Please read the previous post before reading this one. Thanks!
How did I find the THE DA VINCI CODE -- the movie? Unfortunately, I saw it in a theater where they were pushing the high-tech surround-sound system much too loudly. That was extremely distracting. I thought Tom Hanks' acting was below par for him. I don't think he got Robert, and that Tautou's Sophie should have been stronger.
In the book there is the impression that there are "sparks" between Robert and Sophie, that their relationship will continue after "The End". I felt none of that in the movie. In a movie one must feel relationships between characters, not only rationalize them. I didn't feel it in this movie between Hanks and Tautou. I agree with the majority of the critics.
The book is a splendid read for intellectuals who know something about comparative religions, the Masonic Order, the Druids, Greek and Roman mythology, symbolism, etc. It's for those who do not obediently swallow the force-fed doctrines of any religion, but who are "seekers" and can ponder the "what ifs". I am a what-if person, with enough of an education to separate out the contrived fiction from recorded history.
I loved the book, scanning it again before seeing the movie. I most definitely enjoyed the movie, and expect to get the DVD the moment it is released. It will go in my library with THE PASSOVER PLOT (1976), and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (1988).
The DA VINCI CODE movie is a puzzle to solve, a suspenseful thriller, and I think it gives better than the critics gave to it! Yes, there is a lot of exposition and dialog, but all necessary to the intent of the movie. Luckily, I still maintain the art of listening and comprehending. Apparently, some of the critics do not. I recommend it to all adults who can think for themselves, and enjoy a very suspense-filled movie experience.
Finally, may I state that all the critics I read were males. Could it be the male of the species still has a problem with women and divinity? I couldn't help seeing that director Ron Howard actually "got" the premise of Dan Brown's book. You know, the possibility that a female might be capable of communing with God, teaching, and preaching, contain the Devine within her. If we believe the words of Jesus in the New Testament, he would have had no problem in designating a woman to carry on his work.
Most of the sexist problems in Christianity arose first from Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a., Apostle Paul, and then quite possibly from the Nicene Council who chose the writings to be included in the Holy Bible -- all men. The Nicene Council is a historical fact. Basically, the movie is not about theology, but does the male psyche automatically get defensive and make it so, as with homosexuality?
Jesus was married? Just the thought offends many. However, Jesus was about 30 when he came on the public scene. In his time, a male of his age would have been one of two things -- married, or a homosexual. So, Christians, which do you prefer that he was? After all, he was "God made flesh"/human. Being a female, sexual preference of others does not threaten me. Did it threaten some early Christian males as it threatens some males today?
Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? From the female perspective, that could be the greatest book ever written.