The Da Vinci Code

Well, everything did go according to plan: I saw the Da Vinci Code earlier today. Overall, I liked it. I'm easy to please, but really think this is a good movie. It sticks quite close to the book, until the end (although it has been awhile since I read it). The plot flowed smoothly - from the Louvre to some other un-pronouncable places in France, to merry olde England, and then back to the Louvre. I liked the characters, especially Sir Leigh Teabing. When English coppers try to detain him for a while, he refuses and says that they will have to shoot him, but to start with his valet first (who happens to be standing beside him). And I don't see the problem with Tom Hanks's hair - I think it looks just fine, pretty darn fine. I wish I had paid more attention to the score, but from what I remember, I think it was excellently suited to the movie. The casting was superb. Although I would have preferred to look at Russell Crowe for two and a half hours, Tom Hanks was a capable and believable Robert Langdon. Newcomer Audrey Tautou brought Sophie Neveu to life. Paul Bettany played a very sinister and a very blind (in his followings) albino Monk. I especially liked his speaking Latin into a cell phone - it seemed so right at the time, but if anyone else had tried to speak latin, much less into a cell phone, it would have seemed terribly phony and out of time. His self flagellation and that whatchamacallit around his leg made me cringe - I have no idea how they act that out without hurting him. Jean Reno played the Bezu Fache that I imagined when I read the book; and Alfed Molina was the perfect Bishop Aringarosa. Above all, Sir Ian McKellan's Sir Leigh Teabing was my favorite character - because of his dry humor and quick thinking, and just because I like Sir Ian McKellan. Unfortunately, a painfully full bladder made me take a temporary absence from the film, and I missed some of the story. I guess I'll have to go see it again - anyone want to take me? I loved the graphics - how they could show the present and the past all in one shot, or how you could see the faint glimmer of people or symbols in the mist, or the grainy flashbacks, and especially the seen that showed Sir Isaac Newton's funeral as Langdon and Neveu puzzled over a riddle. I also really liked Silas' creepiness and his speed as he darted out from the shadows to throttle a stunned Langdon or hold hostage Neveu. I liked this movie; I would go see it again. I can't see what the big deal is with so many people protesting this film. I personally like to see that all religions (this may be a very broad generalization) are a hodge-podge of other, older religions. It's like the piece mil nature of science - everything new and modern builds on everything from the past. And so what if the Holy Grail was a ... you know what (I'm refraining from revealing too much), so what if Jesus Christ had a... you know what, and it was ... you know who - it doesn't take anything away from the foundations of Christianity, not in my opinion. And what type of society are we if we believe everything that is written - even a book that is blatantly fiction? Why don't we just have worldwide book bonfires - send us back to the dark ages! "We can't tolerate this fiction that besmirches the root of christianity - what's next? Evolution taught instead of creationism?" My advice: grow up and evolve some critical thinking and tolerance, and go see this film.