disappointingly under-par...

Rating: 5/10 (26 May 2006)

I don't quite know what I expected from this film before seeing it, but whatever it was - it wasn't there. I left with a feeling of general disappointment that was only slightly masked by a few notable exceptions.
For me, the best aspect of the book is not the story itself(which is a very poorly adapted take on a widely documented theme), but rather the background narrative. The information presented on symbology and religious interactions over various points of history is what makes the book so gripping to read, because they encourage the reader to think and, even if in just a small way, change their outlook on some very widely accepted misconceptions.
And this is where the movie falls down, in order to transfer the plot on to the screen, almost all of this information is left out and, In turn, is replaced by very average character interactions and dialogue. While better than I originally expected, Tom Hank's portrayal of Robert Langdon is, to be blunt, wooden, and Jean Reno's character is in no way written to allow his acting ability to shine. The only performances worth mentioning were those of Paul Bettany as Silas, and Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing. In contrast to the rest of the movie these two roles were played outstandingly and turned what could have been 2 hours of drivel into something worth watching, if only the once. In fact, those 2 performances were the only reason why I rated this movie a 5.
Wit the removal of most of the afore-mentioned side information, the movie becomes what the book would have been without it, a badly-written narrative with a few saving graces. With the casting of a number of big names, the film may have given itself a certain amount of prestige, but that alone does not a movie make.] If you have nothing better to do it's worth watching, but don't expect anything special.