Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Chance" data-source="post: 2844457" data-attributes="member: 2795">So am I.False. Dan Brown in his own words:“I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.” “When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…” When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.” Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.” In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.” So, while Ron Howard can be given props for distancing himself from Dan Brown's claims, the fact still remains that the author of the book upon which the movie is based says that his book is essentially factual except for its obviously fictitious characters.Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.</blockquote>

Verification