"It's One Of Those Read The Book & Skip The Movie Types"

Rating: 6/10 (19 May 2006)

The Da Vinci Code, based on the massively popular book by the same name, sees Robert Langdon sent to a murder scene to investigate certain symbols left by the victim. What Langdon figures out though, could destroy Christianity and his life.
The Da Vinci Code is a cultural phenomenon, which almost everyone has read. So it's no surprise that they want to get a movie out there for the people who are too lazy to read the books, but here it's an obvious case of cashing in on the money that the book has earned. Much like Passion Of The Christ, you can tell that the filmmakers hope that it's controversy is the key to it's success. It's a shame to say that it's one of those read the book and skip the movie.
I've read the book, been to it's locations and believe in Jesus Christ, so I really enjoyed the book. With Ron Howard giving us the motion picture, my hopes that the film making a good translation to screen were still up in the air. After finally seeing the film, I've come to realize that the book is indeed better then the movie. The main reason behind this would be because the film itself felt rushed. It felt like it was still trying to cash in on the book's success, it just so happens that it leaves the viewer wondering what all the fuss is about. If they haven't read the book that is.
Da Vinci is the weakest film out of the Hanks and Howard collaboration. Hanks still doesn't seem to fit the title character of Langdon. No, it's not the hair, it's just that when I'm watching the film I see TOM HANKS, not Robert Langdon. Hanks aside, everyone else seems to fit their roles perfectly. I enjoyed Reno as the french police officer Fache and adored Tautou as Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen does a good job as well, although I thought he was more comical then his character should be. Molina is barely used in the film, but out of everyone, it's Paul Bettany who shines here. Bettany showed his acting chops in Gangster No. 1, here he steals the screen. Unlike Hanks, Bettany becomes his character sends chills down some spines.
The film is true to the book, but I could of sworn I remember a lot more stuff happening in the book then what was showed in the film. Granted, you can't transfer everything from page to screen, but it seems like they didn't really care for the material. The most important and entertaining part of the book seems to fly by here. I was also very turned off by the scenes that showed Langdon looking at certain things that weren't there. Hologram like images that play out in his mind and to the viewer, but are invisible to everyone else.
The score was impressive, it's one of the few highlights in the film. The book itself was a page turner and never seemed to slow down, the film doesn't slow down either, but with a 2 1/2 hour running time it does hit you in your seats. National Treasure I said felt like a Da Vinci Code ripoff, but Treasure was the better film of the two. It was more adventurous then Code, which to me, even with it's beautiful locations, seemed confined.
Howard is a good director, and if he actually took the time to make a good film here he could have had a success, unfortunately his rushed attempt to get the film in theatres shows. As does the acting, which is quite embarrassing at some points. The controversy surrounding the film should die down when people realize that the film isn't that great, as should it's box office intake. If they do decide to make Angels and Demons, I'll go to see it, as it was the better book and should make the better movie.