The night before The Da Vinci Code opened, I was lucky enough to take in a 25th anniversary screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark at a local theater. Who am I kidding. I sat through Spielberg's masterpiece three times in less than a week. I can't get enough of that movie. What does "Raiders" have to do with The Da Vinci Code? Nothing really, but as I watched Ron Howard's big screen adaptation of Dan Brown's wildly popular (and controversial) novel (one, I must confess, I've never read), I kept thinking about the rugged archeologist's adventures.

As was the case with Indiana Jones, The Da Vinci Code's hero - a Harvard symbology expert named Robert Langdon - also sets out to find a religious artifact. In this case, it's The Holy Grail. Come to think of it, Indy went after the same thing in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Of course the adventure as depicted in this film, is a far more high brow and literary affair.

Accompanying Langdon in the adventure, is a famous art historians grand-daughter, a French Cryptologist named Sophie Neveu (the stunning Audrey Tautou). Hot on their trail is a controversial man of the cloth (played by Alfred Molina who, as fate would have it, had a bit part in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), a murderous monk (played by a chilling Paul Bettany), and a persistent member of the French FBI (played by Jean Reno).

This intricate mission leads them to British scholar Sir Leigh Teabing (played with lively gusto by Ian McKellen), an older gentleman with a world of fascinating religious views. While old friends, Langon and Teabing don't necessarily agree on every aspect of the legacy of the grail, with all it's implications regarding the life (and death) of Christ. Still, circumstances dictate that they join forces as their lifelong passion for finding the grail appears to be within their grasp. And as we learn throughout the film's discourse-filled narrative, discovering the location of this most elusive and prized historical artifact may very well blow the lid off one of the greatest cover ups in history.

Dan Brown's novel is considered a real page turner - fusing a potboiler sensibility with intense (if a tad over-cooked) religious theology. In fact, many views as depicted in the novel were met with hostile reaction from the Catholic church. No big surprise there as films with religious implications often overstep the taboo-line drawn by the world's sensitive believers. From Martin Scorsese's thoughtful (and similarly provocative) work of fiction "The Last Temptation of Christ" to Kevin Smith's irreverent, but highly imaginative look into faith "Dogma," films of this nature invariably raise the hackle of zealots the world over - many of whom don't even bother to see the films that they rally against. Can they honestly imagine that those exposed to such sacrilege will be lured into heresy and non-belief. By their very actions they demonstrate a marked lack of faith. These are movies people? Get over yourselves.

At any rate, as a buffer against such reaction, The Da Vinci Code ups the thriller factor and downplays the religious theology, and in a way, this sort of hurts the film. Why? Primarily because the mystery in The Da Vinci Code isn't all that mysterious. It's all mechanical really. We get deception and cover-ups by the gallons, but the film doesn't offer up any real surprises. The identity of the real mastermind in the picture is all too obvious, and in fact, this particular character has a pivotal line of dialogue that hints that he/she might harbor a sinister agenda. The concept the film explores as far as the Holy Grail is concerned has no doubt captured the imagination of millions, but as action/thrillers go, The Da Vinci Code lies somewhere between an Indiana Jones adventure and that silly Romancing the Stone sequel The Jewel of the Nile.

The Da Vinci Code's take on religion is endlessly creative. Going in, I thought this film would be chalk full of ridiculous religious mumbo jumbo, but as it stands, Brown makes some interesting points. Granted, Akiva Goldsman's adaptation of the book is extremely long-winded and chatty - awash in a sea of conspiracy. So much so in fact, I thought that perhaps Oliver Stone did an uncredited re-write. I do give Goldsman (a screenwriter whom we at Zboneman.com love to razz for subjecting audiences everywhere to Lost in Space and Batman Forever) credit for a nice slow build through the first half of the picture, but overall there is too much slow and not enough build. It has been widely reported that Mr. Goldsman has taken a few liberties with Langdon's sacred text, particularly where the topic of faith is concerned. One moment in the film suggests that Langdon does have faith and this has met with negative response from many fans of the book. In the movie, this plot point appears to work, but that's only because we never really come to understand who Langdon really is. For the most part, The Da Vinci Code's plot structure is grounded in reality save for a dumb, insignificant moment toward the end of the movie in which Langdon nicks himself shaving. As a droplet of blood hits the side of the sink, it's formation leads Langdon to one final revelation. I could have done without this pointless bit of divine intervention.

Ron Howard's direction is solid. The film is big and full of vibrant imagery. In particular, I love the early moments of the film in which we see the size and breathtaking beauty of Da Vinci's paintings. Howard incorporates some of the same techniques that made his Beautiful Mind successful. He certainly knows how to shoot a picture. He falters considerably however, with intrusive flashbacks that occur throughout the film. This might work in a novel, but in a movie, it takes the audience out of the moment. What's more, these flashbacks aren't seamless - they're extremely mechanical. However, there is one bit of insight into Tautou's past that made me jolt in my seat. I will give Howard props for that one.

Strangely, the usually dependable Tom Hanks feels entirely wrong for the role of Robert Langdon. He isn't downright terrible, but he breathes no life into this character either. He just sort of goes through the motions, and this really hurts the movie. Thankfully, he has a solid supporting cast backing him up. Ian McKellen is sensational as the playful Leigh Teabing. The minute he appears, he lights up the screen with his lively word play. Paul Bettany delivers one of his very best performances as a disciplined (if slightly misguided) monk out to stop Langdon and crew. Bettany has this amazing ability to be both terrifying and sympathetic. A terrific performance. Audrey Tautou is simply divine (if you'll pardon the pun) as the The Da Vinci Code's heroine. She's beautiful and assertive as a woman coming to terms with something she doesn't understand. One of her strongest moments in the picture comes at the hands of an altercation between she and Paul Bettany's character. It provides real tension.

So to sum up, The Da Vinci Code is decent enough, but it has three big strikes against it. It's far too long, Tom Hanks is surprisingly dull, and Clint Howard is nowhere to be found in this madness. What a crime. All jokes aside, the press has been far too hard on this one. Many of the reviews have been scathing, and some of these critics should be ashamed of themselves for speaking so highly of schlock like National Treasure and tearing this movie a new a-hole. No, The Da Vinci Code isn't perfect, but it does raise some interesting questions about the most beloved historical figure of all time, and it does so with creative verve.

On a special side note, pick up Han Zimmer's outstanding score. It's one of the best of his career.