Solid, faithful adaptation, which presents some beautiful portrayals, a little gritty action, and a compelling story.

Rating: 10/10 (23 May 2006)

WARNING: SPOILERS AT THE BOTTOM!
First off, this review is concerning the movie, not the book itself.
I will begin with the casting. There has been a lot said over the past year or so since the casting list was unveiled, expressing misgivings concerning what has been called the "miscasting" of Tom Hanks in the role as Robert Langdon. I am happy to report that earlier misgivings were completely unfounded. Tom Hanks delivers a performance reminiscent of his earlier days when he was more relaxed in his execution, and seems to have rediscovered his remarkable talents.
Ian McKellen contributes a believability to his performance, which is so strong, as to make you consider (if only for a brief while) whether or not he has personal interest in the Grail. He was remarkable as Leigh Teabing, but would you really expect anything less of him? Certainly not!
Audrey Tautou gave a refreshingly capable performance as Agent Sophie Neveu. She portrayed her character with a polished professionalism one might not expect from a relative newcomer to the world of American films. Of course, people who think like that are in for a rude awakening, and Audrey Tautou is just the one to give it to them.
Jean Reno enacted a character which goes through some heart-felt changes. He does so with a style and grace amid the action sequences involving French Police Captain Fache in a portrayal which is reminiscent of his riveting spot lit performance as the Professional. The principle difference between the two characters, and Reno's enactment of them, is that there is much more time for character development in the Professional wherein the audience may get to "know" the character. In the DaVinci Code, Fache's (pronounced Fash, by the way) character was one of peripheral standing and, therefore, there was very little in the way of opening character development where his character was concerned. He manages quite succinctly, however, to give you enough of the back-story of his motivations and motives to allow you a brief window into the many-faceted man who is Captain Fache. His performance was possibly one of his best, to date.
And that leaves Paul Bettany. I was concerned, never having seen him portray such a complex character as Silas. I am here to apologize for my earlier misgivings. He portrayed Silas dead on. The raw (and sometimes confused and clouded) emotion he exhibited was spot on and we, the audience, found a certain reality in his portrayal. He was brilliant.
And after all that, I still feel the need to say that Ron Howard was the real star of this work. His choices of camera angles, filming techniques, effects, and overall direction shine through it all in such a way as to solidly cement his name into the list of top directors. Some would argue that he was already there, and he was. But he is affirmed, confirmed, and reaffirmed as one of the best directors in the world.
The work itself was an extremely faithful adaptation. It was gritty, and had us completely involved in the story, even though we were all fans of the book, and already knew what to expect. The execution of the action was shockingly realistic. I would not take children under 16 to see this, personally, and would have to think a bit before subjecting a 16-year-old to it. Silas's use of the cilice (which, according to my dictionary, is a hair-coat much like Robbie Coltrane wears while filming Harry Potter) and self flagellation is quite graphic. However, if they have seen the Passion of the Christ, then they can most definitely handle this.
As far as the subject matter goes, this is neither the time, nor the place for that discussion. I will say that this work of fiction fully utilizes the potential presented by the prior historical research upon which it was based; namely, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." It is a work of fiction lovingly interwoven throughout some compelling historical hypotheses presented by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln in their aforementioned published historical work.
The Catholic Church has issued condemnation after condemnation of this work. They should know better than to condemn a movie, by now. All it does is raise the box office sales, by piquing the interest in people who normally would have no desire to see the work. It bestowed such a high level of exposure that many people who never would have even heard of it, are now going to see it.
Opus Dei has also wrongly condemned the movie for portraying them in a less than favorable light. That is not the case. It is made quite clear that Silas's mental stability is not only in question, but is doubtful. I was obviously just an opportunistic grab for their fifteen minutes of fame, than any true objection they may have had to the film at large.
SPOILERS
Book fans may be interested in knowing that there were four scenes omitted from the cinematic version. These scenes had no determination or bearing to the outcome of the story, and were therefore not missed...merely noticed. Namely, Sophie never puts it together that her grandmother was the woman who was with her grandfather during the rite. And she is not told (at least not in our presence) that the gap-toothed boy who attends Roslyn Chapel is her brother. You are shown the photo of the boy as a child, and you realize (if you've read the book) that it is her brother, but they never say it. The Madonna on the Rocks sequences were omitted for time. The ending is different than the novelized version, but more enjoyable.
END SPOILERS!!
That not withstanding, The DaVinci Code is highly enjoyable, regardless of your religious views. It is a work of FICTION, and as such, was entertainingly engrossing.
It rates a 9.8/10 from...
the Fiend :.