Good news in from Cannes, where they had the premier of The Da Vinci Code. It wasn't all that well received; this Fox reviewer liked it, but the consensus was that it was a mediocre film. Ian McKellen seems to have turned in a Oscar-caliber performance in a key supporting role, but negligible praise can be found for leads Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.
I think that should be good news. If it were a good spell-binder of a film, the dubious history presented in the film would get a wider audience.
I haven't weighed in on the film or the book before this, but here's my quick talking points.
1)-The Gnostic gospels that play up the Mary Magdalene story portray a God who's less friendly than the God of the traditional quartet; it's a demanding religion of a select few. If the early church was hiding the real Good News, the stuff they were suppressing wasn't all that cheery.
2)- Brown plays free and loose with church history and art history. It might be a nice story that is pleasing to the ears of someone who'd like to see traditional Christianity brought down a few pegs, but it isn't even realistic historical fiction.
The movie will get a big draw, merely on the early publicity and the number of people who read the book, but I think the mediocre reviews will minimize any damage that Brown's fable will have on the spiritually gullible.
[Update 11:20-here's a funny Globe and Mail review which isn't kind to DVC; unused headline-"Craps shoots down Da Vinci." ]