Printable View
Interesting film but as the book cover says - "A work of fiction."
If you want to know the background, study the Gnostic religion. That is the same religion that the "Gospel of Judas" comes from.
The word "Gnostic" means "secret knowledge." And there is all sorts of secret knowledge that the Gnostic Gospels present. And it's not new stuff. Most of the Gospel writers warn against it in their Epistle writings. It was around at the time the early epistle lessons were written.
I only recently read the book. I wouldn't consider Brown a great writer, but the subject matter was absolutely gripping.
I am looking forward to seeing the movie.
If you liked The DaVinci Code you may well like 'Angels and Demons' as well. I thought it was the better book of the two.
I'm glad to read here, most of you who have seen the movie already, enjoyed it.
I was listening to a film critic on CNN yesterday and he gave the movie a big ole thumbs down....
I guess it depends on who you listen to. This is why I'll probably see it for myself and judge it.
Just like the movie "The Passion" lot's of people up in arms over it, but I found it very moving and believable......The romans where very brutel in their punishment styles in those times.....
I saw it last night...I thought it was pretty good. I didn't think Tom Hanks was as good in this as he was in some of his other movies, but he still did well (duh). The mystery of the whole thing was awesome and I didn't even really find it sacreligious. Overall, it was good...I'd give it an 8/10.
I only read two chapters of the book before I threw it away. The story may or may not have been engaging, but I didn't care, because it was the most poorly-written book I have ever read. Then again, I'm used to Beowulf, Faulkner, and Hemingway.
I've actually read lots of reviews that say the movie sucks. Thoughts?
"BBQ Platypus" wrote:
I have a friend who said it was poorly written too. She said it was really simple, and she and I had the same experience as you BBQ. I had AP English with her last year, and after you read Jane Austen, Mary Shelley and Oscar Wilde for a year there are a lot of books that seem poorly written.Quote:
I only read two chapters of the book before I threw it away. The story may or may not have been engaging, but I didn't care, because it was the most poorly-written book I have ever read. Then again, I'm used to Beowulf, Faulkner, and Hemingway.
I've actually read lots of reviews that say the movie sucks. Thoughts?
"BBQ Platypus" wrote:
I saw a lot of reviews that have said that the movie is pretty bad. I went and saw it last night and thought it was a great movie and it stuck to the book very closely. I don't really ever take too much stock in what the "professional" movie reviewers say, because I find that I don't agree with them very often. I take what my friends and family say about a movie much more seriously than a writer or someone on tv.Quote:
I only read two chapters of the book before I threw it away. The story may or may not have been engaging, but I didn't care, because it was the most poorly-written book I have ever read. Then again, I'm used to Beowulf, Faulkner, and Hemingway.
I've actually read lots of reviews that say the movie sucks. Thoughts?
This book is in no way poorly written, just because it doesnt use old english and tons of huge words that mean nothing when you read them. In my experience, it is one of the most engaging books I have read. It is probably more meaningful to the person who likes the subject material and the consperacies and ideas that are in the book. Just my two cents though.
One of my only gripes about the movie was the character development. I guess it's likely that the book is better in this case, because you can fit a lot more character into a 400 page book than you can a 2 1/2 hour movie. I didn't think much of the dialogue did much to expand our knowledge of the main characters or where they came from/what their motivations were.
One thing that was also funny, the girl in the movie was supposedly a police officer, but at one point near the end where she has a gun in her hands she looks petrified! I'm not sure if it was her portrayal of the scene (it was an intense scene after all, so maybe intensity came off as being scared) or if it was her not being comfortable with it.
The book's linguistic composition is by no means anything that merits the praise that is attached to the authors that have been mentioned in this thread. However, Brown is a great writer because of his approach to literature. It follows in the footsteps of Shakespeare. They both take events and knowledge, and put their own spin on it. The fact that the book is engaging is what makes it great, not Brown's use of blank verse, personification, solilique, etc. All of which have made an exit from most modern literature.
Wow, AP English, thank you for gracing us with your presence. This was a nice jab at establishing your credibility surrounding the subject. So if you wanna play, I am a Senior in English...college. Not that I have any more validity than any other person on this forum, but if you think that AP English puts you in a superior position to criticize, you should probably go ask your teacher for help, because it seems you have your head way up your a$$.Quote:
BBQ Platypus wrote:
I only read two chapters of the book before I threw it away. The story may or may not have been engaging, but I didn't care, because it was the most poorly-written book I have ever read. Then again, I'm used to Beowulf, Faulkner, and Hemingway.
I've actually read lots of reviews that say the movie sucks. Thoughts?
I have a friend who said it was poorly written too. She said it was really simple, and she and I had the same experience as you BBQ. I had AP English with her last year, and after you read Jane Austen, Mary Shelley and Oscar Wilde for a year there are a lot of books that seem poorly written.