The Da Vinci Code (2006)

The Age of Commercialism

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Based on the popular book by Dan Brown, this film tells the story a race against time to solve a centuries old riddle crossing through religion, literature, folklore and culture. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a professor/teacher/symbolist/literature expert/puzzle specialist who gets mixed up with a plot that put him both in danger, and in the driving seat to reveal one of religions biggest cover ups. It all starts in France, when a Louvre curator is killed. He is found in mysterious circumstances with mysterious codes on and about him. Langdon, along with Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) attempt to unravel the clues to the murder, and the clues to the cover up - this takes them through various locations all to do with Leonardo Da Vinci, as he was one of the perpetrators of the cover up. The cover up suggests that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child and there is in fact an active blood-line of decedents still alive. Throw in the mix various corrupt law enforcement agencies, various religious sects such as Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, various independent parties too - and you have a adrenaline fuelled mystery that spans the time of man and religion too.Directed by Ron Howard this film takes it's source material from the Dan Brown book of the same name. I have read the book but I wanted to review the film without the book in mind - so rather complain about differences or changes - I'm mainly going to be focussing on the delivery of the film rather than the contents of the book. Howard's choice of locations make the film visually pleasing, some lovely architecture has been really looked at from interesting perspectives. On first inspection his choice of casting too seems to have been a good choice; there are times where the lines are a little wooden, leaving me unable to connect or empathise for the characters - but for the most part performances are decent. Hanks and Tautou do well to carry the forward, while other appearances from Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Albert Molina (amongst others) all come off believable. Effects have been done tastefully for the most part, with emphasis on clues to help the audience along - sometimes practically spelling out the issue for audience members unable to understand. There's a decent pace for the most part but there are times where action drags a little - presumably to allow the audience to catch up. All in all this is a decent detective slash chase slash journey of a film. It's like an Indiana Jones style film with less action and more book smart. I'd give this a 7 out of 10. It wasn't awful but it's not totally my cup of tea. The hardcore book fans probably won't like some things about it, but as a standalone film it's got enough to keep viewers entertained.

I was surprised to learn that Paul Bettany was not nominated for best supporting actor by any recognized organization. He gave the most sympathetic performance in the film, in a perverse sort of way. He is the reason that the film stays on my mind after more than a decade.But I'm equally surprised that "The DaVinci Code" did not receive a Razzie nomination for worst on screen couple. There was absolutely no chemistry between Hanks and Tautou. It's not the 20-year age gap; that's common in movies. I suspect that a major problem is that the French actress is not comfortable acting in English-language films (which she rarely does).

This film is what you expect - a good film that is entertaining, with a powerful lead actor. Tom Hanks crushes it as always. But, the nice surprise is the strength of the supporting actor. They are all talented for sure, but sometimes a movie like this (action/suspense with a strong lead) does not highlight their abilities. But this movie did highlight their abilities. The movie was very entertaining, kept you thinking and there were some surprises too. While this movie is fiction, it is advised if you are a fan of history, this is likely the film for you.

I think the books are fun. They get into issues of art and secret societies going back ages. I'll admit that Dan Brown misses the point sometimes on some of his set-ups. But like most fiction, especially the genre he belongs to (I will throw in the likes of Preston & Childs), there are liberties taken. I'd like to know where those places in Game of Thrones are on our earth. Silly. Well. There is no scientific or historical accuracy in these films. The author created a world where evil has existed for centuries and he makes up a situation where this evil must be circumvented. I think what has happened here is because Dan Brown is not considered a fantasy writer, his work gets attacked as if her were a scholar. That trickles down to the movies and makes people so emotional. I liked the review by the woman and her boyfriend who had never read the book. They were willing to let their prejudices go. I didn't care much for the sequels, but there are other reasons for that. I think Hanks was quite adequate and the move is reasonable.