Before actually seeing it, I try to know only enough about any movie to decide whether or not I might be interested in seeing it. In this case that included not reading the book, not really to preserve the potential thrill of the film, but more because I tend to avoid books that get over-hyped and are bound to disappoint - like pre-sold “blockbuster”movies.

With The DaVinci Code, trying to avoid the avalanche of coverage about whether or not the book and the film are a threat to Christianity has been hard. Even surfing past the teasers that suggest that every infotainment show is covering this with great seriousness is tiring.

But now, having seen the movie, I am baffled. Why all the fuss? Does no one study the history of Christianity anymore? Is it news to anyone that the divinity of Christ and how that divinity is defined has been hotly debated for centuries inside and outside of Christianity?

I apologize for the rhetorical attitude. I’ll get to the movie soon. If your faith can be shaken by a book and a movie that barely scratch the surface of the debates, schisms and doubts that are an important part of any semi-serious study of the history of Christianity, step away from the theater! Just keep your eyes focused forward in church and wait for them to cue the doctrine.

The DaVinci Code, the movie, has a logic and pacing that doesn’t feel naturally cinematic, especially in the early scenes. It plays like a movie adapted from a book. The film begins with the murder of a curator-looking type - a distinguished older gentleman - by a creepy looking monk. Then we move to Robert Langdon, professor of “symbology,” giving a lecture and slide show about symbols to a packed house in Paris.

At the book signing afterward, he is approached by a police officer who whisks him away to the Louvre, the site of the murder. The murdered man is naked on the floor, posed as DaVinci’s Vitruvian Man, surrounded by bloody writings and symbols. The investigator in charge, Capt. Fache, suspects Professor Langdon is responsible for the death.

Or so we learn when a very cute cryptologist shows up and pulls Langdon aside to warn him that he is in danger. She convinces him that he is doomed if Capt. Fache takes him in to custody, so the two escape together.

Once they are fugitives, you accept that they need to run and that something deeply conspiratorial is happening, but getting them there is some shaky movie logic. Perhaps in the book it makes sense for a man who knows he’s not guilty of murdering the naked man on the floor to run off with a woman he just met and look guilty doing so. At the movies, this kind of stunt is loudly creaky.

Performance and staging are effective. Let’s start with performances. Professor Langdon is Tom Hanks - with longish hair to suggest a bit of flamboyance - but his basic likability and ability in place. The cute cryptologist is Audrey Tatou, and she looks the part perfectly. Her accent is a bit thick and does get in the way in some of the talkier scenes. Jean Reno plays Capt. Fache, and he is well cast and gives a convincing performance. Ian McKellan, Paul Bettany and Alfred Molina are all wonderful in their roles.

The DaVinci Code looks good. Director Ron Howard is working with fabulous locations, and he’s no novice, so there are scenes that are very entertaining. But Howard is a famously nice and thoughtful guy, and you can feel as the movie goes on, that the forces behind the camera are working to make sure they are faithful to the book.

The book makes a movie that is a stop-and-start mix of speeches about religion and the church and action sequences. The puzzles, riddles and lessons about the history of the church - even though they are fictional takes on real history as often as they are bits of real history - are more entertaining and intriguing than the chase scenes and action sequences. The movie is full of murder, betrayal, politics, lies and deception. I guess I’m not supposed to reveal the secrets of the plot, though I can’t imagine that everyone doesn’t already know what they are. And there are many twists and turns.

I was entertained watching The DaVinci Code, but I was distracted the whole film waiting for something that would reasonably justify anyone getting upset about it. It’s a movie based on a novel based on centuries old debates. Even if you come to this film completely ignorant of church history, it’s a movie! Today’s audience is so cynical about everything, how could a thoughtful talking head for any church pretend that the message of this film would have any more or less influence than any other movie or book?

I really did start to think that anyone who would bother to complain about The DaVinci Code is just desperate for attention. I am gratified to see that interest in praising and complaining about the film have quieted considerably now that the film is open. It won’t surprise me if Ron Howard picks something light and fluffy next, a project without so much baggage. From my baggage point, The DaVinci Code is a bit of a disappointment.