maybe the best that could be done from the book- a contrived-to-hell (no pun intended) blockbuster with some merit

Rating: 6/10 (19 May 2006)

What can I say that hasn't already be written or said about Dan Brown's international smash book about the deepest "secret" in Christianity? Having read only part of it (as it is, arguably of course, an airplane book with a hugely elevated status over controversy and popularity), I can say that the movie, directed by Ron Howard and with a cast of French, American and British all-stars, does what it means to do. It brings some food-for-thought, with enough exposition for three typical Hollywood movies. And, at times, Howard and company (i.e. screenwriter Akiva Goldsman) shave off a couple of parts in Brown's writing that aren't necessary while keeping the thoughtful (as well as, dare I say, silly) nature of the writing.
As it is, the Da Vinci Code DOES have a plot that is structured well enough- a symbol specialist, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks in a role that basically calls for the basics of his talents, no more no less), is drawn into a case of murders, a conspiracy involving secret, ultra-dangerous sects of the Catholic church (with a creepy villain in Paul Bettany's character), and a search for an item as old as Christianity itself.
The film traces parts of Europe for the hunt, and along the way there is information compulsively expounded upon about the secrets behind the murders, the symbols, the clues, and how the entire history of the Jesus Christ is possibly- dare the filmmaker/authors say- corrupted and a lie. So it is here that the controversy has been brought through. But the controversy is no more understandable than it was for films like Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ; religious groups are BOUND to get sensitive by material that faces against their sternly stringent views. That it's transferred into a murder mystery/thriller that has more twists than the International House of Pretzel puts it up for everyone to contemplate.
What helps make the film watchable even as the story goes through more contrivances and surprises than I'd care to count (with the core being a suspension of disbelief of both plot turns and the exposition bits) is the cast assembled. The bulk of the players- Ian McKellan, Alfred Molina, Audrey Tatou, and Jean Reno- are the best that could have been cast, and all that are asked of them are to say the dialog with enough conviction and believability to not be totally dull or just, well, wrong.
While the direction by Howard and his crew is not the most imaginative, he is able to serve all of the "so-called" facts and ideas to use without making it into the overly pretentious. While I wouldn't think of this at all of being a great film or with the ambition even to BE one, it at least tries to have the skills of the common Hollywood thriller while serving up more facts than the same thriller wouldn't think to touch.
To put it another way- this is basically Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with half of the adventure, and more than half of the historical and religious implications amplified. As Ebert said, it's "preposterously entertaining", and to take it as 100% serious is missing what is aimed for, even if not entirely successful. 6/10