A good run after a good read

Rating: 8/10 (22 May 2006)

I think this film version of Dan Brown's NOVEL was better than I had been hearing about but not as good as I expected after all the hoopla around it. It's still a wild ride and provocative story with some interesting film-making techniques, and some not so great editing. In some ways it is better than the book, such as at specific parts portrayed at the ending, but so much explanatory stuff is left out, I really think one has to read the book first to "get" much of what happens in the film. While not any masterpiece, the novel was a good read, so that's not a waste of time. However, if one wants the real meat of the controversy, I think reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, or The Holy Place, are some of the best places to start. By the end of the film I was enchanted with Audrey Tatou, who for the most part was wasted in what is supposed to be a pivotal role. I love Tom Hanks, but thought he looked uncomfortable much of the time in his role. Ian McKellen is flat-out brilliant as Teabing. I found the film for the most part, like the novel, sort of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail Lite," but still an inspiration for continued spiritual seeking and searching and strengthening of belief in God, not one iota of blasphemy toward God of any sort. Then again, it still makes me question the power and validity of institutional church propaganda no matter what. The film is worth seeing, but certainly not worth boycotting.