Just not that good...

Rating: 4/10 (21 May 2006)

So I saw the Howard/Hanks collabo having already read the book and feeling that it was a very entertaining piece of fiction. With that understanding, I entered the movie hoping that the filmmakers could credit the human race with enough intelligence to realize that since this is a MOVIE, its value is ENTERTAINMENT (for the most part). Unfortunately, we have not earned that credit, so instead the movie is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and so wrapped up in presenting the movie without upsetting anyone that the opportunity awarded to a controversial film to open lines of communication is completely overlooked in light of the low quality of the film itself. I am very curious as to what happened to the Oscar-winning Hanks as well. I'm still not sure if the role was just not right for him, or if he just realized half-way through filming that he didn't want to be there anymore. Audrey Tautou didn't do a bad job, but the Sophie character is written so weak, I felt sorry for her the entire time. In replacing Dan Brown's strong female counterpoint with the weak woman so dependent on Langdon, I find a certain sad irony. The ideas presented by the Da Vinci Code are revolutionary partly because they back-up the idea that women are strong, powerful beings forced into a role of subservience by the men who lead the Church. It must really stink for a woman today to be feeling those same outdated pressures in Hollywood. As for the rest of the film, the cinematography was OK, Ian McKellan was a riot (just because he could be, was the only real spark in film), and the two and a half hour running time was uncalled for, especially with this dragging storyline. SO DISAPPOINTING.