Holy Blood, Holy Grail
by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
RATING: 4 out of 10

OK, so after about a month and a half of struggling (last book I finished was on May 4th), I finally finished this behemoth of historical non-fiction.

Man, was it ever not worth it.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail was the source material from which Dan Brown likely got most of his information for his controversial novel (and subsequent film), The Da Vinci Code, which I loved. Wanting to hopefully recapture some of the magic of Brown’s book, I decided that I would read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Someone had given it to me as a gift so I figured I would give it a shot.

It was really interesting. I learned an awful lot about some history that I had no idea about (the Merovingian dynasty, the Templar Knights, the history of the early church, etc.). However, it just took way too long to get there. I understand the importance of context, but after you have heard the authors drone on for several hours about wars and heresies and crap that really doesn’t have a lot of bearing on the ultimate story, you get a little bored.

Usually, I don’t have a lot of trouble finishing books, but I almost abandoned this one 100 pages from the end. Fortunately, the authors finally get to the point in the final 100 pages.

So here’s a synopsis: some documents were found that alluded to a secret society (the Priory of Sion) and these guys started investigating the documents, not realizing what they had stumbled onto. What they found was a lot of possible evidence of a very large secret being protected by a very powerful organization. They postulate what this secret might be (Jesus having a living bloodline) and VOILA! everything falls into place in their story.

Now there was certainly some cool stuff about the Bible that I never had heard or realized or thought about for that matter (and if you want to know more about those, comment and I’ll email you some stuff), but those “oh, that’s pretty cool” moments were largely outnumbered by “oh man, if this book doesn’t start moving soon, I’m going to send it back to the 4th century with the Merovingians!”.

My analysis…if you like history, read this book. If you don’t, read The Da Vinci Code. It’s a better novel. And you aren’t really missing much. Dan Brown accomplishes in about 15 pages what these authors take over 400 to say.

|

After a really fun Rook party on Friday night, Alli and I met my mom and dad and Ashley for the 10:00 showing of The Da Vinci Code. All of us except Ashley had read the book, so we were very anxious to see the movie and we crossed our fingers hoping that they wouldn’t ruin the bestseller like they did with The Firm.

For a long time, I have spoken out that I thought that Tom Hanks was an awful choice for Robert Langdon. Turns out that I was right all along. However, the movie succeeds IN SPITE of Hanks’ awful, uninspired acting. (I don’t know if I would even call it “acting”…he didn’t even seem like he was acting. He just seemed like he was reading his lines as Tom Hanks with ridiculous long hair.)

The rest of the cast is just about as perfect as it could have been. Ian McKellen (who is always money) was a perfect Sir Leigh Teabing. Audrey Tautou (who would not have been my first choice) was a fantastic Sophie Neveu. Jean Reno was awesome as Bezu Fache. Even Alfred Molina was good in his small roll as Bishop Aringossa. The person that impressed me most, however, was Paul Bettany. You rarely see him in such a dramatic role, but his portrayal of the albino monk Silas was so dead-on that it was almost haunting. When I had read the book, Silas seemed like a bigger, more hulking type of albino (I was thinking like George “The Animal” Steele without all the body hair). But, in the words of Randy Jackson, he worked it out and made it his own.

Fans of the book will not be disappointed because all of the major plot points exist in the movie, and not only that, they also don’t change the ending drastically, like they did with the aforementioned Tom Cruise debacle.

Overall, I was really happy, even if I couldn’t get over Tom Hanks. We’ll see if they decide to make Angels & Demons now. In my opinion (as well as many others), it is a superior book, despite its ridiculous ending.

As an aside about the “controversy” surrounding the movie…it looks like it didn’t really work too well for the Catholic Church to boycott the movie, since it had the 13th largest opening weekend in the United States EVER.

|

I used to like Tom Hanks.

Apollo 13…great movie.
Forrest Gump…great movie.
Philadelphia…great movie.
Toy Story…fantastic movie.

Heck, I even liked all 25 of his romantic comedies with Meg Ryan (save Joe vs. the Volcano, of course).

I think it was around Cast Away that I started to get sick of him. It’s not even his fault. The media destroyed Tom Hanks. All of the accolades showered upon him, all the Oscar talk for that movie and it ended up being a big disappointment.

One of the major appeals of Tom Hanks during the 1990’s was his charm and his seeming ability to stay clear of the normal Hollywood garbage. He seemed…not ABOVE it, but just…not worried by it. Over the past several years, he has seemingly become more and more snarky…more snooty.

And then there’s this.

One of the most successful books of the past couple years and he will be playing the main character in Ron Howard’s movie adaptation. To be honest, I’m really disappointed. Robert Langdon is more of an Indiana Jones-type character, less sensitive, more rugged. While I read the book (after tearing through Angels & Demons), I certainly did not picture Forrest Gump as the protagonist.

Not only that, but it also creates the unlikeliness of us seeing Angels & Demons come to the silver screen, which (in my not-so-humble opinion) is a superior story. The Da Vinci Code is the sexier pick because of its implications, but story-wise A&D is better.

The box office draw of the book is going to be large enough that you don’t really need the mega-star to draw the audience. I would much rather see them go out on a limb and pick someone who will portray the character. We have past examples to draw from: The Firm, The Pelican Brief…heck…just about ANY wildly popular John Grisham novel (except Runaway Jury…that was good). What I’m trying to say is that when you cast a large actor in a role that has been defined in the minds of the readers who read the book, oftentimes, their personality overshadows the characterization that the author attempted to develop in the book.

If they had to have a star, they at least could have selected one who fit the role a bit better. Take your pick:
George Clooney
Hugh Jackman
Russell Crowe
Viggo Mortensen

…and that’s just to name a few…

|