The advance, ridiculous publicity worked for The Passion of the Christ (2004) and Mel Gibson is still probably counting his coins from that investment. Of course, that movie was actually good, moving, and thought-provoking. The Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, was... Whew, I nearly fell asleep just rehashing it. Jesus and Mary Magdalene, The Vatican, Opus Dei, Priory of the Scion, cover-ups, murder, etc. etc. etc. Sounds interesting, right? It isn’t, thanks to Hanks and Howard.

The book on which the Howard-Hanks endeavor is based was a decent beach read. Author Dan Brown is sort of a second-hand version of James Patterson. He has some of the formulaic pieces of the cat and mouse thriller down, but seems to be missing sharpness in his writing. Still, to his credit, Brown created a page-turner that posed some questions about J.C.'s legacy and kept me engaged as the villains or not-exactly-villains were revealed. Unfortunately, the historical intricacies - both factual and fictitious - were lost in the film version as Howard tried to connect visuals from the past with the weak images of the present through the misguided performances of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

Professor Langdon is drawn into a twisted plot of intrigue that is somehow tied to Cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey), as well as some pretty hard-core Catholics. According to the myth, it seems that JC and Mary M hooked up as husband and wife and as life drained from JC’s body on the cross, life grew inside of his widow. That would mean that JC has a bloodline and would also imply a host of other things that could make some folks a bit uncomfortable. So, while the Priory people are trying to protect the royal line of JC and Mary M., others such as the albino, masochistic Silas (Paul), his master Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred) and the misguided Captain Fache (Jean) are trying to wipe out all evidence that such things occurred. In other words, JC was no mere mortal and whoever needs to be killed to protect that is necessary collateral damage. This sends Langdon and Sophie on an 18+- hour, sleepless hunt to find the Holy Grail, which is directly connected to the tomb of Mary M and will expose the great “con”. Bodies are dropping like unfortunate flies and the mystery should build. But, instead this movie just drags on and makes one want to pull out a fingernail just to have something interesting on which to focus.

Even if I had not read the book and had gone with a clean mental palette, free of expectations, The Da Vinci Code would not be far from a stinker. Tom Hanks is poorly cast as Professor Robert Langdon and sucks the very life out of the central character who is supposed to be a slightly reticent intellectual who turns into a reluctant, near modern-day swashbuckler. Ron Howard has absolutely no edge and provides the vacuum hose for Hanks to kill this story. And of course, given this scenario, Audrey Tautou just didn't have a chance. What could have been a very engaging, paperback thriller brought to life, turned out to be an ashen bore. The only highlight in this drab piece was the delightful Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing.

My issue with The Da Vinci Code is not the JC theory. I do not know if there is any truth to any of this nor do I care. My faith could not possibly be shaken by a piece of fiction perhaps sprinkled with truths or half-truths. My issue is the fact that Howard took a fast-paced story and slowed it down to a lethargic, nearly painful pace and Hanks was too arrogant to admit that he was not the right guy for the lead position.  This is simply not worth seeing.