Forrest Gump meets the Holy Grail

Rating: 5/10 (30 May 2006)

I read the book and truly enjoyed it. Furthermore I understood it and that includes all the characters, plot twists and so on and so forth. I found it to be better than Brown's "Angels and Demons" which. in my opinion, should be read first in order to get a grip on all the Vatican deeds and misdeeds. At any rate, I urge anyone intending to see "DaVinci" to FIRST READ THE BOOK because if not, then the film will become ultra ultra confusing, hard to follow and BORING. Come to think of it, even though I read it, it still was confusing, hard to follow and boring.
Tom Hanks is definitely miscast. He had a rather astonished look about him throughout the 2:29 minutes. It was if he was trying to tell us,"You know...that DaVinci fellow is like a box of chocolates. You never can tell what you're gonna get." The hero of it all, Dr.Robert Langdon,is a world famous symbologist and Mr. Hanks came across as a "simpologist." Although he's one of Hollywood's great actors, he simply does not convince as the type of egghead Langdon is supposed to be. Audrey Tatou, one of the French "fuzz" looks innocent, cute and pixyish enough to be able to walk on water but would have made a better race car driver than a detective but you'll have to see the movie to figure out my symbolic metaphors. On the other hand, Ian McKellen who plays Sir Leigh Teabing, an expert on the mysterious society called the Priory of Scion, steals the show. He does a superb job even though it does NOT totally reflect what he's all about in the novel. Close but no cigar. Jean Reno,playing Captain Bezu Fache, a man with a secret and who acts the part of someone in charge of the French version of the Keystone Cops, does an adequate job but I still prefer Mack Sennett's Keystone Cops. Paul Bettany, acting as the murderous Opus Dei monk, Silas,is indeed convincingly frightening even though Opus Dei Headquarters in New York has stated that, in truth, they are as sweet and caring as Mary Poppins. So go figure.
In the book,the ultra famous "Mona Lisa" plays an important role for several reasons but is glossed over in the film as a human looking like a male on one side of the face and a female on the other. Yes,that statement does touch on the book's subject but doesn't go anywhere deeply enough into what the painting's all about and what secrets it holds. To me, that was a major disappointment in the film. And of course the main ingredient of the book is the legendary fresco of "The Last Supper" which is treated quite well in the film. It should be because it is the central theme of the entire novel.
I read about the anger of the Vatican over the film. Beats me why. The movie stinks compared to the book so it's angry at the wrong venue. I venture to say that the movie makes a mockery out of Brown's novel. So help me,some of the scenes are downright laughable therefore I don't see where the Catholic Church will sustain any type of a hit thanks to Columbia Pictures,Imagine Entertainment and Brian Grazer/John Calley.
How ironic is history? Plenty and I'll explain. Not too long ago, Mel Gibson came out with "Passion of the Christ" which stirred up resentment against the Jewish people and of course the State of Israel. Now we have "The DaVinci Code" which gives Roman Catholicism a black eye and does nothing at all to enhance Roman Catholicism's offshoot, Protestantism. Can we not say that the combination of Judaism and Christianity represents western civilization, something being challenged and targeted by radical Islam? The answer of course is YES therefore it behooves us all living in the Judeo-Christian world to UNITE against a common enemy. It makes sense to do so but along came Mel Gibson and Dan Brown who, despite their artistry, drive wedges between us. Make us uncomfortable with one another. Makes us question our own beliefs and values. Puts us on the defensive. Introduces uncertainty among us. You know what all this adds up to? WEAKNESS. Just the opposite of the solidarity we need.