Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent writing
Review: Seldom in popular fiction do you find such intelligent writing as that produced by Dan Brown. In addition to the superbly crafted mystery that we are privileged to enjoy it is as though you have attended a seminar on in this case art and religious iconology.
As Brown states at the start of his book, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. When I am reading a book by Dan Brown I never feel that I am wasting my time. You might ask if all this information bogs down the story and the answer is a resounding "NO". Brown has the ability to take dry facts and present them in a fascinating way. He also brilliantly weaves together many diverse threads into a coherent and intriguing plot.We first met Professor Robert Langdon in Brown's previous thriller 'Angels And. Demons'. This book continues our acquaintance with the compulsive and brilliant Langdon and introduces the equally clever Sophie Neveu. She is the estranged granddaughter of the curator of the Louvre, who is the victim of a savage murder. As he lays dying he leaves a cryptic message for his granddaughter and Langdon to decipher. Thrown together by the events that have occurred they must combine their considerable skills to solve the complex mystery before it is too late. This book is a must read for mystery buffs and anyone who enjoys intelligent literature!
Rating: 
Summary: reviewers need facts
Review: Seth Franzman's statement: In the end this book is a great fascinating tale of suspense, but it is a fictional book. Lots of people including ABC news have been duped into beleiving this book has 'truth' to it when it is based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. The bible and Josephus are the only documents that speak of the life of Jesus. In neither work is Mary magdelane spoken of as a wife of Jesus. In no place is mary magdelane not a prostitute. The bible is clear on this. If you dont beleive the biblet hats fine, but you cant just make up history whern no text or evidence exists. Response:
1) There are many more documents that speak of the life of Jesus. Since you mention Josephus, I assume you're also including documents outside what is considered Christian canon. 2) Mary Magdalene is *never* spoken of as a prostitute. She had seven demons driven from her. It was another Mary who was a prosititute. It's church tradition that casts Magdalene in the role of a prostitute (the theory is that one of the Popes wanted to consolidate the Marys). I challenge you to find one instance in which Mary Magdalene is called a prostitute. My point is, before all these one star reviewers go around challenging the "facts" in this fictional book (should be a moot point, right?), perhaps they should check the facts themselves.
Rating: 
Summary: The Hardy Boys at the Louvre
Review: Short chapters (about 100), twists and turns, cliffhangers and one dimensional characters in a plot that winds around a premise so artificially taut that eventually you feel like you have been catapulted back in time to a black and white Hardy Boys movie matinee. Cheap thrills, mystery, intrigue...but none of it comes together in any satisfactory fashion. Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: Fun Read with Little Time for Thinking
Review: Short chapters with an action movie styled pace that push the reader forward at a breakneck pace. This constant hurried pace is both the stories greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The plot is built around a whirling collection of controversial historical "facts" like the relationship of Mary Magdalene and Jesus, Gnostic gospels, and the Holy Grail. These historical concepts are thrown at the reader at the same blazing speed that a breath taking car chase might be described. There is no time given for the reader to really think, and again that is also the books greatest strength. Intellectual, no. A lot of fun and a quick read, yes.
Rating:
Summary: astonishingly mediocre
Review: Should anyone be surprised that a book with such a low level of artistry should be a runaway bestseller? Yes, I say. There are so many good books out there going unread while this junk enjoys astronomical sales. Go figure. How can anybody take seriously a conspiracy that implicates The Little Mermaid? And if they are not taking this seriously, but reading it for the great suspense, then maybe they ought to branch out into the genre. This is really really low level mystery writing. Having said that. I agree that it might make a good B grade movie. The kind that Spielberg had in mind when he made Raiders of the Lost Ark. As a screenplay it works. If screenplays are your idea of a good read, go for it.
Rating:
Summary: Best book I've read
Review: Simply Amazing! Not only is this book a wonderfully suspenseful novel including puzzles, codes, and twisty plot guaranteed to entice the reader, it is all centered around a basic set of facts that challenge everything you ever knew about the roots of the christian religion and ancient history. If you are interested in art history, religion, secret societies, or anything of the like, this is a must read. I highly recommend this novel. It only takes a day or two to finish, so why not give it a spin?
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, grossly inaccurate, inflammatory
Review: Simply as a page-turner, this book is fairly effective. Most readers agree that it is engrossing and will keep your attention to the end. However, I am completely amazed that so many are taking this author's premises seriously. To those who are so inclined, I challenge you to do the research for yourself and see just how accurate, or inaccurate, this book really is. Brown quotes the old saying that the victor gets to write the history; apparently, the novelist is supposed to have the same prerogative. This book sounds as if it's been exhaustively researched, but it is entirely without historical basis. In fact, in many places Brown's claims are in direct opposition to historical fact. Symbology: Brown writes elaborate meanings for many symbols. Where did he get this information? I can't find any support for his explanation of the pentacle, for example, even from pagan sources! The rest of his symbology is just as problematic. Leonardo da Vinci: Brown's "facts" about Leonardo are based on rumor and speculation. Where he does use history, he usually gets it wrong. I suggest you check out Bruce Boucher's article in the NY Times (8/3/03), "Does 'The Da Vinci Code' Crack Leonardo?" He asks the question, "How much does this murder mystery have to do with the real Leonardo? The short answer is not much, and the author's grasp of the historical Leonardo is shaky." He says there is "more sangria than sangreal" here. Secret societies: Here again, his "research" consists of speculation and myth. For another view, take a look at "The Priory of Sion Hoax" by Robert Richardson. History of Christianity: Here his work is absolutely appalling. Brown seeks to entirely rewrite history to fit his plot. Christianity existed for almost 300 years before Constantine came to power. The beliefs of the early church are very well-documented. To claim that Constantine was responsible for the church worshipping Christ as God is historically laughable. Whether you believe Jesus Christ is God or not, it is historically incontrovertible that the early church believed just that. Here again, the author often reverses known historical facts. The NT gospels, which Brown depicts as later revisions, were actually written in the 1st century---three of them fairly soon after the death of Christ. The Nag Hammadi gospels, which Brown refers to as the "earlier gospels," were written hundreds of years later and obviously lack the historical integrity of the NT gospels. Check them out for yourself. Brown claims that the Nicene Council voted on the deity of Christ. They actually voted to determine whether Arius was a heretic. Arius was teaching that Christ was God, but not in the same way that the Father was God. Out of over 300 bishops, only 2 supported Arius. Brown refers to this as a "relatively close vote." As I read this book, I began to compile a list of the author's blatant inaccuracies. It quickly became dizzying. Practically every historical claim either contains inaccuracies or is outright false. Dan Brown is either completely ignorant regarding the history of which he writes, or he is counting on the ignorance of his readers. I find it difficult to believe that his research was really this shoddy. To produce even a work of fiction that uses such blatantly inaccurate claims of historical fact is arrogant and dishonest. That this book is being hailed the way it is should be a concern to all who love and seek truth.
Rating:
Summary: The Da vince Code
Review: Simply great... Even better than Katherine Neville!!! A must!
Rating:
Summary: ingenious!
Review: Simply put, if you were not to read The Da Vinci Code, you have no idea what you are missing. The way Dan Brown blends fact with fiction so brilliantly keeps the reader turning the pages and wanting to know what happens next. The reader is constantly thrown off center when he or she realizes that the way things appear never really is what it seems to be. The action, the betrayal, the sheer drama keeps the reader begging for more with every chapter. The way Dan Brown suddenly makes obviously clear the riddles that seem impossible at first glance force the reader to look at every riddle with a keen eye in order to look beyond what initially seems to be is absolutely ingenious. If you have not yet read this book, you must read it as soon as possible. Dan Brown has done more than just hit a home run with this novel. Fact and fiction come together masterfully in this marvel of a novel. Go out and buy The Da Vinci Code today!
Rating:
Summary: How bad can a book be? Dan Brown tests the limits.
Review: Simply the worst-written book I've ever read. Yes, the plot is (just) amusing enough to keep you reading (though pretty implausible), but only at the expense of having your intelligence insulted by the most cliché-ridden, clumsily-written prose you're ever likely to encounter.
Perhaps the rave reviewers don't mind how their entertainment is delivered (just as millions are apparently satisfied with their daily burger), but if you require even the most basic attention to literary style from your reading material, avoid this book like the... um... well, I'm sure Dan Brown would have a suitable expression to use here.
| 
