Some of my criticism here is directed at the book version, but the film is a faithful adaptation, so some of that criticism applies to the film as well.
First, let me start by saying that the film, like the book, is indeed fiction, but the book was first billed as an expose, in novel form, of the "true" history of Christianity. That is what made it such a bestseller, not the plot line. It was initially used as a historical reference by people who had an ax to grind with Church ("read the Da Vinci code, it's all there!" read one message on a message board by one anti-Church individual). Author Dan Brown enthusiastically proclaimed its historical accuracy, in carefully controlled interviews (I could just imagine him on "The O'Reilly Factor"!) and on the book's "fact" page. Some felt threatened at first, not for themselves, but for those masses less educated about Church history. I heard comments from one person, a Catholic, who loved the book and defended it as pure fiction, but nonetheless was mislead by some of the historical claims, such as the nail-biter vote at the Council of Nicea that decided Christ's divinity, and that Council's decision of which books would be regarded as sacred scripture. Actually, the vote was more like about 300-2, and did not decide Christ's divinity, which was never in question, but rather Alexandrian priest Arius' teaching that Christ, while part of the Trinity, was created by, and not equal to, the Father. And that Council did not address the issue of scripture. Emperor Constantine called the council, but was not a participant, and attended only a few sessions.
Any threat the book might have posed soon subsided as a result of the sub-genre of books and documentaries that came out to debunk the "Da Vinci" myths. These were done by REAL historians, not moonbat conspiracy theorists. Only then did Brown begin to back off some from his claims that the book is fact-based, and only then did the "hello, it's fiction!" defense start.
I can't judge the movie by all these same standards since Ron Howard has maintained from the beginning that it's only fiction. However, some say the movie shouldn't be judged by historical accuracy. Why shouldn't it? How would "Gone With The Wind" be judged if it were Richmond, and not Atlanta, that was burned? Even "The Wizard Of Oz" wouldn't escape severe criticism if it had been a Kansas hurricane, rather than a tornado, that sent Dorothy spiraling into munchkin land. Why the double standard?
A brief word about the acting: I was not impressed by most of it. Nobody stood out as great, but Tom Hanks was not himself, and lent nothing more than name recognition; Audry Tautou was sleepwalking; and Paul Bettany was comic bookish as the murderous Albino monk (are there any good Albinos in movies?).
And, okay, last time: his name was not Da Vinci! it was Leonardo, and he was from a town called Vinci (in Italian), so calling him Da Vinci is like calling Joan of Arc "of Arc".
I give the movie five stars because it is not devoid of entertainment value, Paris is an interesting setting, and because moonbat theories are, if nothing else, fun.
ADDENDUM:
To the reviewer in Vienna, Austria, who says that Christians who are offended by the conspiracy theories in the book and movie are no better than Islamic radicals who reacted with violence as a result of the "Mohammed" cartoons: Do you seriously feel that way? No better at all? How many Christians reacted with violence? How many riots were there? Did either Dan Brown or Ron Howard need police protection? To establish any moral equation between these two reactions is completely irrational!
First, let me start by saying that the film, like the book, is indeed fiction, but the book was first billed as an expose, in novel form, of the "true" history of Christianity. That is what made it such a bestseller, not the plot line. It was initially used as a historical reference by people who had an ax to grind with Church ("read the Da Vinci code, it's all there!" read one message on a message board by one anti-Church individual). Author Dan Brown enthusiastically proclaimed its historical accuracy, in carefully controlled interviews (I could just imagine him on "The O'Reilly Factor"!) and on the book's "fact" page. Some felt threatened at first, not for themselves, but for those masses less educated about Church history. I heard comments from one person, a Catholic, who loved the book and defended it as pure fiction, but nonetheless was mislead by some of the historical claims, such as the nail-biter vote at the Council of Nicea that decided Christ's divinity, and that Council's decision of which books would be regarded as sacred scripture. Actually, the vote was more like about 300-2, and did not decide Christ's divinity, which was never in question, but rather Alexandrian priest Arius' teaching that Christ, while part of the Trinity, was created by, and not equal to, the Father. And that Council did not address the issue of scripture. Emperor Constantine called the council, but was not a participant, and attended only a few sessions.
Any threat the book might have posed soon subsided as a result of the sub-genre of books and documentaries that came out to debunk the "Da Vinci" myths. These were done by REAL historians, not moonbat conspiracy theorists. Only then did Brown begin to back off some from his claims that the book is fact-based, and only then did the "hello, it's fiction!" defense start.
I can't judge the movie by all these same standards since Ron Howard has maintained from the beginning that it's only fiction. However, some say the movie shouldn't be judged by historical accuracy. Why shouldn't it? How would "Gone With The Wind" be judged if it were Richmond, and not Atlanta, that was burned? Even "The Wizard Of Oz" wouldn't escape severe criticism if it had been a Kansas hurricane, rather than a tornado, that sent Dorothy spiraling into munchkin land. Why the double standard?
A brief word about the acting: I was not impressed by most of it. Nobody stood out as great, but Tom Hanks was not himself, and lent nothing more than name recognition; Audry Tautou was sleepwalking; and Paul Bettany was comic bookish as the murderous Albino monk (are there any good Albinos in movies?).
And, okay, last time: his name was not Da Vinci! it was Leonardo, and he was from a town called Vinci (in Italian), so calling him Da Vinci is like calling Joan of Arc "of Arc".
I give the movie five stars because it is not devoid of entertainment value, Paris is an interesting setting, and because moonbat theories are, if nothing else, fun.
ADDENDUM:
To the reviewer in Vienna, Austria, who says that Christians who are offended by the conspiracy theories in the book and movie are no better than Islamic radicals who reacted with violence as a result of the "Mohammed" cartoons: Do you seriously feel that way? No better at all? How many Christians reacted with violence? How many riots were there? Did either Dan Brown or Ron Howard need police protection? To establish any moral equation between these two reactions is completely irrational!