I bought this book yesterday and I'm halfway through it, and completely engrossed. Needless to say, I can't wait for the movie.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_p...da_vinci_code/

im up for any movie that kicks the pope in the balls...

it was a good book, hopefully they recreate that sense of discovery in the movie that each chapter of the book had.

a lot of people have high hopes for it...but seem concerned that tom hanks is the lead character...he was good in castaway?

Tom Hanks is a versatile and talented actor. I think he'll do fine. He's not as sexually appealing as I always envisioned the main character to be, though. I always pictured a quietly sexy intellectual. He doesn't fit my image.

I'm fairly stoked about the movie. I loved the book. Would have been neat if they had done Angels and Demons first before The Da Vinci Code.

Its interesting. Bullshit of course but entertaining.

um, its a film... of course it's fiction. you don't see documentary on there anywhere, do you?

You'd be amazed at how many people actually believe it though.

it easier to believe in a massive church conspiracy than it is to believe in transubstantiation.

Actually its easier to believe that theyre both bullshit.

i pictured him as an old art dude. i think he'll fit the role perfectly.

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't like that book. I wasn't at all convinced by the characters. C'mon, I was figuring shit out 20 pages earlier than the Ivy League PhD and the Interpol cop. I shouldn't be figuring shit out that two people highly educated in symbolism and cryptography are still scratching their heads about.

Honestly, how many people who read the book didn't figure out the instant it was shown in the book that the writing on the box was backwards English? Brown had only been going on ad nauseum about DaVinci writing everything in his journals backwards through half the book.

I'll pass on this one, thanks.

Nope, you aren't! I hated it - way too contrived and ridiculous for me, too sequential and predictable, not in so far as the outcome, but in the build up. You knew they were going to find clue X in place Y and so on and so forth.

Dan Brown does actually puport in his preface for this sack of wank, and in the slightly better Angels and Demons, that he only uses facts to construct his stories. In which case I hope he never has to atest to that on a witness stand or else he's going away for a long time on a charge of perjury!

I'm sure quite a bit of the things in his book are factual...in the same way that quite a bit of what was shown in Moore's Farenheit 9/11 was factual...just strung together in such a way that you're lead to believe that one thing is directly related to another, which of course is complete bullshit, but boy doesn't it seem sensational?

You're right. There is a museum called the Louvre in Paris, and Leonardo Da Vinci did paint a picture called the Mona Lisa (or La Gioconda), beyond that though - there is nothing in the book which is a proven fact.

i agree. i feel there needed to be more dark elves and +12 swords of uber-magik to make it more realistic. fictional characters that just try to figure out puzzles are no match for humanoids with pointy ears a innate magical abilities.

Oh snap!

Well, it would have been a snap, if he'd bothered to respond to why I didn't find them believeable, rather than dump on me for liking Salvatore.

You're losing your edge, Arsi.

hmm... Audrey Tautou is enough for me to rent it, if not matinee... mmm, reminds me i haven't watched Amelie in a while.