The short answer is: someone made a near enough to duplicate as makes no difference film version of the Da Vinci Code novel. As a result, there is nearly nothing new to say from what I said a year ago.
Slightly longer answer: good realization of the sets and props described in the novel, with film improving the prose at most every step. Possibly better explanations of things, certainly not in a way that made me think any of the characters were stupider than they ought to be, much unlike the book. I can’t recall the book’s dialogue well enough to compare that bit. Somewhat actiony, extremely sacreligious if you are a lot of people, approximately as much information density as a 30 minute Discovery special on the topic. As movies go, it was really quite good. Also, Sir Ian was cool, like always. And the bad guy reveal was not nearly so clumsy as I thought it was in the book, or else maybe I was able to see the foreshadowing better. But I doubt it; I think the foreshadowing was actually presented better, instead. Advantage: Ron Howard!
Personally, I thought the foreshadowing was “beat me over the head with a keystone” obvious. The structure of the story demanded that the hidden leader of the conspiracy be someone in plain sight, and that left a *very* limited pool in the movie. Likewise, if you didn’t suspect Fbcuvr’f Ynfg Fpvba Fgnghf by the end of Act One, you should probably seek out a new clue stick supplier. Anyway, I haven’t read the book, and I thought it was a slightly dull thriller with some really bizarre plot holes, so I guess that puts me in with a lot of other folks.