You're better off reading the book.

Rating: 6/10 (18 May 2006)

I went and saw it last night, and what do you know, for once, I actually agree with the reviews... in a way.
My main thoughts on the movie, is that for such a fast paced book, the movie is rather slow. It's overlong (almost 2 and a half hours??) and I found myself looking at my watch about an hour into the film. That's never a good sign.
The car chase scene at the beginning is badly filmed. One would think that maybe it would have been better if another director was chosen for at least that particular scene - I hate to say it, but sometimes the big blockbusters with the great car chase scenes (like The Bourne Identity, Ronin, etc) make or break the film. The music was rather maudlin, with no real memorable scenes for it to even attempt to come into it's own.
The acting was terrible. It's the first film I've seen with Tom Hanks being such a wet blanket. He's usually so good in any type of film, but he just didn't look like he cared very much about acting in this one. I've only seen Audrey Tatou (did I spell her name right?) in this, so I don't know if this is the way she normally acts, but she didn't seem to have a great bearing on her role. The scenes with her and Silas seemed to lack depth, and she seemed to be out of her depth with the more emotional scenes. Is this how she normally acts? Paul Bettany as Silas wasn't too bad. I think he had the 'mad monk' down reasonably well in his mind. In the end I couldn't help but feel sorry for him, as everyone (and everything) that he cared about was using him, and his character is one that stayed in my mind a little longer than any other for his depth.
On the plus side, Ian McKellen did a fantastic job. Every time he was on the screen, you couldn't help but be drawn to his character. The facial nuances, the longing in his voice... HE is what made this movie bearable. Every movie I see with him in it proves again how great an actor he truly is. Plus he was the actor that brought in a little humour to the film, something that otherwise was sorely lacking.
My favourite scene in the whole film, and the one thing I keep thinking back on even now as I'm typing this, is the 'discussion' that Langdon and Teabing have about the history of the grail. But, come to think of it, it was also my favourite scene in the book, so that may not be a huge surprise :) The effects (yes, they have special effects) were great. To be able to literally fuse two different era's in the one scene hasn't been used to this great effect in a long time, if ever.
But is it a film I would recommend? Probably not. If you (like the majority of the world) have read the book, then you'll be disappointed. It's the first movie I've seen where mobile phones went off (twice actually) and NO-ONE shushed the owners. One of the people I went and saw the film with (who hadn't read the book) fell asleep within 45 minutes of the film starting, and stayed asleep for the rest of the film. What she did see, she found confusing.
So, basically, I'm guessing I'm saying that this movie ain't a bad film as such, but it's a better video/DVD film than a theatre film. 6/10