So dull the con of man...

Rating: 6/10 (20 May 2006)

Before I begin, I will state that Dan Brown is a lame author with a weak style who happened upon an old Gnostic theory and made it mainstream. His clichÃ© plot structuring made for a very dull read, with a few moments of intrigue scattered throughout. So with such a weak source to work from, this movie was almost certainly doomed to suck or achieve mediocrity at best. It would have been better served as a documentary on the History Channel.
I will certainly say that Ron Howard did a somewhat respectable job of bringing this tripe to the big screen. In fact, many of the methods I observed in this film seemed to be more creative than usual for Howard, probably due to the lack of creativity in the source material. I would go so far as to call some scenes almost downright impressive to watch, coupled with Hans Zimmer's tragically beautiful score, such as the very final scene in the film.
Tom Hanks fills his role very methodically, as he always portrays himself. That was no surprise. I did notice a lack of personality on behalf of the other actors, most notably in Ian McKellan and Jean Reno who also seem to "fall short" of interesting. Again, I will blame the source material, because these are very highly respected actors with great experience, and a very colorful resume. Because of the controversial nature of the film, perhaps it was intended that everyone be cast as cold and stoic as possible, so as not to "overshadow" the cold logic of the plot.
To sum it all up, this movie was inevitable with its book's bestselling status, almost certainly bound to suck, damned by the critics for its absurdity, and a great way to sell more copies of this detestably bad book.