Literal film version of the book. Pity it's not in chapters.

Rating: 2/10 (23 May 2006)

Unfortunately, the biggest thing The DaVinci Code had going for it was that it was a book.
It deals with an awful lot of pseudo-history and religious reference that takes a lot of going through. This is fine if you're reading a book - pick it up, read a chapter, put it down.
You can't do that if you watch a movie at the cinema. You are forced to endure the whole lot in one sitting, and with this film, that's like being force-fed cement.
This film is, admittedly, an almost perfect translation of the book. Everything is in there and, having visited Temple Church, Rosslyn Chapel, the Louvre and Newton's tomb, I have to say, it looks exactly as I envisioned it when I read the novel. A pity about the cast though.
Tom Hanks - Not at ALL what I pictured Langdon to be. I saw him as more bookish and distinguished. Certainly not the anonymous, slightly lumpy-faced nobody that Hanks is. His acting was average, but in no way spectacular or Oscar-winning (Bad luck, Tom. Better luck next movie) Audrey Tautou - Wooden. Spends half the movie with a silly half-pout on her face, shaking her head in disbelief, muttering exclamations in French under her breath (encore, 'Incroyable!'). Having watched her in Amelie and seen how wonderfully expressive and emotional this talented actress can be, this is a real low point for her and I hope she is suitably mature to be able to say at a later date that she was only in this because she is the most familiar Franch actress to the worldwide movie-going public at present and that she is not proud of the performance. Jean Reno - Another stable, typical but ultimately unsatisfying performance from Reno. Nothing to write home about here, although I nearly laughed when he starts crying in the aircraft hangar after confessing to a colleague (who is already aware of the fact) that he is a member of Opus Dei and that he feels he has failed God!!! Reno doesn't cry. He shouldn't cry. His tear ducts were removed at birth. Paul Bettany - Considering his character is so one-dimensional and unsympathetic, Bettany does a good job. Achieving some small pathos as the albino assassin-monk and delivering lines in Latin with a decent accent for the entire film. Not too sure about the dodgy contact lenses, but, hey, that's the effects department's fault. Al Molina - Great performance from a very underrated actor. Far improved from his pitiful Doctor Octopus in Spiderman 2, Molina conveyed a pretty good sense of religious power doing everything it can to maintain a rigid grip over the sheep it leads. Ian McKellen - OK. Where do I start. This film degenerated into comedy whenever he was on screen. Having seen McKellen on stage many times in the last 20 years I am disappointed that he now chooses some of the hammiest roles offered him in Hollywood. Better than Magneto in X-Men, not as good as Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings, his character in the book didn't come across at all as his interpretation on screen. I did fel, however that he does deserve some commendation for lightening this film, which would be truly turgid and sluggish without some comic relief which he supplied in buckets.
So, if you've read the book, you know exactly what to expect. If you haven't you'll be either a) Laughing out loud at the ridiculous premise of the entire story (If you know anything at all about the sorts of religious mythology and symbolism being served up here) or b) Bored out of your mind trying to remember who's good, who's bad, what's going on, what the symbolism means, wondering if you've missed something.
A great film for being true to the book, but as a stand alone movie, dull and uninspiring.