DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > The General Forum: Celebrities

Da Vinci Code

tracy	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 12:14 AM Is anyone as NOT excited for this movie as i am? i read the book, and alright, it was a good beach read. besides the fact that the most popular book in america now is written on the same level as R.L Stine's 'Goosebumps', what the HELL were they thinking in casting Tom Hanks as the heartthrob nerdy man? he is one of the least attractive people, save larry king and carrottop. now, robert langdon isn't supposed to be brad pitt. more like harrison ford circa indiana jones. but i mean, i'm sure a good actor who is a little more convincing as an attractive man (since beautiful audrey tatou is his leading lady) could have been chosen. . .
PrincessTast...	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 12:22 AM don't know, don't care
hate9wicket	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 12:30 AM I guess David Duchovney was unavailable. or rather, Ronnie Howard can't imagine the movie going public accepting someone other than Tom Hanks or Russell Crowe in his films. Snore, It could be worse, Tom Cruise, perhaps?
AgentMGD	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 3:13 PM I agree - David Duchovney is better suited for the role than Tom Hanks ...this is more an X-Files episode on the movie screen than a feel-good-happy-go-lucky Forrest Gump pic
K3VIN	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 4:37 PM MI3 is gonna keep the movies packed on firdcay.. not looking forward to a shift then..
downtowndonnie	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 6:57 PM man, the only movie i'm looking forward to this summer is Snakes on a Plane
downtowndonnie	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 6:57 PM its gonna be so awesome!
MinisterofSc...	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 8:00 PM I am pretty damn excited about it! Never thought tom was that ugly ...just can't wait to see it.
tracy	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 9:11 PM i'm more excited for X-Men 3
K3VIN	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 9:17 PM movie wise i am... work wise no
tracy	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 10:15 PM what's the worst movie you've had to work at? worst meaning most insane---i bet the lord of the rings opening weekend was hell
K3VIN	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 10:16 PM didnt work there yet.. so far nothing has been hell.. but ive been told summer gets crazy.. and this year.. MI3 (not so bad im betting) xmen 3 among others...
K3VIN	Date: May 2, 2006 @ 10:16 PM just got the job a few weeks ago
AgentMGD	Date: May 3, 2006 @ 9:51 PM i'm skipping MI3 - will wait til it's on DVD ...going to see the new horror movie, American Haunting ...it looks devishly good!
Saint	Date: May 4, 2006 @ 3:44 AM i worked for cinemark during 2 harry potters and one star wars....would have been hell too if i wasnt lucky enough to be hiding in the projection room upstairs in the dark! The bad news...a star wars print got scratched... and a brainwrap on a harry potter print, and those = bad news for projectionist!!!
AgentMGD	Date: May 18, 2006 @ 9:23 AM this just in - bad reviews for the DaVinci Code ...some are saying it's Tom Hanks' worst movie ...he plays the role like a bloated piece of dead wood ...thumsbsdown...
kingo	Date: May 18, 2006 @ 9:55 AM Every time Tom Hanks is in a movie some say it's his worst movie because Tom Hanks has a target on himself the size of a bigger-than-himself thing.
GeneHilbert	Date: May 18, 2006 @ 11:50 AM I hear Gandalf is good......
CowgirlBebop	Date: May 21, 2006 @ 9:32 PM I heard he's the best thing in the movie.
User42	Date: May 21, 2006 @ 9:49 PM "what the HELL were they thinking in casting Tom Hanks as the heartthrob nerdy man?" simple..they just took all love interest right out. presto....
User42	Date: May 21, 2006 @ 9:51 PM and yeah, ian mckellen is good. he also has a kickass role.
Fraser	Date: May 22, 2006 @ 12:58 AM I think Da vinci should have produced the movie. Whats that? He's dead? Oh... Well... Damn.
hate9wicket	Date: May 22, 2006 @ 9:04 PM I haven't yet gone, however, I did read the book....shortly after seeing Amelie and before seeing A very long Engagement and Dirty Pretty Things. I tend to visualize characters in books as actors(can't help how my mind works sometimes) so when talk came of there being a film adaptation my immediate thought was, "They got to get Audry Tatou for this!" So....I may be tempted to go still.
K3VIN	Date: May 22, 2006 @ 9:48 PM MI3 was awesome.. tom cruise was subpar and cheesy... but seymore hawking stole the show... very intense he was
Fraser	Date: May 22, 2006 @ 10:40 PM I think MI3 was needed. MI was awsome... But then MI2 came out, and sucked all crap. They needed a bandaid to repair the wound, and MI3 did just that.
tracy	Date: May 23, 2006 @ 3:16 AM i heard it feels longer sitting through the movie than it does to read the book
ScienceHarbor	Date: May 23, 2006 @ 11:07 AM You know why most movies are exactly two hours long? Does that seem weird to anyone that all movies are exactly plus or minus a few minutes the same length? Its because the people who make them know that the average person's attention span starts to wane at the 2hr mark. Are we really so predictable? Why do we expect the same format for all of our video entertainment? That's my only gripe about it. As far as I'm concerned da code was just another Hollywood money vacuum. Plug an intersting storyline in with a few generic characters and bingo, 77 million on opening weekend. But what's to be expected? Dan Brown couldn't write well to begin with. All he had was a dynamite idea with paper-thin characters. BTW I love Tom Hanks. People might say this was his weakest performance, but I say his acting isn't so significantly variable. It depends on the circumstances in which his acting is employed.
GeneHilbert	Date: May 23, 2006 @ 11:30 AM stupid is as stupid does....
coopster	Date: May 23, 2006 @ 11:48 AM i was totally disinterested in the da vinnie code (fuggedaboudit!) way before the two hour mark. i love all the pandering to the religious crowd... like, believe what you want to believe, but man, i think jesus was down there with me... bullshit. i saw it in japan though, and we got overcharged so they kept bringing us money the whole time. plus i could drink beer and watch it. that made it better too.
EvilPicnic	Date: May 23, 2006 @ 12:03 PM 'It depends on the circumstances in which his acting is employed.' A good actor should be able to act; and acting is fitting yourself and your character to the circumstances. The other way round is called notacting, which is different. The book was shite, in terms of quality of writing (crap), plot (ploddy) and ideas (recycled). The film's biggest mistake was copying the book.
HerSweetSoli...	Date: May 24, 2006 @ 9:19 AM Hmmm... I'm not sure if I want to see it or not. =/ So many mixed reviews. XD
litesenseative	Date: May 25, 2006 @ 9:44 AM Da Vinci Code- some good individual performances, god awwwwwwwwful movie,shit ... anyone else agree?
sinai	Date: May 26, 2006 @ 8:31 AM i think all the dumbasses out front protesting it is far more entertaining
Alexsy	Date: May 26, 2006 @ 11:39 PM audrey tautou (sp?) is HOT.
jables2309	Date: May 28, 2006 @ 12:28 AM i wanted to read the book then see it...then i remembered i dont read books...and i dont like to pay to see movies....so you know.....
hate9wicket	Date: May 28, 2006 @ 1:16 AM ^^^ Ha! You could always check out the book on tape at the Library, listen to it while you sleep.
wailingmiserere	Date: May 31, 2006 @ 9:30 AM Pfff... I just finished the book and was amazed at what utter dribble it was. Particularly irritating is the foreword in which Mr Brown categorically states the real-life existence of a secret society dating back hundreds of years, when in fact the said society was invented during the twentieth century by a Frenchman. Some of documents Brown quotes (and claims to be truthful) have been proven to be forgeries. Badly written, awful dialogue, highly contrived twists... I shall be avoiding the movie at all costs, I think.
TDUBB	Date: June 1, 2006 @ 8:58 PM http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/LastSupperwithMaryMagdalene.html Wait a minute you must be saying to yourself, Jesus didn't eat His Last Supper with Mary Magdalene. did he ? He ate His Last Supper with only his male apostles and there weren't any women among them or was there ? For although the patriarchial, male oriented church system has degraded women to a minor staus, the Lord himself never did and always treated them equal with the men. Why ? because He created both genders, male and female. (SEE Jesus is the Creator). And so most people don't realize the importance of Mary Magdalene. For although surely she was a prostitute, she seemed to be the closest to Jesus, because she had the most to be forgiven. (SEE Mary was a Prostitute). MARY MAGDALENE LOVED JESUS ! So would Jesus leave out His Bride from His final Last Supper and Communion, before He had to depart. The answer is obviously NO !. But what proof do we have, for the other male apostles did great and fantastic things for the Lord and witnessed his WORDS to all the Roman Empire and beyond. Yes, but who took them to the land whichb was to spread the gospel all over the world ? You guessed it .. Mary Magdalene. For story records that Maryry Magdalene although snubbed by the male leadership of the Early church did do great andmighty things for the Lord with the help of Joseph of Arimathea.. For together with the other Mary's, it seems they pioneered and set up a missionary church in Glastonbury in England. (SEE Church History and the Holy Grail ) And it was from here that the great Christian King Arthur arose, with His descendant King James helping put together the best translation ever, that swept the world with the story of the Messiah that had come. So why was Mary Magdalene written out of the Bible by the Church Fathers in the centuries after Jesus' death. The answer could be jealousy, or a fear that they might lose power over their women, who had for so long been deemed their possessions upon marriage. (SEE Male Patriarchy) For they seemed to want to keep in bondage what the Lord had set free. Don't believe this ? Then why would they want her picture blotted out from the Last Supper painting ? Well take a look at Leonardo Da Vinci's famous LAST SUPPER picture before it was doctored up and Mary Magdlene changed into a male figure. I realize this picture might not have the resolution for you to see it too well But Mary is sitting at Jesus's right.hand with complimentary colors to His, because she was His other half, as she was known to be His bride, just as we are suppose to be His Bride. And if you look closely, (First Pic BELOW) you'll see a knife that is being held by a mysterious hand. For strangely or appropriately enough it is right behind Mary Magdalene, so maybethey didn't like Mary Magdalene, this being suggested over and over again in numerous esoteric and historical writings. But after removing Mary from the original painting, the Last Supper turned into the all male Feast, that most of us recognize. SEE Leonardo's Final Last Supper ) And so the question arises how did Leonardo DaVinci know these things, well he was trained in the Mysteries, and knew what happenned with Jesus. And yet he became a pawn of his sponsors as he even forged the face of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin. (See Shroud of Turin.) DaVinci put his own face on the shroud rather than having the real shroud. Why, because the church wanted its non thinking followers to have more faith in them as the sucessors of the Lord's truths, when obviously they didn't have them and don't have them. The false church even blotted out women's equality with men in the spiritual plane, just as it apppears that they have even blottted out Mary Magdalene from the original painting of Leonardo. So decide for yourself and ask yourself.. are women equal to men ? (SEE End-Time Equality ) But while pondering this. notice below how a more modern and accurate painter, Piasecki, depicts the Lord's Last Supper,. For many of the women that loved Jesus are at the Last Supper. God bless them !! (SEE Women Prophetesses in the End Time) For 'There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus' but both, and they are both equal with Him as He looks at their hearts and not their gender...... In His Equal Service ...... David Jay Jordan Comments welcome at Davidjayjordan@yahoo.com
imemine	Date: June 1, 2006 @ 9:19 PM 773 words 3,522 Characters 4,310 Characters with spaces 64 lines 10 Misspellings--at least. Definitely Rainman strikes again!
shadowself	Date: June 1, 2006 @ 9:23 PM You sound like that ridiculous Christian family organisation whose sole purpose is to count things like swear words in movies.
imemine	Date: June 1, 2006 @ 10:49 PM Yep--that's us!
Ataxia2	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 12:48 AM Yah, the Davinci code did contain a lot of misleading facts, and the author stated they were true, when they really werent.
shadowself	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 1:02 AM http://preview.gospelcom.net/rev.php3?2984 Be careful!! There are six obscenities (4 s-words, 2 b-words) 2 expletives (hell, damn) in this movie. Hearing these words can ruin your children for LIFE.
thesoloer	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 10:34 AM The davinci code was made up of mostly lies and hidden untruths. I dislike any of dan brown's books. They all arent that great. I prefere Artemetis foul.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 11:38 AM anything taht goes against the bible cant be seen as untrue becasue theirs not really any fact to it.
kingo	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 11:40 AM What?
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 2:18 PM the bible. its like saying... all unicorns are green... no this book says they are red... the books wrong... there are no unicorns fool!
kingo	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 2:21 PM Are you saying there are NO facts in the bible? Because that's a relatively bold statement. I'm pretty sure there's at least one thing in there.
EvilPicnic	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 2:31 PM K3vin doesn't do subtlety.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 2:36 PM yea but the story is told from a bias state of mind... from people who had little to no scientific knowledge, the staff turning into the snake is explainable fro mmoses story as is many things... sotries get bigger as they are told.. mental bagge is one thing that makes it easieer to beleive these stories are overexaggereted and may have some truth in them.
celtaidd	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 2:47 PM Wasn't it written retrospectively? Therefore isn't it based on heresay? I like question marks, and no, not dubious German money??????? ?????
EvilPicnic	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:15 PM ??? K3, it's not about science, it's about FAITH. The Bible isn't a scientific textbook, it's a book about morality and the meaning of life and a whole bunch of other stuff which the scientific method cannot be applied to. Of course it's biased, because it's what people believe. celtaidd, the New Testament claims to be mainly first-hand eyewitness accounts written in the first few decades AD, and this accurate as far as the historians can tell. Lets not get into this argument again, the fact of the matter is that the film is shit.
celtaidd	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:26 PM EP, You take the fun out of it I think you mean the film is not to your taste
EvilPicnic	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:29 PM [spits out film] Si, it's a little too tasteless.
EvilPicnic	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:29 PM Needs more salt.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:45 PM how can historians say its corect.. people saying the heard a voice is not correct.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 3:51 PM we call people who see aliens crazy... or people who want attention.. but people back then who heard voices or claim they saw black magic.. those people who did that "black magic" were killed, and as soon as the christians were freed from persecution the first thing they did was go on crusades... and convert people through force. hypocritical
desiderata	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 4:39 PM KpiVIN, once Christians were freed from persecution, the first thing they probably did was breathe a sigh of relief, have some donuts, have sex with their wives, and thank God. The Crusades came later. If I wanted to be a smartass, I would mention that comments like yours are proof that Christians have yet to be freed from persecution. You don't like Christianity, the Bible, or organized religion. We've heard you say that. How about you tell us what you think of the movie, you know, the topic of the thread.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 5:02 PM actually i work at the movie theatres and havent seen it lol... but yea... they did force upon the religon quite soon after i learned it in history... ill stop though. but i liek how people are like... this movie is wrong and isnt fact... it wasnt supposed to be right or fact...
desiderata	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 5:10 PM Excellent point, K3. That's my theory. I don't understand why people get pissed about fiction. Recently, I watched The Last Temptation of Christ, and I couldn't understand why people were so outraged about a (beautiful) movie that is admits that it is a fictional interpretation of the Bible. Lesson of this: Learn to pick your battles.
K3VIN	Date: June 2, 2006 @ 5:28 PM the wizard of oz got me so mad... because since when do lions stand up in 2 feet...
Guitarplaya27	Date: June 12, 2006 @ 3:54 PM Well i read the book and Brown made more sense as he went farther back in time did anybody notice this
EvilPicnic	Date: June 12, 2006 @ 4:57 PM ^^ So?
Intergalacti...	Date: June 13, 2006 @ 10:50 AM sadly i have never read it im appauled for all of you
hantu	Date: July 29, 2007 @ 11:00 AM On 2nd Jun 2008, K3VIN said: the wizard of oz got me so mad... because since when do lions stand up in 2 feet... I liked this film, it was a nice little adventure. I think i had a tuna sandwich and ribena while watching it.