Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina
Review by Larry Stanley

While I enjoyed the novel The DaVinci Code, I have to say that the movie version followed the standard of most books to movies, in that the book was better. True, I can't say with honesty that the movie had no redeeming qualities which we will get to later, but all in all it was a somewhat confusing and even less then standard mystery.
Placing Tom Hanks and Ron Howard together once more seemed like a great idea at the time but the fact that while they do their best work when they are showing basic American values (consider Forrest Gump, the story of a simple minded man showing that love and success can still be attained; or Cinderella Man which showed the story of a down and out boxer coming back to win for his family) both great film and both showing how one man can rise above their surrounding.
Which places one of the problems straight into the DaVinci Code, neither of these guys has ever done a film dealing with European people and situations or dealing with religious trappings.
Now I generally like Tom Hanks in most of his movies. But with only a marginal idea of just who Robert Langdon should be I could never get used to Hanks and that haircut in the role. But I almost did by the end of the film which should be counted as a success I suppose.
The film is a pretty good thriller if at times a bit slow. And if you are one of the 50 some million who read the book then you know who the bad guy is and what the finale is. If not, you will by the end of the first week whether you want to or not probably.
Now, that said if you have not read the book you are going to find a lot of what is going on confusing. Don't worry, many of us who read the book had the same problem.
Originally, Dan Brown wrote an excellent story. Well, excellent if you discount all the factual and historic errors that occurred and this brings me to my most important point…
IT IS A NOVEL, A WORK OF FICTION. It was never intended to be looked at as a historically accurate book no matter how many people have begun to think that way. None of what was written in the novel is new; Brown simply explored many of the Gnostic teachings and theories that have existed for 2000 years.
Once more, It Is Not Real. The plot is almost total crap. A collection of "what ifs" moments based on the idea that Leonardo Da Vinci was a member of this secret order with devastating to the church information on the life of Jesus. But a far out storyline never stopped a movie from being made or being fun.
So, what went wrong here? Maybe it was the darkness of the material, or the way Howard handled it. Even the amazing locations and beautiful photography was not enough to give the film momentum. That should have been the job of the director and actors. Instead, what we have is over 2 hours of explaining scenes that don't offer any tension or develop any love for the characters.
Even without reading the original story, the big twists at the end were apparent as soon as they showed up.
Now, some good points: Howard picked some great locations, and came out with a beautifully photographed film. As much a fan of Jean Reno as I am, I think the most amazing character in the film was Paul Bettany as Silas. Graphically shown as a faithful warrior of God and of Opus Dei, the almost criminal branch of the Church tasked with finding and destroying the information that would destroy it.
But, these points were overshadowed by the almost lifeless speeches between Hanks and Audrey Tautou. Dear GOD, couldn't they show a little more emotion? There was no chemistry between the leading characters and most of their lines were delivered in such a way that I almost wanted to jump up and scream at the screen.
By the end of the film I had already decided I should have watched "Over the Hedge."

Now, some history and come on, you knew I was going to do this didn't you?
First, let's look at some things that are almost totally inaccurate:
It is said in the story that "In his own lifetime Jesus "inspired millions to better lives"" Not likely. At most there were a few hundred and maybe as few as several dozen. Yes, there were oftentimes a large number of witnesses to His works but many of these people were just there because it was something to do, a place to go or even a free meal. They continued on about their daily lives when it was over.
According to the book and movie, there were "more than eighty gospels" and while this is a great number it has no basis in history. We are told in the book that "the earliest Christian records" were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts; again, it should like it could be history. The reality is the 'earliest Christian records' date from just a few years after the death of Christ.
According to the author story, the marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus is "a matter of historical record". It would be interesting to know which record since it is not found anywhere in any of the first century writers. And the claim that the official religion of Rome was Sun Worship is easily shown to be outrageous. The story also tries hard to show that the Church has been responsible for 2000 years of keeping women in a submissive role, that it is dedicated to the idea that women are dangerous and have to be kept down. This is why they have suppressed all information about Mary Magdalene and her children.
But it does not explain the almost goddess like admiration millions if not billions have of another Mary, that one the mother of Jesus. In fact, she is so venerated that in the sixth century she even gets the Athena's Parthenon dedicated to her.
According to Peter Jones, co-author of "Cracking the Da Vinci Code" "The Idea that Jesus might have been married does not really bother me, but the fact of the matter is that no sane scholar has ever proposed that."
One of the biggest falsehoods concerns the idea that fostered the idea of Christ's Divinity in 325 at the Nicaean Council. Sounds good, but most Christian scholars around the world and across the biblical spectrum agree the depiction of the Council of Nicaea in the book is almost totally incorrect. They agree that while there was a diversity of early expressions of Christianity, the divinity of Jesus was part of the church's established canons well before 325, and predates most of the newly found Gnostic and other gospels.
Another interesting point is made in the statement that when the vote on Jesus divinity came around, it was a 'close call'. Well, of the over 380 Bishops in attendance, only TWO did not agree that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was part of the Devine. So, I guess if it is a close call in this case getting a 22 in Blackjack should be a winner since it is 'close.'
There are some who have been saying "It does affect religion and the Christian faith." No, it doesn't; it may well affect Religion but it does not affect Christian faith, not if that Christian knows anything about the New Testament or the history of his or her own faith. It does not even need to affect Religion if people who learn to do a little research.
If anything, what Christians should do is use this as an opportunity to talk about some of the things that we do believe practice. What does Brown think of all this hype?
On his website, he tells readers "While it is a work of fiction, he says it is my own personal belief that the theories discussed by these characters have merit". Does this give Brown an 'agenda'?
But, there is a bad side to the book that overtakes the fake history and fanciful threads. There is a very good chance that it will and is shaping the beliefs of a generation which knows nothing about the New Testament or what it actually says. Michael Martin, a Vermont teacher, said: "We like conspiracy theories, so if it's JFK or Jesus, people want to think there's something more than what they are telling us - they in this case being the church."