sigh

Rating: 3/10 (21 May 2006)

well we all knew it was coming didn't we? the film of the book of the hype of the court case of the various spin offs and the questionable is it true is it not true plot? so does Ron Howard's adaptation live up to the media frenzy that has been dan browns bread and butter for so long? well not in my eyes.
the book is very well paced and reasonably well written, but its success lies from the characters and engaging storyline that whips along at a frenzied pace that makes any avid reader not wanting to put it down.
the film however....ouch. simply by looking at it, the da vinci code should be one of the greatest films this year. the cast itself is surely enough to make most film-goers dribble, but alas, its just painful to sit through this movie.
although visually the film is relatively awe inspiring, the locations are well shot and provide ample amounts of mystery and intrigue, the film just suffers from trying to cram in too much plot and not enough character development. i recognise that the story far outweighs the necessity to create believable likable characters, but Howard seems to have disregarded cause for controversy and provided us with a watered down thriller that seems to create no more excitement than your average Tomb Raider movie.
Hanks is wooden and uninspiring as the supposed 'brain' behind symbols and cults, mumbling his way through educating Totou in the ways of symbology and codices. He consistently looks tired and rarely raises his voice to hearing level which dissipates any love for the character i had (although seeing the mickey mouse watch did make me feel that Howard had not completely killed the part).
Alfred Molina seems to waver between cockney London and some kind of Italian accent, but still seems to save some face with his representation of the misguided Bishop Aringarosa. Overall the screen time given to him didn't really give us much of a clue as to his reasons behind wanting to crush the myth of the holy grail, he just seemed to suddenly shout loudly at a poor member of the council of shadows, spill some wine and then we don't see him for 40 minutes.
The saviours of this film that make it in some way remotely watchable are Paul Bettany and Sir Ian McKellan. Bettanys' sheer passion and manically committed Silas is incredibly engaging and plays it with such malice and focus that he literally jumps off the screen. His undoing at the climax of the film almost brings a tear to your eye as you literally see his face crumble at the realisation of being duped. McKellan again rises to the challenge of the role of Teabing bordering on obsessive grail researcher with just that right level of insanity, and his one-liners bring the film out of its monotonous tone.
Quite simply, some of the scenes were baffling, not due to plot, but Howard's decision to merge the past with present in oddly directed montages. images from the past literally seem to dance around the present characters which completely contradicts the dark and bleak tone of the film. it would be like watching a musical number halfway through a Hitchcock film.
all in all this will appeal to some, but if it wasn't for the storyline, this film would be classed as your average Indiana Jones ripoff.