At times entertaining, at times dumb and boring, a strange movie

Rating: 5/10 (11 June 2006)

I just saw the movie last night, and, as a first impression it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, based on the critics opinions. Sone parts were actually entertaining (mostly the action parts), and although it got boring and even comically stupid at times, the 2 1/2 hours passed quite fast.
Now the bad parts: The scene that ruined the movie for me early on was the lecture that Hanks had in Paris at the beginning. I don't claim to be very intelligent or educated (I'm just a poor Romanian Engineering student), but even I know that the Svastika is an ancient Indian symbol for the sun, or that the Spanish catholics have a ritual which involves KKK like sheets, and so on.. that scene was so unbelievable because at that kind of lectures, the attendance is usually made up of intelligent people that are interested in that kind of discussion.. well, that wasn't the case in the movie, the audience seemed to be made up of idiots (or Americans) who had no idea of basic European symbols.. I guess the scene was a plot device designed to let everybody know that the Hanks character (don't remember his name, Lon.. something) was a genius, and so on, but for me it was a clear indication that the movie is aimed at the "mentally challenged" (or American) audiences, not at the people who actually know something about European history. And actually it was funny how there was a guy with a fake french accent ready to give the perfect wrong answer, so that Hanks can correct them with an arrogant answer.
One thing that shocked me was the way the movie took myths and pure speculations and presented them as facts. For example, the Merovingian family is presented as part of Jesus' bloodline. As somebody quite familiar with french history, I found that part ludicrous and laughable. And the painting by Da Vinci was presented like it was a firsthand representation of The Last Supper. I found myself wondering if I'm the only one who gets the fact that it was JUST A PAINTING made CENTURIES after the real event took place. How can a sane person base a theory like that on a PAINTING?? Leonardo Da Vinci was indeed a genius, but that doesn't mean he knew what really happened during The Last Supper. He probably did believe that Jesus got married with Maria-Magdalena, but his beliefs are quite irrelevant in a historical context. There were other parts of the movie I found laughable, but I have to see the movie again to make a list..
But the thing I hated most about "The Da Vinci Code" is that the plot was so dumbed-down, that any moron could understand it. I really hate movies like that (unless it has Jessica Alba or some serious T&A), and I couldn't help comparing DVC with another movie I saw recently (Syriana) which, although had some flaws, really made you think, and required at least half-a-brain to understand...
And another thing: I'we been to Paris once, and the biggest impression I had was of cultural diversity: there were like millions of Africans (Blacks and north African Arabs) in Paris, not to mention the many Portuguese, Italians and other Europeans, and scores of Japanese tourists (which were like everywhere). You don't see that in the Da Vinci Code: they're all white stereotypical french. I found that really unrealistic.