My chief complaint is how Ewan McGregor flies the helicopter. It is not his fault since he is just an actor doing as told but ironic considering McGregor’s role in JetSet and his brother being an RAF pilot. In the movie he applies forward cyclic on a prolonged vertical ascent. Then he jumps out of the aircraft and it continues to climb. Each are completely ridiculous. Forward cyclic provides forward pitch. The aircraft would move forward. Releasing all of the flight controls simultaneously would cause the aircraft to spiral out of control. Helicopters do not simply glide forward like fixed wing aircraft. You really don’t want to jump out of a large machine with quickly rotating blades when it is out of control.
Aside from that how does a priest have enough money to hire an international assassin? And why would an experienced international assassin be stupid enough to try and drive that car away? I know more about car bombs than this guy.
Her Whole Darkness In Motion
Venom of Asps
Fortnight in the Philippines
IDF Operations after Typhoon Haiyan
Letters To Friends
You know you want to buy a few copies
About Mia
Other Blogs
-
A Point5 years ago
-
11 comments:
I think the vatican says the movie is good entertainment. I am in large part an atheist because of the way the vatican has acted in history.
About Jesus Christ on the other hand... The church does not like to talk about the legitimacy of Christ and his virgin birth, on dogmatic principle, and the implications of all of this on his having children --for it would set up a conflict with God since the son of god is also god and a daughter would be a second god since Jesus is not only fully human but also fully God. (the dogma). Having a fourth Godhead to an already crowded trinity might confuse already sceptical christian types.
In the old days of the church anyone saying what the da vinci code said would be considered a heretic and killed. Many were in fact killed for saying less. And worse, to the catholic church, much of the attack on the godliness of jesus and the virginity of mary was led by non christians. This "illegitimacy tradition" as it is known in catholicism was particularly unpopular with church leaders because non-Christians took the lead in articulating it—not just early rabbis, but pagan philosophers as well.
Thus, the notions articulated in da vinci are similar to the notions articulated by Rabbis amongst others and forms a strong center to the antisemeticism and the resulting ostracization and pogroms effected on the jewish people in Europe and every other Catholic place in the time when the church dominated states.
The fear that the Da Vinci Code could generate more antisemetic reaction was present even more so than in the Passion of Christ discussion.
I have not actually seen the movie that you have reviewed here but I intend to watch it... perhaps even to the end, something I was not able to do with the Da Vinci code that to me was a very plodding thing.... So, pardon me if I skipped your last para since I did not want to encounter any spoilers. I promise this... once I have seen the movie, I shall come back to your post and respond adequately to your review... OK?
One last point on Jesus Christ who christians view as an earlier than your Messiah. Attacking the concept of virgin birth was well advanced even by the year 178. This doubt sort of stopped after Constantine since the church would set you alight for comments of that nature, but I am sure that many have doubted as well although been quieter about it. Here is an example of early thought on the subject that I took from Slate:
The text of True Doctrine, written by the pagan philosopher Celsus, comes to us secondhand via Origen's Contra Celsum. If Origen's summary of his opponent's argument is to be trusted, it goes like this (as translated by Raymond Brown):
It was Jesus himself who fabricated the story that he had been born of a virgin. In fact, however, his mother was a poor countrywoman who earned her living by spinning. She had been driven out by her carpenter husband when she was convicted of adultery with a [Roman] soldier named Panthera. She then wandered about and secretly gave birth to Jesus. Later, because he was poor, Jesus hired himself out in Egypt where he became adept in magical powers. Puffed up by these, he claimed for himself the title of God.
The behaviour of the Vatican has no relevance to the existence of God.
The DaVinci was just a good yarn that based its premise on a bit of religious apocrypha. Such things have been matinee fodder for 100 years. The only thing remotely controversial about it is that it states as fact, a story that is more accurately described as a hoax.
My main problem with the DaVinci code is how the world's leading symbologist fails to recognise the Fibonacci sequence immediately.
This means that Brown is either a very bad writer for trying to write characters who are smarter than he is, or a very clever writer for allowing the reader to feel smarter than the lead character.
Dan Brown is an excellent writer. He just says things some people don't want to hear. The Vatican should thank him for getting people talking about religion. Something the Vatican can only do in a negative way.
I think Dan Brown is a mediocre writer at best. He takes a very basic knowledge of history and mythology and tries to make potboiler thrillers around what little he knows.
In Angels and Demons he has the professor go up in the helicopter with the priest. The priest jumps out with a parachute and the professor uses the door to glide to safety. Both are absurd options under the circumstances. The professor also kills the professional assassin, which seems unlikely.
I don't know why Ron Howard likes Brown so much but it's a testament to his filmmaking instinct that he changed so much of the book.
I think when discussing Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code and fictitious controversy we should keep in mind that many of us don't see God through the Catholic church or Jesus. If Jesus had a child it wouldn't change my view of God in the slightest. And when the Vatican complains about something I couldn't care less. Most of the people I know can talk about religion all day without ever mentioning the Pope.
For a catholic, the vatican is very important for it is the means by which one communicates with God. Sort of a middle man embodied in the Pope. Yes, it is all men who run the church.
The point being not everybody's Catholic. In fact, most people aren't.
I belong to the church of Moron. Unlike the Mormons, we do not convert Jewish people at their deaths without their consent or even knowledge. I am the pope of this church. And the congregation come to think of it.
If Jesus had a daughter they'd have to admit they were wrong for 2,000 years and killed millions of people for nothing. All those celibate priests were taking it out on alterboys for nothing. A daughters bigger blasphemy than a son. A son's bad enough, but a daughter? Jesus can't have an inferior girl.
How can anyone say Jesus was earlier than the messiah? Jesus was 3,000 years later. Religion didn't start with christians. Buddhists, jewish people, and hindus all came first. They're one of the newest religions in the world.
Jesus lived and died 2000 years ago. The Messiah hasn't come yet. Jesus was before the Messiah.
Post a Comment