‘Da Vinci Code’ lacks book’s momentum

Could Jesus and Mary Magdalene have been married? Could they have had children?

In 1988, such heretical notions could lead to fierce boycotts and condemnations, as the makers of “The Last Temptation of Christ” discovered. Even though the sex life of Jesus and Mary was clearly presented as a fantasy that takes place in Jesus’ mind just before he dies on the cross, most theater chains refused to show the picture. It found an audience only on cable and video.

Yet if you place those ideas within a best-selling thriller novel (in which they are NOT presented as a fantasy), 60 million readers will applaud, and filmmakers assume they’ll turn up en masse at the multiplex for the movie version. Such is the case with Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code,” which has been a publishing phenomenon for the past three years.

Quick facts Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jurgen Prochnow Director: Ron Howard Run time: 2 hours, 29 minutes MPAA rating: PG-13

No matter what you think of Brown’s revelations about the true nature of Jesus and Mary’s relationship, the book is a page-turner. It’s the literary equivalent of the Kiefer Sutherland television series, “24,” complete with a shameless cliffhanger strategically placed before each commercial, er, chapter.

Ron Howard’s skittish movie version, written by his “Beautiful Mind” screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, is so slavishly faithful to Brown’s plot twists that it's tense with effort. A story that took 454 pages to tell simply cannot be telescoped into two and a half hours. The script is crammed with information, yet there’s very little room for humor or breathing spaces or characterizations that are more than wafer-thin.

Brown imagined his hero, Robert Langdon, a Harvard historian and symbologist, as “Harrison Ford in Harris tweed.” Indeed, the Ford of “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” pursuing and protecting and believing in the Ark of the Covenant, would be perfectly cast as Langdon if he were about 10 years younger.

THE DA VINCI CODE Studio orders script for ‘Da Vinci’ precursor Review: ‘Da Vinci’ lacks book’s momentum Readers torn over ‘Da Vinci Code’ movie Nice guys don’t always finish first Opinion: Scientology? How about Opus Dei Take our 'Da Vinci Code' quiz

Instead, Howard picked Tom Hanks (star of Howard’s “Splash” and “Apollo 13”), a sharp actor who seems all wrong for the role. Granted there’s not much of a character to play, but Hanks can’t help bringing a distancing sense of irony to the frequent discussions of art and religious history.

While Langdon is required to seriously present his account of the fate of the Holy Grail, you believe Hanks only when he claims that he’s been dragged into “a world where people think this stuff is real.” He doesn’t seem to have a passion for his work.

He’s also hard to buy as an action hero who teams up with a mystery woman, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), to solve the murder of her grandfather — who dies in a spectacular, symbol-driven manner in the Louvre in the opening scenes.

While they’re busy solving riddles, uncovering a conspiracy and avoiding entanglements with the police, they’re also on the run because Langdon is the prime murder suspect. This touch of “Les Miserables” (with Jean Reno playing Langdon’s relentless pursuer) provides the story with most of its momentum. The pair keep getting into scrapes, escaping, then getting double-crossed.

The supporting cast provides some relief from Hanks and the equally miscast Tautou, whose English is less than secure. Paul Bettany dominates his scenes as the serial-killer monk, Silas, who tortures himself and carries out murders ordered by the Mafia-like fundamentalist Catholic group, Opus Dei. Alfred Molina is equally scary as his ruthless boss, and Jurgen Prochnow is briefly effective as a bank official who appears to be on the fugitives’ side.

Ian McKellen, who turns up about an hour into the picture, playing Grail expert Sir Leigh Teabing, seems instantly at ease with the literary dialogue. Teabing had the best lines in the book, and McKellen savors them here. The movie is most alive when Langdon and Teabing are discussing their opposing viewpoints and getting quite hot under the collar about the validity of each other’s version of Christian history.

Unfortunately, most of the other talking-heads scenes threaten to bring the movie to a halt, even when they’re supplemented by abstract, color-drained illustrations of ancient Rome or witch burnings or other phantoms of the past. As the characters discuss conspiracies and anagrams and the hidden meanings in religious art, you wonder why they don’t seem to realize they’re on the run and they don’t have a lot of time.

MORE FROM AT THE MOVIES

‘Pirate Radio’ just rolls when it should rock

‘Pirate Radio’ just rolls when it should rock The end not soon enough for ‘2012’ There’s no saving campy ‘Women In Trouble’ Army drama ‘Messenger’ delivers fitfully ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is mighty fine family fun Bah, humbug! ‘A Christmas Carol’ has no spirit ‘Precious’ not perfect but performances are ‘The Men Who Stare at Goats’ lacks focus ‘The Box’ comes up completely empty ‘Fourth Kind’ is a half-baked mess   Add At the movies headlines to your news reader: