Better than the book in that the dreadful writing style isn't a factor

Rating: 6/10 (21 June 2006)

I read the book and thought that the central idea was very clever, but the writing left a whole lot to be desired. To put my reaction into context, I'm not Roman Catholic, or religious in any organized sense. I can see why some practicing Catholics might find this central idea offensive. Considering the movie solely as entertainment, I thought it was a pretty good, if slightly slow and ponderous entertainment. Tom Hanks is an actor I almost always admire; here he seemed to express his seriousness as a character and the gravity of the story by wearing a perpetual frown that wrinkled up his face. No, there's no chemistry between Hanks and the female lead--but under the circumstances, even a suggestion of libido might be inappropriate. Ian McKellan is his usual wonderful self and I didn't think anyone in the cast was less than competent. I figure those people who regard the suggestion that Christ was a man and subject to manly impulses ought to stay away and not expose themselves to this outrage. That's what happened in the case of Mel Gibson's "Passion" film: a lot of people simply avoided it lest their sensibilities be bruised. As for those organizations who have fulminated against the movie and urged that it be embargoed--they've almost certainly done the Box Office a huge favor. Although, what with all the ancillary Da Vinci stuff on the market (the Da Vinci Code DIET??? really!) the Box Office probably needed no outside stimulation. I'd save this one for a weekend when the pickings are otherwise pretty slim.