The genie is out of the bottle.

Rating: 9/10 (21 May 2006)

A well crafted film and an honorable adaptation of the book. Thoroughly enjoyable. Fans of Dan Brown will not be disappointed. I was captivated by the fast moving pace of the film and found it neither boring or long as some of the cynical detractors are now claiming. Though not a flawless creation, it certainly deserves more than the half-star it was given by many of the so-called "impartial" critics. This undeserved low score reveals the hidden agenda underlying their treatment of a controversial subject matter.
The true nature of Jesus is perhaps simultaneously the films greatest asset and its greatest liability. The explosive nature of the material both compels the viewers attention and at the same time demands a level of reverence out of respect for the faithful. Any other subject would have received a different treatment, possibly conceding a greater latitude in its artistic expression. There are few laugh lines for instance as one might expect in dealing with a subject this serious. The film and book do take dramatic license with many facts as many have already pointed out. But credit must be given to the Da Vinci Code, and books like Holy Blood Holy Grail, for illuminating the humanity of a historical Jesus and returning harmony and balance to the Christian world via the sacred feminine. Something Catholicism in particular is greatly lacking. At minimum Da Vinci is clearly trying to speak to us across the ages, a cursory examination of the apostle John/Mary from The Last Supper, and Mary from The Madonna of the Rocks reveals that they are one and same person, even wearing similar hair style and clothing.
I'm mystified by the casting of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, though clearly an accomplished, versatile actor he does not convey the distinction of a Harvard academic. Perhaps my opinion will change after repeated viewings as Hanks does provide an acceptable performance. His portrayal of Langdon does seem to deliver the inner turmoil of dealing with such a sensitive topic. I imagined Silas much less photogenic than the lanky Paul Bettany, this characterization should have been more of a tortured, hulking brooding type. Bettany executes his role well but seems more like a figure from the pages of GQ rather than the haunted, freakish Silas of the book.
The charming Audrey Tautou is exemplary in her role. She has been a favorite since 'Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain' and I could imagine no other actress in that role, with the possible exception of Anna Friel who might have conveyed a more fiery independent character. There doesn't appear to be any chemistry or magic between Tautou and Hanks. They deliver their lines well and it's difficult to find any sort of technical complaint, but one gets the impression they have little in common, you might never find them sharing a coffee together for instance. Jean Reno, Ian McKellen and Alfred Molina are perfectly cast in their roles and deliver exceptional performances.
In all this is a highly successful film bringing much of the book to life, featuring wonderful, scenic photography of France, England, Scotland, and portrayals of the holy land, and dramatic flash-back scenes illustrating the historical significance of those locations. Concerning Christianity, the genie is now out of the bottle and many of the faithful are now in full disaster recovery mode. The irony is that, to my knowledge, there are no theological provisions against a married Jesus, it certainly does not change his message. There is no turning back however as we, armed with our new knowledge of the past, will continue to "seek the truth".