Disappointing to say the least

Rating: 3/10 (21 May 2006)

I'll say right off, I haven't read the book. i tried, but found Dan Browns style of "Langdon drove past a monument, heres a 20 page history on it" very difficult to get into.
As such i went into this movie not sure what to expect. I had liked previous films done by Ron Howard, but i have hated everything written by Akiva Goldsman. the cast looked great, but the story didn't interest me. All the same i did end up seeing it the day it came out, because all the controversy and huge amount of advertising for this film had certainly been effective in building hype.
Unfortunately its hype that really isn't deserved. There ends up being very little to get excited over in this movie, and maybe it plays well on page, where millions of readers got hooked to this modern day holy grail quest, but translate to screen it does not.
The main problem with this film is the characters. there aren't any. instead the film makers have given us merely a bunch of people able to recite exposition. The convoluted plot demands so much explanation, the religious mythology and art history so complicated and difficult to explain to an audience, that there's really no time left for dialog about anything else. We know Langdon is meant to be the hero, but i cant for the life of me figure out why. He doesn't really do anything heroic. he doesn't really give us any insight into his character, apart from the fact he happens to be claustrophobic, which never has any relevancy towards anything.
The murder from which the whole story begins seems utterly ludicrous. An old man who is part of a secret society gets shot in the stomach, and then with his final moments to live, goes all around the giant museum that is the Louvre, painting over famous art works, hiding keys, and eventually stripping off, painting a circle with his own blood and laying in the middle of it in order to recreate another famous art work. Did it not cross his mind, while he had all this ample time to... oh i don't know... call an ambulance? or even better, ring Langdon directly and just tell him the frigging mystery? it just seems ridiculous for Pete's sake.
In spite of this insipid plot, the cast are all pretty good. Hanks does an OK job with a non existent character. Audrey Tautou is so beautiful you will ignore the fact that she doesn't get to do anything except every now and then say "what does this mean" and "what's going on?" thus allowing the other characters to go on a giant ramble to explain the historical relevancy of just about every tiny religious detail in order for the plot to make a lick of sense. Ian McKellan is just as fantastic as everyone says, as is to be expected, and manages to have fun with each and every syllable of his clunky dialog. Jean Reno and Alfred Molina really don't get anything to do, which is unfortunate for two such excellent actors.
When all is said and done, there's not much going on with this film, a pulp novel adaptation that takes itself far too seriously. I found myself drifting off towards the end, because they seem to want to end the movie at at least three separate points. i wont spoil the twist but you'll understand if you see it. a disappointing effort I'm sad to say.