2006-06-28 20:54:51 · 33 answers · asked by Oana65 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
DUH?
2006-06-28 21:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by El Mariachi 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are both extremely overvalued, so much in fact, that what started as a novel has become a "reality" lots of people believe in. I only read the book so nobody could tell me lies about it, and I found it predictable and badly written (I hate the micro-mini chapters), but I must admit it had a good plot in the beginning, but it lost it about halfway trough. The movie was a bit better, it ran more smoothly, but I still didn't like it. Audrey Tautou looks cheesy, Tom Hanks has nothing to do with the Indiana Jones book version of Langdon, and Jean Reno could have been much better, but would have probably seemed like a copycat if he had repeated his role of Pierre Niemans in the Crimson Rivers.
2006-06-30 08:38:00 · answer #2 · answered by Lara Croft 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked both. Of course that the book is much, much better than the movie, but then again, isn't it always?
I like to believe that things might have happened that way. Let's face it: it's always been a church of men, and look at the result. Women have only 2 parts to play there: the mother or the sinner, nothing in the middle... I can't help but wonder, if things had happened the way the book said were supposed to, and Mary Magdalene had been left in charge of the church, would things like the burning of "witches" and the holy inquisition have happened?
2006-06-29 01:47:42 · answer #3 · answered by landslide 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I enjoyed both the book and the film. Of course there were bits missing in the film but you cannot condense an entire book into a couple of hours without cutting bits out. It did stick to the plot and kept the sense of mystery and suspense.
As to the old question is it true or not, we should remember it is a work of fiction. If Jesus was married and had children, does it really matter? I'm a Christian and believe it is his message that matters.
2006-06-28 21:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by ehc11 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I enjoyed the book and the film was ok. Definitely think the book is better, but its always a risk you run writing a screenplay for a film as people have already made up ideas about the characters. Thought that Sophie Neveu was much stronger in the book.
2006-07-05 00:27:16 · answer #5 · answered by bright_salsa_fan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thouroughly enjoyed both the book and the film
i found the book easy to read as each chapter followed a person or place with ease of knowing where you were and who you were reading about ...
the film i enjoyed as it followed the book quite well .. almost a chapter to chapter with each scene
i find it amazing that there is so much contraversy over the book .. due to a few facts published at the begining of the book ...
Dan Brown is a tremendous writer who certainly done his homework
2006-06-29 06:54:54 · answer #6 · answered by Peace 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
many are disatisfied with the outcome of the movie, not being up to their expections as they have read the book. there are many things which cannot be fully acted out in the movie, our imaginations may run wild but we must always remember the limits. i think that the movie was very well directed indeed, suspense, suspense, suspense!!! love the movie. dan brown is also a great author. so credits to both the movie and the book.
2006-06-28 20:59:40 · answer #7 · answered by lemonade_crave 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't see the movie but the book was great! We do have to remember that it was a work of fiction, but it makes you wonder about the missing years of Jesus' life in the bible and what was written in the numerous documents that didn't get put in the bible, doesn't it?????? Personally I think he could very well have been married. Most Jewish men of the time were.
2006-06-28 21:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by Amy D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
book was average, haven't seen the movie - not because it was slated by critics or because of the contentious material, but rather because
a) the book was really REALLY average. i haven't bothered with any of his other books and
b) movies never live up to the book. except for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Tim Burton movie of the Roald Dahl book. that's the only movie i've ever seen that does justice to the book.
2006-06-30 02:55:57 · answer #9 · answered by stufetta 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book is great...the movie is rubbish. There is no way that Tim Hanks should have been cast as the lead. Having said that Sir Ian McKellen was awesome as always.
polkahaunis - It's a work of fiction...of course it was all lies!
2006-06-28 21:01:39 · answer #10 · answered by Tuppence 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both the book and the movie bored the hell out of me. First time, I have ever walked out of a Tom Hanks movie in my life!
2006-06-28 21:11:52 · answer #11 · answered by samaira b 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋