The Da Vinci Code

Not as good as the book! The acting was a bit hammy in parts.

Cut out most of the DanBrown flair.

On a side note: The book is a 100% must read!

One of the most talked about novels of recent years has given the Hollywood treatment. This adaptation of the Dan Brown best selling novel was one of the most anticipated films of 2006, but the important question is, did it live up to all its hype?

After the murder of a Museum curator in the Louve, the truth behind a 2000-year-old secret is about to be unveiled. Symbologist Robert Langdon is called in to shed some light of what has happened. Cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, the granddaughter of the creator murdered, Jacques Sauni re, does no believe this is just a murder. Before he died, Sauni re hid a series of clues, involving the pentagram, Leonardo's Mona Lisa to lead these characters to the truth. After solving the initial clues, the pair unlock a safety deposit box, inside which is a rosewood container containing a cryptex: a cylindrical container which can only be opened with a code word, and holds a parchment message inside. Using force to open the cryptex would break a vial of vinegar inside, which would dissolve the parchment and destroy the message. Now wanted criminals, it isn't long before the police turn up at the bank. They head to the home of Leigh Teabing, who may be of assistance to opening the cryptex. Leigh explains the secrets of the Holy Grail are as follows:

The figure at the right hand of Jesus is Mary Magdalene

Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ and was pregnant with his child when Jesus was crucified.

The absence of a chalice in the Last Supper painting supposedly indicates Leonardo knew Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail

The Old French expression for the Holy Grail, San gr al, is a play on Sang r al, which literally means "royal blood" in Old French.

The Grail relics consist of the documents that testify to the bloodline, as well as the actual bones of Mary Magdalene.

The Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar were organized to keep the secret.

The Catholic Church has spent two thousand years not merely concealing this but enforcing its distaste for the feminine.

After being chased through London by French police and a psychopath albino monk, Sibila's, Langdon and Sophie come across a place where the Holy Grail used to reside. Here, Sophie finds her grandfather's associates who encourage her to stay with them for the truth. Back in France, a light bulb goes off in Langdon's head and he soon discovers that the Holy Grail is back where the story began, in the Louve.

Verdict

Although Hanks as Professor Robert Langdon leaves a fair amount to be desired, he is his usual chameleon type self, totally immersing himself in the character. Ian McKellen, as Grail expert Leigh Teabing, injects some life into the affair through the simple glee he brings to the role. He is truly excited to be part of something he has worked his entire life for. Tatou as the code-busting French police officer models a discreetly professional style. Sophie Neveu is plausible and keeps the couple one step ahead of anyone else.

Critical response to this film was mostly negative, and thus failed to live up to the hype it received. Because of some controversial interpretations of Christian history, both the book and movie have been the target of criticism by the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the early showings were accompanied by protesters outside the movie theatres, and early critical reviews were decidedly mixed. Many critics described the film as boring, full of absurd plot twists, and excessively anti-Christian and unhistorical. This movie is based on a fictional story. Why people need to express hatred over this because of their religious beliefs is beyond me. No one is saying that Christianity is wrong, and that this story is right. The book is classified as FICTION, not THEOLOGY!

Even with all the criticism, this didn't stop the film from becoming a HUGE success. Millions of readers, including myself, have read Dan Brown's Vatican conspiracy thriller and loved it; hence we loved the film too. They did a great job adapting the book to film, and although not everything was there, they did the best they could, and I was impressed. I did prefer the book ending to the movie version though. Watching the film put a new perspective on the book, since your imagination makes things very different reading them as to watching them. Seeing the movie allowed me to look at it differently, which made it all that more exciting.

In the film, we are invited to believe that the Catholic church has been preserving the idea that Christ was wholly divine, while a secret society of good men (Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Louvre's Jacques Sauniere among them) have been protecting the descendants of a human Christ and his bride, Mary Magdalene, embodiment of the eternal feminine. I am a Christian, and love the film. That is exactly what it is, a made up tale. Although, most stories do have elements of truth inter laid between them, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one does.

I think this film was always going to be popular with some and unpopular with others. Just like with the Harry Potter films. People who read the books first aren't usually very impressed with the films, and people who haven't read the books usually enjoy the films.

I read lots of books and am quite well read. However, I have never been able to read the Da Vinci code. I have picked it up to read several times and usually a book of this size takes me a couple of days max. But I simply can't get past the first chapter of this book because I find it so boring and so dense.

This puts me in a unique position to be able to judge this film simply as a film, whereas most people will be comparing it fastidiously to the book.

I liked it. I understand how universally acclaimed the book is and the strength of the plot definitely comes across in the film, and is not, in my opinion, ruined by poor acting or tedious dialogue.

I think because lots of Dan Brown's books are popular, not just one, then lots of the popularity must be for his style of writing and his ability as a storyteller. Therefore, people might be criticizing the film because Dan Brown's influence has been lost, despite this being no fault of the film or director.

Honestly though, I can't really say because I obviously haven't read the book.

The acting is absolutely fine, and I don't think Tom Hanks has ever done a bad job in a film.

Some of the plot seems a bit forced, and maybe this is covered by Dan Brown's flair in the books, but overall this a very engaging film which I definitely enjoyed.

Finally, a film is always going to be different from the book on which it was based, because the author's way of writing cannot be replicated on the screen. So this might account for the hostile reception this film received. But, being able to rate this film as a film alone, I honestly think its an engaging, enjoyable film and is definitely a film you should watch. If for anything, just so you can join in with the book v. film arguments with people.

All reviews are subjective and based on perrsonal taste, especially movies and books. As I am not an avid reader (4 books per year), I can honestly say that after reading the book and seeing the movie afterwards, books ARE always better than their movie counterparts.

Tom Hanks didn't fill the role of the main character as I had envisioned while reading the book, not to mention his hair.

Honestly, if you didn't read the book, the movie could really be dull in spots and drag on.

Although the movie followed the book very closely, the book seemed much more exciting and stimulating. The movie tries to be deep in certain parts, but comes off more like a skewed history lesson on the church.

Rent this one or borrow it from a friend before you buy it.

The Da Vinci Code, while staying loyal to the very readable book, somehow manages to be surprisingly dull. In fact it is so much like the book that there seems little point in, having read it, seeing it. That being said, It is hard to see how this on-screen adaptation could have been any better, it being scripted and acted relatively well. It seems that Dan Brown's best-seller just didn't translate to big-budget cinema.

What a great book The Da Vinci Code is, unfortunately it was turned into a mediocre film!

Do yourself a favour and read the book instead, along with Angels and Demons, which is even better!

Unlike most people I waited for the The Da Vinci Code film and found it quite plausible and at times quite believable. People who read the book first would always be comparing them. If this had been a straight forward Holywood film (not based on a book) it would have got far better reviews. The acting is really strong especially from Sir Ian and the storyline? Who can really say for sure Davy

The Da Vinci Code is rubbish and if you think it is not then I seriously question your judgement. Maybe you like being bored and listening to indecipherable nonsense being talked.

Would I recommend the Da Vinci Code? Tough question. If you have read the book then I would say you should give the film a go to see how it plays out onto the big screen. If you've not read it then I think you'd wonder what all the fuss was about judging from this film.

I have to admit I was looking forward to this film in a big way and felt pretty letdown by it at some points. The film starts off well enough but by the end, unfortunately, you just want them to wrap it up and call it a night.

My main gripes concerned the pacing and how Howard fluffed scenes that would have been perfect for the movie. There are many chaptors in the book that we're seemingly 'made for film' which were simply rushed over and not handled at all well - the car chase amongst other things comes to mind here. I think Howard spent too much time on the historical elements of the story rather than the 'action' scenes and as a result the film is a bit one paced. There is also a complete lack of suspense and there was only one moment in the entire film that made me jump or caught me off guard.

I also have a few problems with the casting, Tautau and Hanks have zilcho chemistry and I have to say that Hanks was pretty wooden throughout - I don't think he grasped the Langdon character at all. Paul Bettany was also the wrong choice for Silas - he looked more peroxide blonde than Albino and there wasn't enough menace surrounding a potentially great character. Jean Reno was good, but he played Fache in an understated manner, from my grasp of the book Fache was quite the opposite - a loud bulldozer who would mow down anything in his way! So, for me personally, this approach was a bit disappointing. On the flipside Sir Ian was magnificent as Teabing and really encapsulated my vision of the character.

On the whole I thought some of the characters were wasted - mainly Silas, Fache and Collette. These key players weren't given enough screen time and this did leave me disappointed.

I think the Da Vinci Code isn't as bad as some people have suggested, but for a die hard fan, I was somewhat letdown by it.