davinci code VS. angels and demons- Page 2
davinci code VS. angels and demons
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#25
Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:15pmI'm not saying that I could put either book down, it's just that I knew they were stupid and over-ploted. I mean, that climactic moment when a character fell out of the skies and landed in the arms of the statue of Christ atop St. Peter's Basilica sort of defies credibility, doesn't it?
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/1/03
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#26
Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:42pm
I enjoyed both books, but read DVC first. DVC really piqued my interest, and I did a lot of research on the subjects covered in the book. While there are some obvious inaccuracies in his research, Brown really did write an exciting novel.
The trailer for the movie, however, looks pretty terrible (except for Paul Bettany as Silas). What the hell is going on with Tom Hanks' hair? And why in the world would they cast him as Langdon? I like Ian McKellen as Teabing, but honestly I would have preferred Bernard Hill. I think he would have handled the darker aspects of the character less obviously than McKellen (I'm trying to be subtle here).
Angels and Demons is equally fun to read - I probably do prefer it over DVC because it had more of a treasure-hunt style to it. I love books like that. Can't wait for Brown's next!
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#27
Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:13am
I read The DaVinci Code first and, though I found the research very impressive and the plot riveting
I hated The DaVinci Code; the writing was terrible and the narrative was formulaic and embarassing. But that's not the point of my post.
What I hate most from all this DaVinci Code hoopla is that people who have read the book think they've actually learned something about art history. The truth is, Dan Brown's "research" was abysmal and full of half-truths or downright lies.
In Rome I met a woman who tried telling me that the reason there are two versions of DaVinci's "Madonna of the Rocks" is because the earlier one (now in the Louvre) was deemed heretical by the Church because of its sinister imagery, so DaVinci had to paint another (now in London's National Gallery). She said she read about it in The DaVinci Code, so it must be true.
False, false, false! DaVinci painted two "Madonna of the Rocks" because of a legal battle involving payment for the commission that lasted over a decade. There's nothing sinister about the first "Madonna of the Rocks." It takes quite a wild imagination to think that Mary is holding an "invisible head" and that the angel's hand is slicing through it, as Brown claims.
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#28
Posted: 12/19/05 at 3:59amHave yet to read Davinci...but read Angels and Demons. I thought, for the most part, it was great, however unrealistic the helicopter jump is...Dan Brown's best book is Deception Point.
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#29
Posted: 12/19/05 at 5:25ami liked deception point for the most part. he had me convinced that tench was evil at one point... should've seen that coming.
re: davinci code VS. angels and demons#30
Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:15am
I thought both A&D and DVC stunk. I read DVC first, during a trying time, and thought the plot was alright, but the writing was terrible. I picked up A&D at the urging of a friend at work, and thought it was even worse. The plot even bothered me here...the sarcophagus bit almost made me put the book down for good, but I hate not finishing something I started.
My mind wandered alot...wondering if the characters ever had to go to the bathroom.
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
Videos
