PP out of four

The &#8220Da Vinci Code,C while not a great piece of religious fiction, has captured the imagination of millions of readers around the world. Despite its popularity, however, it is the source of controversy and condemnation over sensitive subject matter 7 the premise that a certain central figure of Christianity just might have had a wife and kids.

This isn/t the first time the general idea has been floated in the cinema, with Scorsese/s &#8220Last Temptation of ChristC and Kevin Smith/s &#8220DogmaC having beaten author Dan Brown and director Ron Howard to the punch.

Brown/s source materials have been debunked by experts, so when Howard and star Tom Hanks assert &#8220The Da Vinci CodeC movie is simply a fictional entertainment, why not take their word for it and enjoy the picture as just that?

I can understand the concern from people about the film/s subject matter 7 it/s outright sacrilegious from certain perspectives. But those who criticize the film, and the book it/s based on, should be conscious of how past events do get interpreted through time by people in positions of power who create popular truth.

Whether the subject matter in the film is true is beside my point.

It/s a fact that religious truths are continually being interpreted and amended by people throughout history. I do admire this singular truth, presented in the film and book, because it sparks debate, dialogue and critical thinking about faith.

The religious criticism, I suspect, is based on a big fear that audiences for the book and movie may mistake fiction for reality. Of course, influential and vocal people from all types of faiths have been creating fiction as reality for followers throughout the history of man.

Trouble is, so-called &#8220true believersC get too fixated on man-made dogma and doctrine, trade in the beauty and meaning of metaphors and allegory for the literal word, and choose to forget about a simple message of love, forgiveness and judging not, lest ye be judged yourselves 7 the perfect ethical code for a film critic, right?

That being said, is &#8220The Da Vinci CodeC a good picture?

Allow me to cast some stones here.

The film opens with the murder of Jacques Sauniere, the curator of the Louvre Museum in Paris, by Silas (Paul Bettany), a self-flagellating monk from a fundamentalist Roman Catholic organization called Opus Dei (a real organization that has condemned their presentation in the book as inaccurate).

Turns out the curator is the head of a secret society called the Priory of Sion, which allegedly included past leaders Leonardo Da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton. According to Brown, throughout the history of Christianity, the priory was tasked with keeping alive the location and knowledge of the Holy Grail, commonly believed to be Jesus/ cup at the Last Supper, or a cup used to capture his blood at the crucifixion.

Robert Langdon (Hanks), a Harvard professor of cultural symbols and cryptology, is called to investigate the murder because of a pagan symbol the curator carved into his flesh.

At the Louvre, Langdon meets Sophie Neveu (played by the lovely Audrey Tautou), a police officer who is secretly the curator/s granddaughter. She tells him, he/s not being asked to help solve the crime, but is, in fact, the only suspect.

OK, plausibility warning sign: What possible motivation could an influential Harvard professor, on a whirlwind tour to promote his new successful book, have to kill the curator of the Louvre? What is this, the Inspector Clouseau school of law enforcement?

In any event, Langdon and Neveu team up to solve the mystery to the &#8220greatest cover-up known to man.C And they discover, with the help of the brilliant scene-stealing Ian McKellan (here as Priory of Sion expert Sir Leigh Teabing), the grail is actually a metaphor for something else entirely.

Is the picture any good? First off, it/s beautifully shot and beautifully acted, despite the silliness and predictability of plot and much of the dialogue.

Howard is among the finest of technical directors and his shots and sequences are always a pleasure to behold. Some of the camera work in the film is pretty inventive, like a spiral shot down a glass structure at the Louvre that sweeps down through the floor.

McKellan outshines Hanks, who seems on autopilot here. You wish you had McKellan as a professor of history.

Some things in the film didn/t seem to be as successful as the cinematography and acting. The device of Langdon/s claustrophobia felt pretty weak and came across as unnecessary to the plot. A better use of this character tic can be seen in &#8220Batman Begins.C

There/s also a chase sequence with a small car driven by Tautou that seemed more comical than rousing. The suspense sequences don/t seem natural 7 more out of convenience. When Langdon and Neveu escape danger 7 it just seems so easy.

The Opus Dei antagonists were weak. It just seemed Alfred Molina, who is a naturally great heavy, didn/t seem as sinister as he has been in other films. Bettany/s Silas was pretty silly and unconvincing. He seemed to belong in a Bond film but didn/t seem to be a threatening enough adversary to be worried enough about.

Things I did like were the use of effects to illustrate a modern-day historical site like Westminster Abbey as it was on the day of Newton/s funeral.

I also liked the historical sequences involving the Knights Templar and Constantine the Great holding the Council of Nicaea, which echoed Peter Jackson/s technique of presenting ancient times in his &#8220Lord of the Rings.C

Another use of special effects was a technique that showcased Langdon/s gift with code breaking that was not unlike Howard/s use of the technique to highlight mathematical insight in &#8220A Beautiful Mind.C

If you want an even more powerful statement about God in film, check out the 1957 Ingmar Bergman classic &#8220The Seventh Seal.C It even has scarier self-flagellating monks than Bettany could ever hope to portray.

And when it comes to drinking from the grail of cinematic pleasure, I/d take me some Indiana Jones action over Robert Langdon decoding, for actual fun with historical reinvention any day of the week.

Neil Nisperos can be reached at 737-1059 or nnisperos@lompocrecord .com.

May 24, 2006