I read it a couple years ago and I liked it, for what it is. There's a lot of belief to be suspended in it -- not least of which is a middle-aged man running around solving puzzles concealed for centuries in a week on two hours' sleep -- but that's what adventure fiction is for.

I take your point about wooden dialog and stereotyped minor characters. Yet, when one examines the genre, he doesn't do too badly. Consider Tom Clancy, another best-seller: he only has one character. For real complexity in intrigue-driven plots, give me Len Deighton or John LeCarre every time. For historical depth, I'll take Ellis Peters or Lindsey Davis.

Literature, it's not. Literature gives us insight into the human condition, and The DaVinci Code has little of that. But if I want literature, I infrequently find it on the NYT Bestseller List, even if it is the NYT. The NYT Book Review, yes.

Haven't seen the movie yet. I find reviews interesting as a form of literature in themselves, but usually use them for professional purposes rather than to guide my viewing. To read contemporary reviews of what we now recognize as great works -- literary, artistic, musical and cinematic -- can provide a lot of laughs. Reviewers can get things sooooo wrong.

The reason to go see the movie at this point is to join the discussion about the movie. I might go because I like Tom Hanks, actually.