Da Vinci Code Puzzle: Who Should Be The Leading Man?

I have to admit, I've been surprised at the amount of tepid reviews I've been reading of the much-anticipated The Da Vinci Code film. After reading the book, I genuinely felt that the movie had potential to be so much better. There was a lot of room for character development, since the book pretty much nixed that, and I thought the puzzles and problem-solving antics of the protagonists during a one-night race against death-by-psychotic-albino-monk would be a surefire recipe for guaranteed thriller.

As it happens--only VERY occasionally, mind you--I seem to have been wrong.

A quick glance at The Da Vinci Code page of movie-review site rottentomatoes will show you what I mean. "Average," "jumbled," "joyless," "inert" and (my favorite) "not very good" were some of the adjectives I came across in the excerpted blurbs from various articles. Which is rather a shame in a way... because the book really did keep you on the edge of your seat, wanting to find out what would happen next. And regardless of whether or not you agree with the premise, or what you think of Dan Brown's literary abilities, it was an intriguing tale.

Oh well. If you see the movie, let me know what you think! I probably won't bother, because I know how it ends. Also, I have a confession to make.

I am not an uber-fan of Tom Hanks.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a good actor--but it really does depend on the role. Road to Perdition (fantastic film), Catch Me If You Can, Sleepless in Seattle and The Money Pit were all great Tom Hanks performances, if you ask me. You will notice I didn't say Forrest Gump, and that's because I think that movie is so boring, I've never watched it all the way through. I also didn't say Castaway, for the same reason. But anyway, regardless of his cinematic successes, I definitely don't think I'd have cast him as Dan Brown's intrepid professor of symbology.

I'd have picked... well, let's see. John Cusack could maybe have pulled it off. He's charming, and very good at acting like a guy not quite in his element and uncomfortably aware of the fact. He's also good-looking without being gorgeous. I could see him as an academic of an obscure branch of study caught in the middle of a murder investigation and an assassination plot. Oh, and a romance-on-the-run. Can't you?

Or what about Gabriel Byrne? He could definitely be a professor-type, and would bring a level of intensity to the whole search-for-the-Holy-Grail theme. Also, he has a cool accent. But... on second thought, I think he would bring too much seriousness to the role. Too much self-loathing. He always seems to feel like he loathes himself, doesn't he? I mean, it just oozes out of his characters. It's sad, really. I'm sad for him now. Let's not cast him in The Da Vinci Code after all.

Oh wait, no one did. Well, that's good.

But hang on! Hold the presses! I've got it--HUGH JACKMAN. Sexy, smart, and incredibly straight teeth. Yes! He's the one, no doubt about it. He would have been a perfect Robert Langdon, Harvard professor. Indiana Jones without the bull-whip, pistol, and leather jacket. Er, and random sidekicks like Short Round. (Why was that kid ok with being called Short Round? He was short, but he wasn't round! How weird.)

Anyway, you can't tell me Jackman wouldn't make a good choice. Or you can try, but I will stick my fingers in my ear and la-la-la at you til you go away or come around to my way of thinking. It's the mature almost-31-yr-old in me, what can I say.

Hmmm. Now I'm all annoyed that Hugh Jackman isn't in the movie.

Well, who would you pick for the leading role in the hottest blockbuster-that-might-not-be this summer?