(Extended Version) A woman can be seen kneeling in front of a man in the park. It is very dark and nothing is shown, though it is implied that they are engaging in oral sex.
In a brief scene (About 2 seconds), a man and a woman on a table appear to be having sex: they hold each other and her bare back and his bare shoulders are visible while people stand around them and watch (it appears to be a ritual of some sort).


We see a dead body on the floor in several scenes and although he is fully nude, a bright light shines on his genitals in such a way that nothing is discernable.
We see a fully nude man in several scenes and his bare buttocks, legs, feet, back, chest and abdomen to the hip are visible. This is not sexual, but for religious purposes. (Brief nudity)


Prostitutes lean into car windows presumably propositioning the occupants and we see the women wearing revealing outfits that show legs to the thigh, cleavage and abdomens. This is very brief and not very noticable.
There are many scenes that show Renaissance paintings depicting naked people (both male and female), revealing bare breasts, buttocks and bare chests, as well as a few instances of depictions of nude cherubs that reveal bare buttocks and male genitals. This is not sexual in any way.
There are a few discussions of the meaning of symbols and their representations of the male sex organ and female womb.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


The boy sitting in the back kept counting down how long it would be to end. The girl with him listened to all his complaints silently.

Indeed, as I have a hunch, the Da Vinci Code is a more mature and fascinating novel than angels and demons, but it may not be as suitable for adaptation into films as the former. Moreover, in China, which is extremely lack of religious background, it is understandable that half of the audience get up and leave.

However, despite this, we can see longhoward’s efforts: he spent a lot of effort on how to use pictures to express some slightly boring historical and theoretical paragraphs in the book, which led to the extension of the time used for explanation in the film and the loss of precision in the promotion of tense plots; In terms of visual processing, he has many masterpieces, such as overlapping shots across history and dealing with the oil painting texture of the pictures of historical legends; With regard to the theme of the original novel, Lang made a Hollywood simplification, and only borrowed the Tom Hanks version of Dr. Langdon to ask: Jesus is man and God. Are not enough people dying for this problem? – The adaptation of the Da Vinci Code has reached the limit of the expression of the film. The sense of lens and rhythm of the novel itself is much worse than that of angels and demons. Therefore, at least the film can not be regarded as a failed adaptation, although it is a little dull and there is no lack of flash.

Of course, if you want to see the visual stimulation or the ups and downs of the plot, you may be a little disappointed: in terms of creating a thriller atmosphere, the film loses the spiritual thriller from the novel, and focuses on expressing this feeling on the picture. I remember the night I chewed the original book all night. When I saw how Dan Brown explained the last dinner subversively, all the hairs on my back stood up – it was not a mystical horror from ghosts or death, but the fear of weightlessness at the spiritual level when I was faced with the complete subversion of my habitual history / common sense. And this fear, although only for a moment, is enough to surpass any terrorist world created by Stephen King. Until now, when I look at the famous painting “the last dinner”, there is still a far-reaching chill. The film uses a more vivid slide form to explain all kinds of things about Jesus and feminized Peter in the painting. After reading it, people will only give a “wow” exclamation, and there is no way to feel the horror expressed in words.

In addition, in guiding the actors, director Lang let “Gandalf” do everything a successful supporting role should do: make jokes in the first half, relax the atmosphere, and guide the sharp turn of the plot in the second half. I’d like to thank Lang for not vulgarizing the chemistry between Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou. Finally, the kiss Tom printed on Audrey’s forehead made my heart hang for a long time and finally put it down: they are a generation away no matter what they think, and the mystery solving trip around Europe is really like the graduation trip of teachers and students…. Although it’s good in acting. But when it comes to the most dazzling acting, it’s the villain Paul Bettany. He really belongs to the type that other actors can’t do at all. No matter what kind of movie or role he plays, he has the means to grab the scene, to engrave his knife like eyes firmly in the minds of the audience, and to make everyone unable to play him, Tom, the No. 1 male in this film, is no exception (because in fact, Dr. Langdon is a positive figure without any personality characteristics except for his childhood shadow falling into the well and his academic background). Silas, an albino killer, has a tragic past, a redeemed experience, a self abusive act and a fanatical belief… And albinism (% ¥% ¥ well, I didn’t say that). It’s a perfect match for Bettany. The director doesn’t need to talk about the play. Facts also proved that Silas was interpreted as, as he said, a tragic figure with flesh and blood. During the period of killing nuns, self abuse in the penitentiary, and finally facing the bishop who was wrongly injured by himself, his eyes, his tears, every expression muscle on his face, together with the prop blood on his body, every detail is just brewing, transferred, and then played 100% on the screen, Let the audience concentrate and hold their breath under his bloody eyelids. I have a complex about the word “penance”. The Italian teacher has seriously taught San Antonio of the Franciscans. There are bloodstained angels perched in white Assisi. They once appeared in a dream, kneeling barefoot in the penance room, with a bloody image on their back. So I’m glad Bettany can play the monk who will cry and pray for his ghost under the knife. (cough, but in fact, the monks who practice hard are not so terrible. Most of them grow vegetables in their own garden for a lifetime = =…)

The biggest gain from watching this film is that it makes me deviate from my interest for a long time and return to the mysterious and heavy topic of religious origin. Dan Brown discusses the crisis of religious belief collapsing in contemporary society in the angel and devil, while the Da Vinci Code is about the tangled relationship between Catholicism and pagans, or the ultimate question of “what do I believe in?”. This question cannot be answered in a commercial film of more than two hours. (as a professional director, we can also see that long Howard has no intention to seriously answer the question.) but if the film can guide the audience to start thinking about the question mark, it can be regarded as no white shooting.

As for the ultimate question of whether Jesus is human or divine, I regret to find that I have a pagan tendency. Personally, I think Jesus Christ is a great man. But he is great enough to be the soul of a religion. Perhaps after the cleansing and beautification of history, he will be attached to many divinities by future generations. If put in modern times, that is, the feeling of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. I have no intention of belittling and slandering Jesus. If Gandhi returned to Jerusalem a few centuries ago, he would be worshipped by the solid eyed ancients. Why do we have to shed thousands and hundreds of years of blood on the issue of humanity or divinity? In addition to political rights, perhaps the life of the ancients was boring and less fun, and it was easy to be more serious….

In fact, considering the ending of the novel and from the standpoint of the church, we can understand why the bishops are so angry with Dan Brown. In a sense, the ending of the Da Vinci Code is indeed a kind of influence on Catholics and their believers… If slander doesn’t count, it can at least count as a rather disrespectful joke. Nowadays, even criticism of popular singers and idols will be criticized by fans, not to mention such a serious Jesus Christ? Therefore, from the perspective of onlookers, I also think Tom Hanks’s excuse of “it’s just a story” outside the play is quite insufficient.

There is a lot of nonsense. In fact, I want to say that those who are not seriously interested in gossip or serious research about Catholicism can use the Da Vinci Code to burn their interests, but devout believers should think twice before they act.

Children who believe that Jesus is the purity of God must be mentally prepared before watching this film.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here