2. Some of the architecture on it is gorgeous, in particular the houses. I so want to live in some of those places (at least for a while).
3. That said, I think of this movie as the hyperactive, well-groomed but not-too-bright little brother of Foucault's Pendulum. Actually -and no offense to the Code's fans, this is purely a matter of taste- it kind of feels precisely like that, like it's just too juvenile to take seriously, even if it's trying in earnest, while Foucault's Pendulum is a book you can engage as an equal, and thus find fascinating, even when you don't like it. And I probably should stop using relationship metaphors when talking about movies and books, right?
4. It's the damn twenty-first century. Anagrams aren't "codes" that you have to "break"; cryptography isn't about cute puzzles, it's about math and algorithms and engineering.
4b. I don't care if it's a design by Da Vinci and has cute chemical failsafes. It's a centuries old mechanical puzzle, dammit! Use an x-ray machine. Use ultrasound. Use an explosive devices expert. But that'd be cheating, right? That wouldn't be spiritual and knightly. Bah. I love both historical fiction and science fiction, but not contemporary fiction made with the tropes of historical fiction; misjudging the resources of our era is as bad as any other sort of anachronism.
5. Not being a religious person, I wasn't much interested on the religious arguments (no big surprise there), although I'll be willing to consider any religion that preaches against Tom Hanks' hairdo.