Uninspired drivel

Rating: 3/10 (6 November 2006)

I'm going to be brutally honest here; I never liked the book "The Da Vinci Code". It was not the absurd plot or its brazen slurring of religious faith that caught my distaste, as many similar trashy novels have been produced and I have enjoyed them. None of them are especially thought provoking but they provided mild entertainment on long train journeys. However, Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I disliked mainly because of diabolical rhetorical and linguistic techniques employed by the author. The characters were utterly flat and impossible to care about, in particular the appalling "British" upper-class stereotype of Sir Leigh Teabing whose dialogue consists of several "I say"s plenty of "Old chap"s and even one "Tally-ho!" Like so many American writers and actors he bases his entire knowledge of British accents on "Mary Poppins" and "Jeeves and Wooster" oblivious to the fact that British people have not spoken like this for one hundred years.
You may wonder why I have chosen to disclose my opinions on the book when IMDb is a film website, and the reason is that I find in order to build up an honest review of the film you must first understand my outlook towards the book. You might think that my distaste of the book meant I entered the cinema with a closed mind, hating it before I had even seen it; however that is not the case. After all, I have already mentioned that it was not the plot or the anti-religious sentiment which I disliked but merely the way it was written. In fact when reading it I kept thinking that it would work far better as a film, providing the script and actors were up to scratch. After learning from the early previews that Tom Hanks, Sir Ian McKellen and Jean Reno were to be in the film I entered the cinema with high hopes as to the success of the film. I was certainly expecting an entertaining film; perhaps even a *good* film. Unfortunately this was not the case The word which springs to mind when watching this film is "uninspired". Every aspect of the film reeks of "dull" and I spent a great deal of my time watching it checking my watch struggling to keep awake. Aside from the self-flagellation scene performed by Paul Bettany, not a single scene for the film had me on the edge of my seat, for the most of the film I was as far into my seat as it was possible to get.
The script is almost straight from the book, which is not necessarily a bad thing as I have already said, I thought the book could have worked in film format, however when the script is said through actors who just look *bored* it contributes to the bland feel of the film. Tom Hanks' performance is beyond disappointing, having loved his acting in "The Terminal" and "Forrest Gump" he gives us 149 minutes of yawns. Of course, not all blame can be placed on him as Dan Brown's character of Robert Langdon was such an empty shell in the first place it would have taken a god among actors to fill it. That brings me on to the only redeeming feature of the film: Ian McKellen. I have already mentioned the dreadful stereotype of Sir Leigh Teabing which Dan Brown offers as a "character" so for an actor to take that and turn it into someone with a believable, and identifiable personality is utterly incredible acting feat.
Many did not like this film (and the book) because of the daft plot and the anti-religious sentiment, but those two aspects have never stopped a film being dismal before. Films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" are still enjoyable even with the two factors stated above. The reason *I* didn't like the book and the film was because of the soulless, characterless piece presented. I was hoping for an improvement over the book, sadly I was wrong.