No, I haven't read the book

I'm the one Tube commuter in London who hasn't read the book. But having now seen The Da Vinci Code film, I can't get over its two huge conceptual flaws. Of which more later.

First, an overview: the film's missing something, somehow. Despite the action moving between some terrific European cities, panoramic vistas are rare; the scenery's no more than background noise, as it would be in most American movies outside New York or LA. (That's fine for the USA, but Europe has more interesting cities.) Nor is there any sense of panic from Hanks and Tautou, despite these two normal professionals being chased across a continent by driven police and a maniacal monk. Too many McGuffins ("Not to worry, I've got a plane!") and the structure of each scene is identical: Tom and Audrey arrive at a location, Tom deciphers a clue, and then they take off with the cops in hot pursuit. Repeat about a dozen times, and you've got the movie.

But on its flaws. The opening scenes had me giggling in the dark. Imagine you've just been shot. Is your first action really to wander around the Louvre leaving cryptic clues for your friends before getting naked and arranging yourself into a Vitruvian Man pose seconds before your last breath? And where did he get the invisible ink from, anyway? OK, so it's stylish, but I had problems with this scenario. I mean, what if you didn't die - how would you explain that to the ambulance guys? "Sorry, after getting shot and everything I didn't think it'd matter if I cut a six-pointed star in my stomach." Does medical insurance cover that? I think we should be told.

Second (spoiler here): if some guy 2000 years ago really had had children, there wouldn't be a single descendant today, but tens of thousands. Something like a third of Mongolians can trace their ancestry to Ghenghis Khan, for example. Another huge conceptual flaw.

So - disappointing. But not a total waste; it's always fun seeing your own city on film. There are worse ways to spend two and a half hours.