b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 6138701

Do you know what?
I'm going to watch The Da Vinci Code tonight, AND I'm going to enjoy it. I thought the book (of which I read two pages and so can make a sound informed judgement) was utter tosh, and the plot utterly preposterous. I also fear that the film will be severely lacking in Karate Priests and Kung Fu Vicars, and I find Tom Hanks to be quite rubbish in anything that isn't Big or The Burbs, but I'm going to bloody enjoy this one.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:24, archived)
I really don't want to go work today.
I'm in a foul mood.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:24, archived)
You do that

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:25, archived)
is the Da Vinci Code like the hanky code?

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:25, archived)
If you have an unworkable design for a flying machine in your left pocket, it means you're gay.
A completely shit design for a tank in your right pocket and you're a logical positivist.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:27, archived)
exactly
Stuff the Mona Lisa in your back pocket: 2-handed fisting and piss games
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:27, archived)
I've got his mural of the last supper in the Convent of Sta. Maria delle Grazie tied around my head, what does this mean?

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:30, archived)
is the Hanky Code a secret formula as to the correct amount of lies to include in a QOTW post to reach the best of page?

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:27, archived)
is this an internet whinge?
i'm not sure.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:29, archived)
It's the only film I didn't walk out of but would've walked out of if I were the film walking out of sort

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:25, archived)
The film is shitter than the book.
Despite the book being one of the shittest things I've ever read.

Seeing how I often read back my own posts, that's pretty shit.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:25, archived)
I don't know why, but I quite enjoyed the book.
I think it was all the faux-historical stuff that made me look up actual real history stuff that I found very interesting.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:28, archived)
So it wasn't the book itself, but the indirect joy you got from it.

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:29, archived)
I enjoyed it the first time I read it
as the plot moved sufficiently quickly to prevent me from thinking about any of it, but I tried reading it again a while later and hated it.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:29, archived)
the only saving grace for that film was Sir Ian McKellan's performance

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:25, archived)
Audrey Tautou managed to actually look attractive.

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:26, archived)
She always does.
She's an attractive woman.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:27, archived)
She is.
but the only other thing I've seen her in was Amelie, and she looked fucking odd in that film.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:28, archived)
I squealed like a proper girly girl the first time Paul Bettany came on screen.
I've read all Dan Brown's books. I liked The Da Vinci Code for the Paris-ness, but I though Angels and Demons were best. Actually, they're going on my list of books to read when I am allowed to read books of my own choice. They're good non-thinking books.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:27, archived)
I have a bit of a wrong crush on Paul Bettany.
Him and Chris Marshall.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:29, archived)
I know I'm only a man,
but is Paul Bettany a "wrong" crush?

He's an attractive man.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:30, archived)
He's a little bit odd looking.
He is very attractive, just....odd.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:32, archived)
Paul Bettany, you say?
www.lost.com/images/mader2.jpg
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:36, archived)
Ooh yes. Chris Marshall would get it.
I'm not so keen on Paul Bettany, but he does look a bit like Rupert Benbury-Henbry-Pembry what his name is from Spooks who's a hottie.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:34, archived)
You are so whipped.

(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:28, archived)
Whipped, my arse.
The Woman thinks we're off out for a meal.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:34, archived)
It's rubbish.
Even if you suspend belief (as you should when you watch a movie) it's rubbish.
(, Sun 10 May 2009, 16:33, archived)