The Da Vinci Code: a dud of a movie

I wrote about the book, ‘The Da Vinci Code’, a while back, matter-of-fact, a few years ago, and was honestly too fair, but this time I can’t help but give my opinion concerning the movie, and I suppose Mr. Brown’s ego along with it. For the most part, I like Tom Hank’s acting, but in this movie, which I saw the day it came out, he was no actor acting, he was emotionless, and if the script called for that, the book didn’t. Not sure if he read the script five minutes before he went on stage, or he was just tired. But there was a lack of something in him that did not help the movie. One thing was an improvement over all for him, was his hair, not sure if it was his real hair, but it made him look more placid, and surely there was a lack of sophistication for a Harvard professor; his vocabulary was thin, and sparse, if not elementary. In other words, he was unbelievable.

I am not sure what all the hype is all about, the movie was to me a dud, I mean, “Inside Man,” by Denzel Washington was better, if only Denzel could stay off the burgers, he was bloated as a walrus.

The movie is long, way to long to figure out we are looking at a bloodline here of Jesus Christ. The script called for some theology, and Christology, that was really done poorly; if indeed any of the researchers for Mr. Brown would have done their homework, it is more believable to believe in Santa Claus. In psychology we call this: deletions, distortions and generalizations. The movie tries to fit Mary Magdalena into the picture as Jesus’ wife, or sleeping companion; it not only shows bad taste, there are no facts in this science fiction sage. If I was the Catholic Church I’d not give any more publicity to such a dumb performance, the Omen, and the Exorcist was much better; more credence too.

The only secret out there, that is really a secret, is that there is no secret, and everyone wants you to be looking for one in this movie, so it is of course made up. If the movie is suppose to make one question his Christian roots, because of Constantine’s valiant turnabout to Christianity, using him as a symbol of Rome’s dilemma on how to hang onto the puppet strings of power throughout the world, and using the Christian Flag, they did a poor job in creating this. We all know the story of Rome and its Christian foundation, but not all know about Constantine going war with the cross above his head, on his shield, and on his flags, long before he died; they forgot to tell that story, only that he was baptized before he died. Not sure what that means, being baptized is only an outer symbol to show the world how you feel inside. The fact is, he like so many other followers of Christ, realized one does not get to heaven because he is baptized or not, it is not the key to salvation, as it is not the unpardonable sin, it is only a show and tell ritual. I am sure there are many baptized so-called Christians in hell, arguing this point out right now.

I think I’d rather stick with Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Mars and Venius books, they are more practical, and believable than this. I could go on and on with this subject of bloodline crap, and the Mary Magdalena issue, but it is not worth my time, I need to write some more on “Siren the Great,” and perhaps on “Arizona Blue,” it won’t sell as good I know, but it is more believable.