For two and a half hours, in Ron Howard's new film adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Tom Hanks runs away from Jesus. Literally speaking, Jesus is not the one aiming the gun, punching out nuns, nor is he the one that is threatening all of humanity. No, that honor goes to actor Paul Bettany and his self-flagellating, sanctimonious character Silas.

Rather, the feeling one gets is that Robert Langdon is running away from Christianity. In precise terms, he is running away from the oppressive, Vatican-sanctioned sect known as Opus Dei, which is willing to protect the church's well-guarded secret at any cost. Likewise, audiences across America, who have made The Da Vinci Code the number one book and movie in the world, seem to be living vicariously through Robert Langdon and are running away from an organized Christian religion. Or even running away from Jesus himself, who was, as the story suggests, more of a hippie than a true Messiah.

The concept of The Da Vinci Code is an interesting one. The relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ has always been one of mystery. Speculation has been heard throughout the ages, from theories such as unrequited love (Jesus Christ Superstar), to lost love (The Last Temptation Of Christ) and now, to love finally gained. The idea of the church defaming Mary Magdalene's character simply to paint their perfect portrait of a savior is a striking one and certainly an ignitable spark that could potentially move people to faith, to lose their faith, and surely to shake up Catholicism as an organized religion.

And The Da Vinci Code, both the movie and the novel, has a lot of great ideas. Unfortunately, these deep spiritual ideas are discarded in favor of some more blockbuster/bestseller moments, guaranteed to comfort an audience, rather than consistently challenge them. For the novel, Dan Brown's writing ability in describing the events has been heavily criticized. That criticism along with recurring accusations of plagiarism, surely don't profile Dan Brown as the writer of the year. His millions in royalties will have to suffice for a lifetime, since many of his peers continue to doubt his ability and integrity. Nevertheless, the novel version remains preferable to the film, simply because in the book there is much time and space so the writer can bring validity to the many biblical and historical theories. The movie can only allude to such revelations and kept secrets, through grainy flashbacks and rapid-fire dialogue between Tom Hanks (finally returning to bland roles after so many years of scenery chewing) and Ian McKellan. Ron Howard, a much too literal-minded director, fails to establish any real authenticity to such scattershot investigations, such as Oliver Stone managed to successfully pull off in JFK. The end result is like an adult version of Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego? Characters spout out ancient history, simply because they can and the plot demands it, and other characters react to it either by arguing or by prompting physical action. ("Then let's do this thing!") In the novel, each theory is given more time to develop and does bring a bit more coherence to the subject matter.

However, at the fault of both the movie and novel, is the running. At the demand of the mainstream audience, or at least what studio heads and book publishers believe is the demand of a mainstream audience, The Da Vinci Code resorts to clich鳬 devices, contrivances, and old fashioned Hollywood cat and mouse chases to hold on to its audience.

Whereas the bible and critical commentaries on the bible ended inconclusively, encouraging the reader to develop his or her own personal belief, The Da Vinci code conveniently concludes the storyline mechanically, commercially and with every loose end tied up. The audience demands a big plot twist at the end. It has to be something we don't see coming, but that if we look back, it makes sense. The villain has to be stopped. The world has to be saved. Everything has to be placed down carefully, just pat.

Frankly the big plot twist of The Da Vinci Code is laughable. It could almost be made forgivable, if it were to be taken as a South Park-esque crotch-kick of blasphemy. After all, when running away from oppressive organized religion you have to pull out all the stops, right? But it comes across as pseudo-intellectual, faux-faith affirming and frankly, an aww-shucks self-congratulatory plotline straight out of the old MacGyver series. If the studio was really aiming for controversial blasphemy, they should have had Jesus paired together with Chris Tucker or David Spade for that other kind of studio-approved, crowd-pleasing action flick.

I would have thoroughly enjoyed The Da Vinci Code if the writer (whether novelist or screenwriter) took his storyline more seriously beyond watered down commercial cliché³® Nobody likes to be force fed junk food. If you have to shove something down your audience's throat, then force-feed them broccoli?something nourishing for the mind. Agnostic, Jewish, Muslim or Christian subject matter may be controversial and a slight pain to watch because of the issues they raise. But anything that makes you think is healthy entertainment.

You can't blame Ron Howard for the poor vision; after all, he faithfully adhered to Dan Brown's lackluster material, proving himself a competent movie director but not a true visionary. (Since when do A-list filmmakers play second banana to a B-list novelist?) Dan Brown on the other hand, as the visionary here, whether through plagiarism or recyclable laziness, should grab his cross to bear. The Da Vinci Code doesn't allow you to think. Dan Brown makes you listen, then grabs you by the arm and runs away to safety.