BOTTOM LINE: The Dan Brown page-turning novel dealing with the ultimate conspiracy of our time has been translated in to one of the most boring, stupid, and clumsy blockbusters in recent memory. One has to wonder how A-star talent like Ron Howard and Tom Hanks could have made such a bad movie.

THE GOOD: Dan Brown’s novel was an instant best-seller and caused much controversy over its exploration of the ultimate conspiracy of all time: that the Catholic Church has kept the true nature of Jesus Christ and his royal blood line a secret so as to maintain the established religious order and keeping people’s faith. Much of the dialogue and detail that made the book so fascinating is present in the movie and makes for intriguing debate, including the war between the Prior of Sion (an order dedicated to the truth of Jesus) and Opus Dei (a secret offshoot of the Church dedicated to destroying the Prior of Sion and its secret). In the scenes where Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) explore the stories of the Holy Grail and its actual meaning, and more importantly, why the Church would kill to keep it a secret, the film will at least peak your interest as the book so effectively did. Ian McKellen is the one member of the cast who is clearly relishing his time in the pulp conspiracy spotlight, lending an energetic performance as Teabing to the overall aesthetic as he goes through lengthy explanations of Da Vinci’s work and the history of the whole thing. Langdon’s introduction at a university lecture at the head of the film is quite interesting in his explanations of symbols and their interpretation. If nothing else, the material raises the possibility that symbols, stories, and even what we know as truth could have been distorted over time and history by those seeking to change its influence to satisfy their own ends.

THE BAD: Aside from the ideas its raises and the visuals, everything about this film is astonishingly bad. Ron Howard must have checked his brain at the door when he signed on as director because there are so many illogical plot holes, uninspired acting, stupid dialogue and a clumsy attempt to make the film a thriller by inserting a chase plot over what is essentially a dialogue-driven and professorial conspiracy piece. The biggest mistake of all, and I know this as I have read the book, is that the film follows the book to the letter. Film translations from novels always undergo changes in order to take advantage of the film medium and “The Da Vinci Code” should have been no exception. This story, as structured, works perfectly in the book but it is death on film. Character is substituted for exposition. The thriller aspect in the book looks arbitrarily pasted on to the dialogue sequences, leaving no tension at any point in the film. As a result, you have the likes of the brilliant Tom Hanks looking totally flat, only having an arbitrarily inserted minor plot dealing with his claustrophobia to play with which does not have any real relevance to anything. With the exception of Ian McKellen, all the cast come across as poor caricatures that are in some cases quite laughable. Then there is the illogical nature of the piece. For example, when Sophie (a mis-cast Audrey Tatou) shows up to help Langdon, they successfully manage to trick the police in to leaving the Louvre Gallery in order to escape. This gives them time to examine the crime scene and the puzzles left behind from the opening scene of the film. Perhaps someone can explain to me how a professional police force would leave a crime scene totally unattended while they blindly chase a red-herring? But it is convenient for Langdon and Sophie to examine the Da Vinci puzzle left by the dead man. The film is full of these contrivances, with the biggest of all coming at the end when Langdon figures out that Sophie is in fact the last living descendant of Jesus Christ; an instant joke to be sure. Maybe they were making a comedy?