What puzzles me is --
Did the review see the movie? If not, how can he write such stuff? If so, does the review think he is mature enough to see the movie but the rest of us aren't?
Am I wrong to think such things?
So, should we all have seen 'Farenheit 2000'?
And if we haven't, are we precluded from making judgements?
You're right that some might not need to be given any background whatsoever to see that the Da Vinci Code is crap. But those people don't have to read the review-- nobody is forcing them.
Brilliant people can fall for all sorts of fakery. In fact, a wise man once said there's nothing so stupid that some intellectual won't believe it-- or something like that. So it's no insult to anyone's intelligence to provide a background to it. The novel and the movie are polemical--- they're designed to make a point. If you've read the nocel, you know it sucks royally. The reason people like is the same reason they liked the Celestine Prophecy, another crappy new age book--- the message intrigues and fascinates them and,without refutation, stands as is. No immaturity or stupidity need be implied or inferred any more than I need infer those traits in someone who listens to a Clinton speech and comes away thinking "that guy's got all the answers! Damn, leftism works!"