as wrong), doesn't really change his role in this disaster.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

He basically rises his brow at the premise of the book/story but contends overall it's an entertaining movie. Fine by me. It seems like a backlash at overall for The Da Vinci Code itself from all the reviews that came in, it was kind of hard for me to believe such a cast and director would screw up something that was so easily destined to be more a film than a book read by millions of people.

 

[Rorschach]

What makes this story more preposterous than the ones found in the bible?

OH MY GOD YOU JUST BLEW MY FUCKING MIND!

 

[Ichirou]

Ron Howard is mediocrity personified.

 

[ManaByte]

Ron Howard is mediocrity personified.

Apollo 13 says shut up.

 

[White Man]

Apollo 13 says shut up.

I don't like Apollo 13, but I won't deny it's a competently done movie. I can understand why people do like it.

Ron Howard is a very competent director, but I find he really has no style of his own. You can tell me any generic movie, good or bad, was done by Howard and I'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

 

[Drozmight]

Anyone ever see Stigmata? That was a pretty good movie I thought. Interesting.

It was funny though. I watched it with a friend and after the credits started rolling he stood up and yelled, "AND THATS WHY I THINK THE CHURCH IS BULLSHIT!!!"

I laughed cause it was just a movie.

 

[MaverickX9]

If you've read the book, you'd know that Dan Brown has a statement of fact in the beginning.



Exactly.

I don't have my book around, but I seem to recall that he simply said certain organizations were indeed real organizations.

I don't recall him coming out and saying, "Opus Dei is hiding such and such"

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll have to check sometime.

Da Vinci Code is fiction because it has to be; it's a bunch of made up crap thinly tied together by naming real-world locations and organization and hoping the people who read the book don't know shit about them. And apparently it worked 'cause some people STILL believe any of this is remotely plausible, and he certainly doesn't do a damn thing to try to change it.

Just because others came before him and wrote about the subject (equally as wrong), doesn't really change his role in this disaster.

That is what fiction is...made up crap. A lot of stories take the same approach. Like I was saying - and what you just reiterated - naming all those real world locations and organizations are what made it believable to a great many people.

I agree that Brown is an idiot for basically making up a good bit of shit and calling it truth, but hell, it worked out for him. If people believe what they read in a novel, then they have problems.

 

[FoneBone]

ManaByte attempting to mock conspiracy nuts is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I've ever seen on here.

 

[ronito]

What I don't get is that the whole time I was reading the Davinci code I kept thinking, "This would be a great movie. But it sucks as a book." Now the movie's out and it's not good?

 

[norinrad21]

But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that's why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in "The Da Vinci Code" really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for "repairs." A likely story.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[ManaByte]

Da Vinci Code is fiction because it has to be; it's a bunch of made up crap thinly tied together by naming real-world locations and organization and hoping the people who read the book don't know shit about them. And apparently it worked 'cause some people STILL believe any of this is remotely plausible, and he certainly doesn't do a damn thing to try to change it.

It's also a complete rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail; and that in itself is a rather flimsy theory based entirely on one author's personal interpretation of Sangreal.

Basically the people who believe that book decide to re-translate it from San Greal or San Graal (Holy Grail) to Sang Real (Holy Blood). Oooh. I split the word at a different place, this must mean there's a 2,000 year old conspiracy going on!

No. The Holy Grail was a wooden cup used at the Last Supper and Joseph of Arimathea took the cup to Glastonbury Abbey in England.

 

[Drozmight]

What I don't get is that the whole time I was reading the Davinci code I kept thinking, "This would be a great movie. But it sucks as a book." Now the movie's out and it's not good?

Dan Brown doesn't care... he's too busy rolling around on a pile of cash with a super model to care. Conspiracy theories are great for people who want to make money.

 

[methodman]

Apollo 13 says shut up.

what the hell is apollo 13?

 

[Mandark]

ManaByte attempting to mock conspiracy nuts is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I've ever seen on here.

Amen, brother. It's like Waychel starting a thread about frivolous lawsuits.

Anyway, I'm all for people making fun of the Da Vinci Code, which I'm sure is not good, but Ebert's only doing this because he's Catholic. It's not like devoting a bunch of his review towards the source material is part of a trademark style or anything.

Eet eez too bad zey can not both lose.

 

[DrForester]

Anyone else find it funny that Dogma has less loopholes than the Davinci Code?

 

[White Man]

Anyone else find it funny that Dogma has less loopholes than the Davinci Code?

What does Dogma have to do with anything?

 

[Amir0x]

That is what fiction is...made up crap. A lot of stories take the same approach. Like I was saying - and what you just reiterated - naming all those real world locations and organizations are what made it believable to a great many people.

Right, thus the backlash - he starts it off by saying X, Y and Z are facts when they're not.

I agree that Brown is an idiot for basically making up a good bit of shit and calling it truth, but hell, it worked out for him. If people believe what they read in a novel, then they have problems.

Ok, so why are you surprised at the backlash? It's a poorly written piece of bullshit and it's being approached in that way. Just because it's fiction doesn't suddenly make it any less crap, I think.

It's also a complete rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail; and that in itself is a rather flimsy theory based entirely on one author's personal interpretation of Sangreal.

Basically the people who believe that book decide to re-translate it from San Greal or San Graal (Holy Grail) to Sang Real (Holy Blood). Oooh. I split the word at a different place, this must mean there's a 2,000 year old conspiracy going on!

Oh, I know all about all this. I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail way before Da Vinci Code and god help me I have no idea why I thought I'd revisit the subject matter in another even more ridiculous book. But I guess I won't learn, I'm constantly finding myself reading these silly conspiracy books and getting infuriated over all the inconsistencies and lies

 

[ManaByte]

What does Dogma have to do with anything?

Someone missed the point Kevin Smith was trying to make with Dogma?

 

[DrForester]

What does Dogma have to do with anything?

Used decendants of Christ as one of the big plot points (Not direct from Christ, but from possible brohters and sisters). Also brought up biblical conspiracy theories. Wasnt meant to be taken seriously, it was a comedy that mocked the catholic church. But still, Smith did his research for it.

Main point I was getting at was a comedy by some comic geek from New Jersey seemed more plausible than the stuff in the Davinci Code.

 

[Drozmight]

Someone missed the point Kevin Smith was trying to make with Dogma?

Was it something about Alanis Morrisette?

 

[White Man]

Someone missed the point Kevin Smith was trying to make with Dogma?

What was his point? I've probably forgotten it since the movie was a total piece of shit.

 

[Amir0x]

if Kevin Smith fanboys start entering this thread I'm flamebombing it.

 

[Drozmight]

if Kevin Smith fanboys start entering this thread I'm flamebombing it.

Why you gotta be like that?

 

[ManaByte]

Was it something about Alanis Morrisette?

What was his point? I've probably forgotten it since the movie was a total piece of shit.

The reason why the Dogma protesters were so funny (they would never see the movie) is if they watched it to the end they would find out that he was basically just making a movie mostly saying how stuff organized religion puts people through is BS, but the movie was pro-faith.

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

 

[MaverickX9]

Right, thus the backlash - he starts it off by saying X, Y and Z are facts when they're not.

I'm still in the dark as to what he actually said was true. As I said, I recall him saying that the organizations were real, but I can't remember if he said that those mentioned organizations were hiding some secret or whatever.

So...if you'd like to clarify on that...go ahead.

Ok, so why are you surprised at the backlash? It's a poorly written piece of bullshit and it's being approached in that way. Just because it's fiction doesn't suddenly make it any less crap, I think.

Oh, I'm not surprised at the backlash.

I simply think that Roger Ebert was in poor taste when he decided to write a review with a personal agenda against somebody.

The way he attacks Brown for an inconceivable story is ludicrous. It is a work of fiction.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Meh, religion...go nuts. All these possible or not possible...I'm can enjoy things better without taking into these beliefs, which is a tough sell to me already considering the events written and it's supposedly based on. Then again I guess that's why it's faith.

A book/movie takes a conspiracy idea from a religion and makes a work of fiction...dun dun DUN!!

 

[ManaByte]

I'm still in the dark as to what he actually said was true. As I said, I recall him saying that the organizations were real, but I can't remember if he said that those mentioned organizations were hiding some secret or whatever.

So...if you'd like to clarify on that...go ahead.

FACT: The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

That's all bullshit.

 

[MaverickX9]

That's all bullshit.

That doesn't mean anything in regards to Ebert's review and my first post in this thread.

Just because he made up an organization and called it true does not mean that he is making some sort of accusation that the organization is some secret club or something.

Here is the exact "statement of fact" from the book:

FACT:

The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Nowhere does he even IMPLY that the events of the story are true in any way.

I agree that it is bullshit that he made that Priory of Scion stuff up, but Ebert doesn't touch on that in his review. I stand by my earlier comments. I don't see how you can take that as implying an sort of accusations.

 

[Amir0x]

That's all bullshit.

Well to be fair, the 'Les Dossiers Secrets' was "found" in 1975 at the Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale. Of course, it was helped along to be "found" by the very person who forged the document and made up most of the bullshit about the Priory of Sion. But that's semantics!

 

[EmSeta]

What's with hating the Da Vinci Code? I think it was an interesting read, some historical speculation paired with a run-off-the-mill suspense plot. It's just a book people, get over it.

 

[Greenpanda]

the caption at the top of the review is pretty great, too

 

[empanada]

What's with hating the Da Vinci Code? I think it was an interesting read, some historical speculation paired with a run-off-the-mill suspense plot. It's just a book people, get over it.

Well, it pretty obvious why Catholics are offended by it. It's like some author using your own family members in a fabricated story based on their lives, and then selling it to millions of people. Some people will think its funny, and some people will understandably get angry.

BTW, Ebert's review is pretty funny. :lol

 

[Takuan]

Ron Howard is mediocrity personified.

Blasphemy. No one who was involved with Arrested Development can be called mediocre.