Last Tuesday, when The Da Vinci Code premiered at the Cannes Film festival, it was met with a chilly reception from the reviewing elite. It has been called "plodding," "stale," and "uninspired," thus, dashing the hopes of many movie goers who were hoping to see one of their favorite novels brought to life by one of their favorite directors, and starring one of their favorite actors. Since I'm not a slave to snobby film reviewers, I went to go see it for myself despite the negative hype. And as the credits rolled at the end of the movie, I felt increasingly unsettled; not because of the quality of the movie, but because one question lingered in my head: What's not to like? Am I crazy for actually being entertained by what I just saw? How could the critics pan what I, and those around me, seemed to enjoy? Okay, so that's more than one question....

First, I have to qualify myself. I read the book and I LOVED it; couldn't put it down. I loved the history, the speculation, the riddles and puzzles, and the masterful blend of fact and fiction. Additionally, I'm not religious, although I was definitely familiar with Christian historical icons such as Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary Magdelene before I read the book. I also happen to be a big fan of Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Ian McKellan.

Having said that, I went in prepared to like this movie, even though I had somewhat lowered my expectations based on the barrage of bad reviews. All of this proved to be a winning formula for me, apparently.

If you're like me and you loved the book and you like the artistic team that pursued making it into a movie, then you'll most likely come out satisfied. You won't mind what many critics have called "overly-long exposition" and historical flashbacks, because that's pretty much what the book consisted of. And in the book, it was absolutely engrossing! So, I personally didn't mind all of the explanation of history, symbols, etc.

Critics have also found fault with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou's portrayals of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu (respectively), saying that they delivered flat performances. But once again, whoever read the book will remember that both of these characters weren't that dynamic on the written page, either. Of course, Sir Ian McKellan, with the juiciest role of Holy Grail scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, chews up the scenery every time he's shown on screen. Sir Leigh Teabing was also one of the richest characters in the book.

I think that the people who won't like this movie are people who didn't read the book, and are going into the theater expecting a regular movie, which it's not. It's an adaptation of a very wordy, detailed, twisting, speculative novel that blends fact and fiction in a devastatingly effective way, and it's easy to get lost while watching the movie if you don't already know where the story is going. Sure, Ron Howard uses digitized, grainy flashbacks of ancient pagan rituals and societies to move the narrative along and to keep the audience on point, but I can see how it could be overwhelming to those who only know the bare bones of the plot. However, those who found it fascinating in the book will find pleasure in seeing the visual accompaniment to what they've already read.

In short, you go see this movie (or read the book) for how it challenges popularly-held beliefs; not for its rich, engaging character development. It's a quest for the "truth", and in terms of the IDEAS expressed, they did a dag-blasted good job of translating those ideas onto the screen. Those who often complain that movies don't stay true to the books that they're based on will find comfort in the fact that Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard have stayed incredibly close to the original text when translating it onto the screen. However, this will be to the dismay of those movie-goers who haven't read the book, and are therefore expecting a traditional action thriller with traditional action thriller dialogue.

If you go to RottenTomatoes.com, you'll see the huge disparity between what the critics have said, and what the users have said regarding this film. While the cumulative critics rating is a dismal 22%, the combined user rating is a 74%, which is way above average for the site. That should speak volumes to whoever is skeptical about seeing the movie because of the bad reviews.

The bottom line is that it's definitely a movie worth watching if only to see how the creative team behind it went about turning the best-selling novel into celluloid. It's also a treat to see something in popular culture challenge popular religious ideals so skillfully, even if only in the form of fiction.

My advice: go see for yourself.

If you heed the advice given by symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) mentioned in my summary line above, you should be OK. If you don't, you could get caught up in all kinds of conspiracy theories regarding what happened following the Last Supper and the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Some historians believe the chalice used by Jesus at The Last Supper to be the Holy Grail of Christianity, and I thought this was where the story was going. A cup is mentioned at one point but then it veered off in a different direction. The secret so many people were apparently willing to die for was to preserve the legacy of the human descendants of Christ on Earth, which could only have occurred if Jesus himself had a wife and family and the lineage survived up until the present day. The way the story relates this possibility is intriguing enough, but does tend to confuse with mentions of such occult entities as Opus Dei, the Priory of Sion, and the Knights Templar. The expert on all this was an enigmatic figure referred to as The Teacher, ultimately revealed to be Sir Leigh Teabing, portrayed by the always excellent Ian McKellen. The actor to watch in this piece is Paul Bettany, who's character Silas engages in self mutilation as a devotee of Christ; he's a truly chilling and scary character. There's probably not much middle ground for viewers of this picture, you'll like it or hate it based on the reviews posted here. Once it got under way, I approached it as a mystery thriller with religious overtones and didn't get caught up in the conspiracy angles. It holds a lot more intrigue that way.

This was much better than I expected, and it is far from the worst film ever made. My dad loved the book, and he thinks the film did it justice, and at 17 I liked it. Though with all the different views on Christianity and the complicated plot, it is confusing and convoluted. The dialogue is a little clunky, the violence like the whipping quite disturbing, and the direction perhaps too leisurely. But this is compensated by the splendid locations, especially Paris itself, and the music by Hans Zimmer was very nice, if not his best work. The acting was pretty decent, though all have given better performances, and this includes Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou in the leads. Jean Reno and Paul Bettany are pretty solid, but it is Ian McKellan, who is a great actor and rarely disappoints in anything he's in, who gives the best performance of the film. All in all, a good film, though it could have been better. It was cleverly constructed though confusing, and it is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. 7/10 Bethany Cox.