I love my job - particularly the morale events. Every now and then, my group will take a long lunch, rent a theater (the whole theater) and see a movie. This happened a lot more often when I was in the Windows division way back when – sometimes it seemed like we were at the Crossroads 8 Theater every other week. But I digress. Today we saw the Da Vinci Code and my first impression is that the movie as a whole was better than I thought it would be. Like the rest of the known world, I read the book when it came out a few years ago, and then reread it last month in preparation for this compare/contrast review. I even watched some of the History Channel specials on the subject, as well as a few religious films that, to coin a phrase, crucified Dan Brown for his “sacrilegious, historically inaccurate work.” With this history, and after reading the negative reviews, I was prepared for, as one national writer put it, “Ron Howard’s worst effort since EdTV” but was instead pleasantly surprised. The pacing, while a little slow, stood up to my bathroom test, which is as follows: the harder it is for me to get up out of my chair and slip out for a few minutes, the better the film. Movies are supposed to keep my attention, and this one did. As far as the potentially offensive content, it was there – for the most part. One subtle change I noticed was that the movie shifted Robert Langdon, Brown’s intellectual but action-handicapped hero, to more of a religious skeptic. While it is true that the last shot of the movie shows him in a penitent posture, kneeling (as seen in the previews) at the [deleted for the three of you who haven’t read the book], it is also true that during the controversial conversation between Langdon, Sophie (the requisite but slightly boring heroine) and Sir Leah Teabing (wonderfully brought to life by Ian McKellen – can this guy pick his roles or what?), Teabing is portrayed as the man with the radical ideas about Jesus while Langdon calls the theories “wives tales” and “unproven” before eventually going along. I believe that this was done to soften the blow – to take the burden of controversy off of the hero and heap it onto a smaller role. The good: Shot on location in many beautiful places, it was worth the price of admission just to sit back and enjoy the scenery. (The fact that the price of admission was technically zero is an interesting point, though…) The mysteries unfold in a logical manner, giving the audience just enough time to fully grok the problem before revealing the answer, usually in an enlightening, albeit somewhat preachy manner. The cinematography and music were better than adequate and, as I said before, Ian McKellen’s portrayal of an English gentleman crippled by polio and living in France, was excellent. The bad: McKellen may have sunk the boat, however, by dramatically overshadowing Tom Hanks, somewhat miscast but doing his best in a terribly written role, and Audrey Tautou, who is beautiful but brings little else to the table. Jean Reno was his usual intense self, but spent so little time on screen that I found myself wishing that he had a bigger role. Paul Bettany, who has come from nowhere to have a run of recent good fortune (Wimbleton, Master and Commander, A Beautiful Mind and his masterful work as Geoffrey Chaucer in the underrated A Knight’s Tale) was, frankly, unconvincing as the dogged albino Catholic assassin. I think that, while a few interesting plot points from the book were left out, the movie is about 15 minutes too long and could have benefitted from a more aggressive editor. Lastly, when you have a comic genius like Hanks, why wouldn’t you set him free to bring a little offbeat wit to the film? By the middle of the second hour, I was sick of watching him furrow his brow and frown at the camera. All in all: Not quite worth the $7 evening price, but definitely worth your $3.50 as an entertaining matinee. Rating: 3 Stars. Read More