Rating: 
Summary: Blasphemous
Review: Where to start? Well first of all, for all those "intellectuals" that think that Dan Brown has DICOVERED something, think again. This book has been written in various different forms by other people preceeding Dan Brown (Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln; The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird, and The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker). This in not to say that his crap is true, on the other hand, his references will show that his points are invalid. The references used for this book do not cite source documents from Jesus' time. Instead, the only real mention of the Mary Magdalene scenario is a kiss in the gnostic gospel of Philip, and a mention in the gnostic gospel of Mary. Both of which were rejected by the early Church fathers very early after the death of Christ (200 a.d.). Any research on the Church fathers will show that the canon of the bible surfased long before Constantine, and never contained anything about Jesus being married! Was it a "cover up?" Well, considering that the actual bible has been historically documented only decades after Jesus' death, while the gnostic gospels sprouted up hundreds of years after that, proves that they are likely false. If you have the desire to read this book, just remember that you cant believe everything you read. You owe it to yourself to research Dan Brown's claims before falsely accepting them. "It is just fiction." This has been heard before, and is quite ridiculous in that Dan Brown himself tells his reader that it is not all fiction. Although, I do agree that even the "facts" in this book are fiction, it is important not to blow this off as a meaningless fictional plot that has no intention of criticizing Christianity. To my surprise, Dan Brown has "discovered" that the Catholic Church killed five million women as witches. This is ridiculous, the actual number is historically estimated between 30,000 to 50,000 victims. Not all were executed by the Church, not all were women, and not all were burned. Perhaps the paintings of Leonardo are more appealing, in that Dan Brown has surely uncovered something there? Refer to the following from Crisis Magazine (Sandra Miesel. "Dismantling The Da Vinci Code." Crisis (September 2003): "Brown's revisionist interpretations of da Vinci are as distorted as the rest of his information. He claims to have first run across these views "while I was studying art history in Seville," but they correspond point for point to material in The Templar Revelation. A writer who sees a pointed finger as a throat-cutting gesture, who says the Madonna of the Rocks was painted for nuns instead of a lay confraternity of men, who claims that da Vinci received "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions" (actually, it was just one...and it was never executed) is simply unreliable. He presents the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait when it's widely known to portray a real woman, Madonna Lisa, wife of Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo. The name is certainly not - as Brown claims - a mocking anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and L'Isa (Italian for Isis). How did he miss the theory, propounded by the authors of The Templar Revelation, that the Shroud of Turin is a photographed self-portrait of da Vinci? Much of Brown's argument centers around da Vinci's Last Supper, a painting the author considers a coded message that reveals the truth about Jesus and the Grail. Brown points to the lack of a central chalice on the table as proof that the Grail isn't a material vessel. But da Vinci's painting specifically dramatizes the moment when Jesus warns, "One of you will betray me" (John 13:21). There is no Institution Narrative in St. John's Gospel. The Eucharist is not shown there. And the person sitting next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene (as Brown claims) but St. John, portrayed as the usual effeminate da Vinci youth, comparable to his St. John the Baptist. Jesus is in the exact center of the painting, with two pyramidal groups of three apostles on each side. Although da Vinci was a spiritually troubled homosexual, Brown's contention that he coded his paintings with anti-Christian messages simply can't be sustained." It is impossible for me to point out every amount of falseness in this book, however I urge anyone to research it and find out for yourself. Remember, ignorance is the opposite of intellegence. One reason so many "intellectuals" are buying into this crap, is that it makes them feel more intelligent than the "sheep" that buy into religious doctrine! It would be surprising if anyone could obtain the amount of knowledge in one life time that a religion has gained over the course of 2000 or more years!
Rating: 
Summary: Best Book of the Year
Review: You may not agree with the premise of this book, but it is fascinating! Besides being a fast=paced mystery, it is a short course in art history as well as the various legends of the Holy Grail. It was absolutely the best book I've read this year.
Rating:
Summary: Page-Turner of the Year
Review: This would have to be my favorite book this year. It's an expert mix of suspense and meticulously researched facts. The Da Vinci Code starts at a rapid pace and never lets up, from the first chapter to the last word of the epilogue, the Da Vinci Code digs in and doesn't let go.
Rating: 
Summary: Starts promising, but disappoints overall
Review: This novel is basically an excuse for Dan Brown to expose some pet theories about DaVinci, the Holy Grail, and some intruiging notions about the history of the Christian church. Worthy and fascinating topics, if handled correctly. Unfortunately, Brown decides to dump all of these ideas into the middle of a half-baked police thriller filled with cardboard cut-out characters. The plot starts well but then rapidly disintegrates into one near-miss and close-escape after another, getting more and more unbelievable as it progresses. By the time I reached the end I just wanted to throw the book across the room and yell out, YEAH RIGHT.... But... that being said.... i read it in one night. It keeps the pages turning. The best part is the historical discussions and theories. In the hands of more skilled writer, this would be a fanstastic concept for a novel. Something a bit longer and more detailed, and not trapped within the lame framework of a made-for-TV-movie potboiler. A great opportunity wasted. Still, I recommend it just for exposing readers to some very interesing ideas and theories.
Rating:
Summary: A little overhyped, but not bad
Review: The book is fairly good provided that you remember it is fiction and nothing more. Brown's claim of "FACT" printed on the introduction page appears to be a marketing ploy, and a highly successful one at that. Without that one statement none of the theological discussions or controversy surrounding the book would be taking place. Countless others, much more qualified than I, have already pointed out the numerous historical errors in the book so there isn't really any need to rehash what has already been written, except to say if all the errors were removed what you would have remaining would resemble a pamphlet instead of a book. The book is a fairly quick read that moves along at a nice pace, although the ending is somewhat of a letdown. Dialogue can be rather juvenile at times, but not to the point of making you want to throw the book down. Brown has included all the elements of a good conspiracy, the Knights Templar, the Catholic Church, a few murders to quiet people, etc., so it's easy to see why the book has done so well. While I disagree wholeheartedly with Brown's version of history, in no way did I let that interfere with reading the book. I'm in no hurry to rush out and buy Brown's other books, but wouldn't automatically return one if I received it as a present, either. There are far worse ways to spend your time than reading The Da Vinci Code, but there are better ways, as well.
Rating:
Summary: OH MY GOD...dess
Review: Oh My God...DESS!!!!
Richard N. Ostling DID NOT finish this book before reading it...fact.
Webster Baker
Rating:
Summary: Painful writing style, painfully dense characters
Review: Could Dan Brown use more adjectives? I thought I would throw the book across the room if he used "famous" one more time. His writing style read more like a freshman college student's first attempt at creative writing than an author published several times over. The only intriguing part of the novel was the historical description of the Holy Grail mystery. The "suspense" part of the book was so transparent, I was many steps beyond the purportedly brilliant scholars every inch of the way. I found this book very difficult to continue to read, but was forced to only because it was a selection for our book club. I wouldn't read another of his books.
Rating:
Summary: Awful Pap! actually 0.5 of a star...
Review: Poor storytelling that copies/plagerizes everything from Raiders of the Lost Ark to Heat just not as well and certainly with no disguise.
Not sure if catholic bashing is a sport yet but Brown certainly pushed the envelope. Very predictable and very corny - great possibilities but never got off the ground. The characters are horrible stereoypical that I would be suprised if this makes it to a B movie at best. A dis-service to the material for sure.
Rating:
Summary: At Least It Moves Fast
Review: Dan Brown has much to say in Da Vinci Code (most of the details which can be found in the very silly, yet richly entertaining, vaguely non-fiction book, Holy Blood and Holy Grail). It is too bad that story crafted around his polemics could not have been more intriguing, the characters stronger, or the writing better. Too often, characters give long speeches about "symbology" (by which I think they mean symbolism), frequently while being chased on foot. I can barely sputter two words while on the tread mill but it is nice to know that a cryptanalyst and a university professor are so much more fit than I. The author does keep The Da Vinci Code's action moving quickly though and has fashioned a very satisfying ending that wraps up all the loose ends in a moving manner. The book is not all it could be but it could be so much worse.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible tripe of a novel, i Lost IQ points reading it
Review: In short I wish I could give negative stars for this book. For someone who is trying to "expose" things, the author gets several of his so called "facts" wrong. First Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, he merely LEGALIZED it, his successor Theodosius made it the official religion. Second, SOPHIA is spelled with a ph in Greek, attic or otherwise, not with F as it is Latin. Finally, the ending was both predictable and nonsensical. He spends about oh, 300 pages establishing the DCPJ chief as the "Teacher" then about 20 pages near the end decides no wait, i'll make it Teabing because that just seems cooler. He's been watching THE SUBSITUTE and many other movies that have this hackneyed plot device too many times. As a professor of ancient and medieval history, Brown has done a grave disservice to my profession. While one would think that it should end with this, it doesn't. In future I will be forced to teach students who have read this tripe and believe it was real or that the author did any reasearch outside of a 100 level course textbook. One more thing, Saturnalia was the ancient festival of Saturn, one of the Titans who did not die and come back to life after five days, the five days refer to the lag time between the end and the beginning of the Roman political calender. It was also the festival of about every other eastern deity. I hope Catholic bashing goes out of style soon and its very sad that Brown will profit from both this book and the future movie which will be spawned by Satan himself. But im sure WICCA will love this one
| 
