DaVinci Code, The MPAA Rating: PG-13 Entertainment: +1 Content: -2

While reading the book I thought, Its going to be difficult turning this into a film script. The narrative contains much expositional pontificating and puzzle wrestling, with car chases and brutal killings thrown in simply to separate chapters. But too much exposition is not good for movies. First year film students learn that a picture is worth a thousand words. In an effort to stay true to the novel, however, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (Constantine, Cinderella Man), has given unsuspecting moviegoers a glorified audio book. Ironically, with all that verbiage, much of the plot is confusing, while the pulp theories concerning Jesus, Mary and the Priory of Sion come across as ludicrous even if you arent a religious historian.

The film version of Dan Browns controversial bestseller concerns a murder investigation that unearths secrets kept by the Catholic Church and a covert organization bent on keeping those secrets. Despite its simplistic literary style, which contains conspiratorial themes intended to rock the Christian faith, The Da Vinci Code has become something of a cultural phenom. In it, fictional secrets are revealed claiming Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had a child in that union, and a clandestine society once headed by Leonardo Da Vinci has protected this information for centuries against a threatened Catholic hierarchy.

The production values are standard, but nothing memorable. The same can be said for Tom Hanks performance. Here he furrows his forehead during his first scene and never once relaxes it. And poor Audrey Tautou (Amelie), a proven talent, mysteriously lacks charm and manifests barely the slightest chemistry with her costar. As for the suspense drama/ murder thriller aspects, most successful films in those genres (The Big Sleep, The Third Man) are fun for the audience. The Da Vinci Code isnt. Its murky and joyless, containing a storytelling skill on a level with Jacqueline Susanns Valley of the Dolls.

This is a movie that will top boxoffice charts by inheritance alone. Indeed, I suspect the production was green lit for one reason because its printed parent has never wandered far from bestselling lists. But as a film, it is compiled of cheesy prose, implausible situations, one-dimensional characters and the absence of even one well-turned phrase. One can only assume that it found its way to the cinema screen because some thought it might smear Christianity, while others just thought Ca-ching!

There are now countless books written by theologians and renowned historians that suck the air out of Dan Browns diabolical suggestions. Sadly, some folks will still be misled and confused by his sleight-of-hand blend of fact and fiction. (Many pay more attention to movie stars who play history professors than to actual history.)

Billy Graham reported in his syndicated newspaper column, I know of no reputable Bible scholar or historian (Christian or non-Christian) who would agree with its claims about Jesus or take it seriously. There simply is no historical evidence to support its alleged discoveries about Jesus: nor is there any evidence at all that Christians have covered up the truth about Jesus." Graham added, In the last days before Christs return, according to Paul, people will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:4).

Heres hoping the film will give Christians an opportunity to answer questions from those more familiar with the writings of Dan Brown than those of Peter, Paul and the Apostles.

Preview Reviewer: Phil Boatwright
Distributor: Sony Pictures