McKellen & Bettany show...

Rating: 3/10 (5 June 2006)

I really and truly don't get it. What is it about this film that is causing any controversy or entertaining any of the poor viewers who are paying hard earned money for the privilege of seeing it? I've read the book (simplistic writing at best - nice idea though) and the film doesn't have a patch on it. And that's saying something.
First of all, Hanks as Langdon. Watch the film - does he really have any reason for being there? And the lovely Audrey Tatou - a visual treat but again, I felt there was no purpose behind her character (quite ironic considering the outcome of the FICTIONAL story). The only reason this film gets a rating from me at all is for the stellar turns from both Bettany and Sir Ian, without whom we would be left with a series of overly-dramatic flashbacks and cold chemistry. Oh, and Reno's two-dimensional Fache...please....
Of course, I knew with Ron Howard at the helm, there was likely to be some schmaltz and characteristic 'niceness' about the proceedings and I wasn't disappointed. It was a mediocre film and that, in my opinion, is worse than it being a bad film.
I know that this review reads quite harshly, but I do feel it is justified. Any of the 'controversy' is so heavily watered down that the church comes out almost totally blameless - instead, they were cruelly tricked by Teabing, for he is the true villain (add your own maniacal laughter here) who has confused and mislead the ministers and various sidekicks along the way. And what happened to Aringarosa?? When did he become a bit part? I spent most of my time at the cinema fidgeting in my seat, waiting to be engaged, either by the story-telling or the characterisation. Sadly, apart from all-too-sparse occasions, I was sorely disappointed.