Posted 1:02 AM by Steve
"The Da Vinci Code" : a movie review.

Considering that the book was "dumbed-down" popcorn history and bubblegum theology, a movie version had little hope of impressing me.

As I expected, the movie version further "dumbs-down" the plot and concepts for it's intended audience. Sadly, many viewers don't know enough about religion and/or Christianity to even comprehend the heretical nature of the film.

In the film, Robert Langdon is no longer simply an objective academic. He becomes a reluctant spokesman for the critics of the film and a "raised Catholic" weenie. The book left much to the imagination of the reader. The movie tries to hammer home it's conclusions and then soothe the audience with new-age pyschobabble. "It's what you believe that really matters." Please.

From a strictly cinematic point of view, the film stinks. It is boring with too much exposition. The female lead has an annoyingly thick accent which makes her sound childish when she is forced to speak primarily english dialogue. Hanks is wooden. His manufactured back story of claustrophobia is weak. I understand why they did it. They had to create some character for Langdon because, frankly, character development was sorely lacking in the book.

The book made Teabing out to be an eccentric loon who was obsessed, but McKellen plays him like a misunderstood genius, with the film-makers clearly siding with his point of view towards history.

What isn't ever explained in the film or the movie is why pious Christian soldiers and ultra-conservative devout Catholics would be threatened by the beliefs of a bunch of pagan nature worshipers. Or why these people would have an interest in the defamation and destruction of the religious legacy of Jesus Christ. Why would it matter if someone was related to Jesus Christ especialy if he wasn't divine? By spreading misinformation about His life and death the revisionist historians seek to trivialize Christ's impact.

Or, from the opposite perspective, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that Christ was
1. Mortal
2. Married
3. a father
4. wanted Mary Magdalene (his wife) to run his "church" on Earth...(Why he would have had a "church" to run if he wasn't divine isn't even addressed)
5. Leonardo Da Vinci actually attended the Last Supper. (joke)

Who would populate the other side of the debate? They wouldn't have a theological leg to stand on! How (or more importantly why) would these religious zealots continue believing what they believe if they knew the facts were otherwise? If the argument is "power" it's fallacious. You would be putting the cart before the horse. If the early church had to create a myth of divinity why did it exist in the first place? In those days, prophets came and went. They didn't establish churches that lasted 2000 years; churches that grew from 12 members to one billion members in a few millennia. Besides, it's unequivocal in the bible that among the original members, the divinity of Christ was absolute. They saw him walking on water they saw the risen Christ in their presence after they witnessed his Passion.


Matthew 16:18 (Whole Chapter) "And I tell you that you are Peter, [ Peter means rock.] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [ Or hell] will not overcome it. [ Or not prove stronger than it]"

The issue is faith. It has nothing to do with shiny treasures, fantastic artifacts, or sensationalist secret societies. It has to do with far less glamorous but far more personal issues. Billions believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, one in being with the father and that he was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered and died for our sins, and that he was resurrected for our salvation. This is a matter of faith. It can be neither proved nor disproved. If you believe these, the tenets of the Catholic faith, you must also believe infallible statement made by Jesus Christ above. That statement means that His church will prevail and regardless of the fallible humans who make up the hierarchy of the Church, His will will be done.

The film, and to some degree the book, try and placate Christians by implying that Jesus was a good guy with nice ideas and all so it's somehow O.K. to remain a Christian because there is a solid positive philosophy associated with Jesus Christ. This is patronizing and disingenuous. You can't have it both ways Dan Brown and Ron Howard. Either Jesus was a charismatic, manipulative blasphemer or he was who he said he was.

I can't imagine true Christians allowing this book or film to shake their faith in the least. I hope that maybe they will pay more attention to their spiritual life by the very mention of these issues in popular culture. I hope people who are agnostic or spiritually stunted take a renewed interest in religion and spirituality. Regardless, believers need not worry that a book of fiction nor a below-average movie will prevail against His church. Heresy? Maybe...

Gates of Hades? Hardly.