Potentially interesting, but heavily flawed film

Rating: 7/10 (26 May 2006)

I have not read The Da Vinci Code so this is a completely unbiased review on JUST the film, in fact I purposely avoiding reading the book so that I could see the film first. I am however half way through the prequel "Angels and Demons" which does give me an idea of the main character Robert Langdon. I don't believe as many do that Tom Hanks was miscast. In fact I think that the Langdon character is not a strong character and Hanks embodied it just like he was written. Ron Howard should be commended for taking on this project. To call it controversial is the under statement of the year. The Book has caused enough controversy and the ENORMOUS success of the film certainly ups the ante. Is the film truly as controversial as all the people are crying out about?? Well yes it is. In fact much of the same content that makes the book so intriguing, interesting, and horrifying to Catholics and Christians is completely in tact in the film and some of the better scenes and parts are exploring those facts and clues.
Tom Hanks takes the lead as Robert Langdon. A world famous Symbologist called in to take a look at a murder of the Louvre curator who appears to have pin pointed Langdon as his killer. Hanks' performance is surprisingly subtle. Hanks is one of the world's greatest actors, he can do almost anything and he can perform deep and gratifying characters but the character of Langdon is kind of vapid, and scared, and not a strong character. But Hanks does alright and he appears intelligent enough to look like a scientist of sorts. Audrey Tautou plays Sophie Neveu, the granddaughter of the murder victim who dedicates herself to helping Langdon figure out her Grandfather's murder. Tautou is quite good and far more emotional than even Hanks' performance. They have decent chemistry although their growing romance never plays a part in the film which is okay. She was a good choice for the role and does a great job. Jean Reno who I very much respect as a decent character actor plays Police Inspector in charge of the investigation. His character has no depth at all, and is quite dull so unfortunately Reno comes across as such. He's not a bad guy, he's not a good guy, and although it would appear he has heavy involvement with the cover-up it never plays out that way. He's mostly useless. Paul Bettany is getting heavy flack for playing religious fighter and albino Silas. I think his performance is excellent. He's obviously insane but deeply determined to fight for his beliefs and his higher power. Bettany is the character with the most depth and he's captivating to watch and makes the best villain in the film if he's really a villain at all?? And finally one of the great performances is by Sir Ian Mckellen. He plays lifelong searcher of the Holy Grail, Leigh Teabing. One of the absolute highlights of the film is Teabing's rather lengthy monologue discussing all the clues and signs of the hidden Grail and the cover up, "The Con of Man." McKellen is captivating especially when he has a good script and a strong character and several of his scenes in Da Vinci are very powerful and he also has some rather campy scenes but his performance is still very good.
There is no doubt that much of the film is confusing. There are so many sects fighting for different sides of the secret, it gets very confusing who is what and who wants what but then that is Dan Brown's style. You really have to watch closely or read closely and take it all in. The film has very nice scenery all shot on location in their actual spots...France, The Louvre, Germany...it definitely make it all feel very real. But the story does feel rushed at times which is amazing considering it's 2 1/2 hour time frame but the book is huge and there is a lot to process. On top that the acting and story at times feels campy and overdone and that's an odd move for this film which should be deadly serious. There isn't a lot of action which I expected more adventure maybe along the lines of Indiana Jones...I mean it is a fictional story at the heart. Langdon needed to be a stronger star and perhaps some more serious content...many even the book could have been a trilogy of sorts instead of cutting and editing the full book to a small movie by comparison.
It is controversial, and it is worth seeing, and it has some very interesting points but overall the acting is sub par, the characters are flawed and the plot is chock full of holes. But if you just want to see something a little more intelligent than the average thriller you might enjoy it. It won't stick around for long. 7/10