Rating: 
Summary: Facile and Pat
Review: WHile this story had some interesting information (or factoids), it was too pat and shallow to be worth all the hype. I recommend the art history mysteries by Iain Pears for better potboilers, and Pears's An Instance of the Fingerpost for a better novel with some depth.
Rating: 
Summary: Learning while you read.
Review: I thought this was a good book, an attention-keeper, and something that makes you want to learn more about what's going on in the conspiracies of the world. I probably learned more about mathematical sequences, ancient cults and modern-day tensions in the Church than I expected. Then again, I didn't expect any of that when I started the book. The only thing that I have against it, is that the death of the Louvre's director is the thread that keeps it going throughout the book. Whenever a little "pick me up" is needed, we find it in one of the clues left behind by this man. That in itself is not bad -- but then I realized how much this individual was able to accomplish in the twenty or thirty minutes that he had to live after he had been shot. In a way, it's almost like something from a Saturday-morning cartoon -- here's a guy who's been shot in the stomach, experiencing an agonizing death, and still has presence of mind to leave a large amount of clues behind for others to find. Truly amazing. Great read, makes you want to dust off those old math books and look for pictures of honey bees and sunflowers. Now I know whey they were in those books.
Rating: 
Summary: Sensational!
Review: This is the kind of book you loose sleep over - I couldn't put it down. The plot is fast paced and keeps you wondering every step of the way. The only problem I had, was trying to decide whether to spend time on the incredible details and history or keep going to get to the end. One thing is certain - I will re-read this book for the history and the plot!
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing!
Review: Such profound material . . I was wondering how he would end it and as far as I am concerned, he was wondering too. For all the puzzle-solving, intellectual highballing that he puts into his characters, at the end, nothing. It was a page turner, and I only wish there was something of substance as I turned to the last page.
Rating:
Summary: Why are so many upset about this book?
Review: Because Mr. Brown continues to proclaim that the ideas he based his conspiracy on are accepted historical fact. They are not. Hey I think I'll throw one of my own "historical facts" out there. You know that smug smile on Mona lisa's face, well she was promised a percentage of the millions from the tell-all book that was to be published exposing all of the "truth-killing crimes" of the Catholic church hidden in Leonardo's work. Too bad it took over 500 years.
Rating:
Summary: Great idea, mediocre writing.
Review: Here are the things I liked about The Da Vinci Code: short chapters and fast pacing, intriguing riddles, ideas about alternatives to the basic story of Christianity with which I wasn't all that familiar. However, and it's a big however, the writing was pretty stereotyped and unsophisticated. In the hands of Thomas Harris, for example, this would have been dynamite. Still, it's a fun read, and I'm sure Dan Brown could care less what I think of his writing abilities or lack thereof. As the old saying goes, "he's laughing all the way to the bank."
Rating:
Summary: dum da dum dum ...dum da duhh
Review: For best results hum the theme from Raiders of the Last Ark as you read this review. It is the year 4003 and our fearless archelogical hero has just unearthed Aunt Glady's stash of National Enquirerers that have been carefully preserved for 2000 years in Tupperware. The discovery is hailed as the find of the millenium. Some proclaim that it will change history as we know it. Sound silly? Of course, yet this is what Elaine Pagel and now Dan Brown have attempted their assertions, based on the so called "Gnostic gospels", concerning the origins of the Catholic Church, the "sacred" feminine and the divinity of Christ. It has been said that history is written by the winners. That might be true, but how true would history written by the non-winners be? The Gnostics were a group of folks alienated from the mainstream. Many scholars have described their writings as the tabloid press of the day. If you read the actual writings you will discover they are incredibly strange, nonfeminist and down right antisocial. As far as the clues in The Last Supper, it was common for Leonardo to paint young men in an effeminate manner. Ther is at least one other portrait of St.John, by Leonardo that looks equally as feminine. Regardless of the historical problems with this conspiracy the writing is subpar at best, merely a means by which Brown can take advantage of current anti-Catholic sentiment. I understand that Ron Howard is turning this into a movie. As a screenplay it might work.
Rating:
Summary: Great ideas
Review: Great ideas in this book. The twists and turns were fun, and the religious ideas brought up were very thought provoking.
Rating: 
Summary: Well, it's OK, but no more than OK
Review: Don't believe the hype. Eveything about this book is less than you've heard: the history is deeply flawed, the art history is questionable at best, and the theology is ludicrous. But of course, the book promises to be no more than a thriller, and it doesn't even succeed at that level: anyone who can't spot the real killer has no experience with potboiler fiction. This seems to be the kind of book--I believe Michael Crichton started the trend--that is written in order to be turned into a movie. I'm sure it will be a success; and equally sure that I won't see it until it appears on Showtime. Read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to see how a much better author treats similar material in a much more sophisticated way.
Rating:
Summary: Much ado about very little
Review: I have to give Dan Brown credit; he had a great idea for a book. But he has neither the skill or the ability to carry it out. I can't find anything in this book that justifies the enormous hype it has received. The quest for the Holy Grail, and what the Grail actually represents, is fascinating, but Brown tries to wrap it in the stale trappings of a pedestrian whodunit that doesn't do the material justice. The characters are one-sided and don't really engage us, and the writing is just plain sophomoric. The idea of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus isn't original with Brown; it's been done much better by other writers, most notably by José Saramago in "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ". I came away from this book with a deep sense of disappointment. Brown had a good idea for a book, but somebody else should have written it.
| 
