I had to wait a few minutes after reading this review before I posted a reply because so many things rushed into my mouth I was choked silent. I do not want to make this a big thing, but I have a few points I want to make.
Point 1--It's a novel. Now it's a movie. Stop getting offended. If you've been living in a hole for the last year or so and had no idea what the movie/book was about then I'm sorry, otherwise why did you go see it if you knew you were likely to be offended by the content?
Point 2--"professor of Cockamamie Theology"? because you don't believe that there have been meaningful symbols throughout time? I would love to hear defense of that one. Every religion has it's symbols, every country, every business, every trade. As Dan Brown points out many times, most of the symbols used in the books are not used or recognized any more as they were originally intended, otherwise the Code would not be a code. I would also like to point out that the study of history in every institution of higher learning includes a discussion of--if not emphasis in--symbols and their relation to history.
Point 3--this is a minor irritation to be sure, but an irritation nevertheless. Sir Ian McKellan has done so much more with his life than one insignificant trilogy, it seems slightly off-putting to pidgeon-hole him that way.
Point 4--This movie was never intended to be an adventure, if you want a Dan Brown story to fit that description, read Angels And Demons. This is a story about intrigue, which like it or not, is wordy. It is about intellectual problems, which require thought and debate. To make this story an adventure, and leave out the "lectures" would make a completely different story. which brings me to
Point 5--which is a lot like point 1. This story is what it is, and it has never been any different. The book would not have sold like it did, if some people were not intrigued by this story. This is a matter of personal opinions of course, but I would like to point out that as far as plot holes and believability, take a look at some of the movies this site has registered very good reviews for, such as King Kong, Napoleon Dynamite, Saw, Hulk, Collateral Damage, among others. These movies got much better reviews than this one, and the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian. I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith.
Point 6--the idea of the holy grail has been around in religions and cultures since the ancient egyptians, actually. The concept of a chalice or grail "carrying" religion is first recorded in the tombs of the ancient Pharoahs, and is a common theme among religious literature and art in all theologies. Brown's adoption of the grail equals Mary Magdalene is an echo of miriad theologians, philosophers and scholars...perhaps this movie requires the skeptical audience to do some homework.
Basically, as I have been in trouble before for arguing people's individual opinions, I have no objections for not caring for the story of this movie. But trying to tear holes in something one knows very little of often results in stabbing the sidewalk with a feather. Perhaps then those "wordy lectury" portions of the movie had a purpose. It seems to me that if one is going to view a movie with the purpose of writing a review, or even simply understanding the movie to it's fullest, one has two choices, a)take the movie on faith that it knows what it's talking about, or b)do some research and decide for yourself.
To quote Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield Disraeli, "It is much easier to be critical than to be correct." It seems to me that a better task for a "critic" or "reviewer" on a site like this might be to figure out and explain precisely why material is appealing to the masses as this movie surely is, or why not, when it's not, like MI III surely is not, whatever the reviewers personal opinions are. Such reviews are helpful, informative, and interesting to read, but alas, they take the power of original thought regardless of theology, bias, or closed-mindedness.
This post has been, (unless otherwise stated), my personal opinion.
