I enjoyed it quite a bit. I mean, I think it did a pretty solid job at adapting the book, which is not exactly the most amazing work of literature ever created. The first hour of the film drags painfully, but things get going once Ian McKellen shows up on the scene. Interestingly, I enjoyed the "talky" portions of the movie much more than those of the generic action scenes. Some things brought up truly are fascinating (I would have liked to hear more of Langdon's "symbol" lecture shown at the beginning). Tom Hanks is good as Langdon, but this is as close as he has come to "phoning it in" in a while; the script doesn't really allow for much character development. The same goes for Audrey Tautou's Sophie, who does the best she can with weak dialogue and characterization. Ian McKellen steals the show in his supporting role. Overall, I can't say I had as much fun at The Da Vinci Code as I did with even a movie like National Treasure (which I actually really enjoyed), but I was pleased by the film. B

I'll write up a full review later, but so many emotions ran through my mind afterwards... and none of them were good: boring, overbloated and no sense of tension or suspense (outside a couple moments). The only saving grace was the technical aspects from the directing style and European locations. Outside of that, I found nothing about this film special or worthy of recommendation.

Like someone else said, this is not a stinker like some critics proclaim, but it's not very good either.

**½ / *****, C

I knew NOTHING about the book, or any controversy, or anything before I saw this and I ended up loving it. The story is the real star of the movie and I found it completely fascinating for nearly every minute of its running time. I myself have not hitched my wagon to any sort of organized religion, so I tend to have a very open mind when viewing material of this nature. Very clever manipulation (I'm assuming) of historical facts and events to spin a very entertaining and thought provoking yarn. Having recently seen Kingdom of Heaven, I was surprised to see references to the crusades and the Templar Knights. It was just a little bit of recent knowledge I had gained that helped to make all of that exposition go down smoother. But I'm not complaining about the exposition. Whether it be in lovingly crafted flashback, or simple reactionary, character to character delivery, I found no problems in the amount of information given and the pace at which it was given. I just loved all the little clues and riddles and as I was processing things in my head, I became anxious to see how it was all going to play out. To a great ending, that's how.

Aside from the great story, The DaVinci Code also features a couple of stand-out performances, notably Ian McKellan (he's just damn good in everything) and Paul Bettany as Silas. The rest of the cast deliver strongly as well. Hanks surprisingly didn't seem too Tom Hanks-ish to me and I really like Audrey Tatou, especially toward the end. If there is a weakness in the film, it is that these characters are rather thin, but as I said, in a movie where the story and historical details are the main attraction, it doesn't really harm it much.

Everyone is so quick these days to jump on the Ron Howard bash-wagon, but I have to say that this movie is very well directed, aside from a tiny moment of shaky-cam during a quick car chase. Some of those historical flashbacks are actually quite stunning and I felt Ron and his editor kept things interesting and moving nicely considering all the information that had to be delivered from his characters. Great music by Hans Zimmer as well.

A-

This movie reminds me a lot of National Treasure. The pacing seemed very similar, though different tone to the movie. Both movies are one clue to the next over and over.

The movie is good, it holds your interest and has enough depth to make it interesting. There are however a lot of holes, and some bad writing to boot.

The scene with Audrey Tautou in the plane with the albino was simply awful. Tom Hanks literally mailed in his performance and Tautou was even worse. The acting would have been fine in 'National Treasure' but in this movie it didn't fit due to the change of tone. The seriousness of the movie, the dark colors, the score, all these thinks make it much more of a drama than National Treasure (which was more campy, blow stuff up, this isn't real, type fun). Because it felt so dramatic, the acting seemed very out of place, aka Hanks and Tautou stuck out like sore thumbs. That is hard for me to write as Hanks is one of my favorites.

Either way, the movie held my interest throughout. I had no problem with the pace, but I rarely notice pacing issues in films, they never seem to effect me as they do others and as such I would never argue with those that say the first act was slow ... though I would personally disagree.

I would give it a B. Better than I expected after the critics reviews. Speaking of which, critics need to get their heads out of their asses ... honestly ...

DA VINCI CODE

Where: Harkins Theatres OKC
When: 051906 / 2240
Size/Occ: 500+/95%

Trailers:
World Trade Center: Looks amazing and was bringing emotion to me.
always happens where i forget the other trailers, i'm sorry

Film: First, I know this is a work of fiction so in no way did it come close to affecting my faith which is the reason others are protesting the film. I did not read the davinci code so this was my first taste of this adaptation and I very much enjoyed it. I was leary about seeing it tonight after hearing the mixed reviews but I decided to see what the fuss was about. I liked the plot of the film and the detail that was put into it. I appreciated the "step by step" approach with the film and I think that's the only way you could do the book justice is with that approach. I enjoyed the story and the acting was good for me. I loved Audrey Tatou and Tom hanks wasn't annoying or boring. Also, I didn't really find any of the lines hokey at all. Another part of the film that I enjoyed was the flash back sequences showing historic periods and the thinking going on in Hank's head. I also enjoyed the score to the film as well. Finally, since I haven't read the book I don't know how it actually compares to it as in what details were left out and what was changed so that would be nice to learn from other posters who've read it.

Grade: A

It's not fantastic or anything, and the first hour is a complete bore, but after that, the film picks up and it's a solid, entertaining thriller with a fantastic performance from McKellen. It's not as bad as the critics said, that's for sure.

B-ish.

I am as well.

Atheists UNITED!!!

$98.3 mil Opening
5.2 Multiplier
$511.2 mil Total

The hit of the summer

The movie is very faithful to the book. The atmosphere is great. Score, acting and cinematography are top notch. Audrey Tatou is not only beautiful but also gives a good performance. Hanks is good in a subtle, understated role.

A

Disappointed. I felt like giving it an F until McKellan entered. It felt like it was made in the 80s. I don't understand what they spent the money on. Of the production values I only found the score to be solid. However, besides the final scene I thought it wasn't used effectively, although I liked Zimmer's music. I think Howard can't direct a suspense thriller, and is even worse with action. I had the impression that neither him nor Hanks really had passion for this project. It seemed to me like Hanks was really only into it in scenes with McKellan. The pace was terrible IMO. More then anything, however, it really lacked atmosphere. Without the use of any visuals the book did are far better job in that regard. The mood was off many times I think. The calm before the first twist was crucial in the book IMO, and they completely missed it here. At the bank the book had the same thing to a lesser degree; here missed again. Only the third time did they get it right, thanks entirely to, well, you know who. I, Robot did this correctly. I also hate to say it, but I didn't like that they changed a number of things to try to make it more acceptable to critics.

But McKellan; I loved him. My favorite chapter in the book was my favorite here as well, although more so because of the way he carried it.

That's what I was thinking all the way through.

Ugh, they didn't even touch on the final twist (Sophie's brother) on the film. The character is there in the end, but only as the Roslyn church keeper or something. Pretty much slaughtered the ending eventhough the movie stayed pretty much faithful to the book. The problems that the other posters mentioned, I saw as well... and the score being the highlight. Of course, there's Ian McKellen who is obviously in a different, much more enjoyable, league than the rest of the cast.

B (would've been a C or B-, since my butt hurt while sitting through this long film, but the pace picked up by the second half and also Teabing!!!!!)

I find it odd that in other parts of this forum the critics get whacked for disliking the movie, but the general concesus on here seems to be a shaky B. Considering that most blockbusters tend to get mostly A's in our forum, I think that is a really good indicator that critics are not that much off line with their bashing

I read that there was one major departure from the novel... Which is it?

Jesus is gay

that explains why he never had a wife.

Most do seem to be in the weak B-/C range, which is in line with critics. Above all else, we expected something more considering the talent involved.

Solid A from me.

That French bitch is overrated.

she is perfection.

I heard someone calling the book a feminist revolution last night when i was out. What nonsense.
It might touch on the themes of the female being something much more significant than history writes her as, but in the actual story, isn't it Langdon who opens the cryptex? Isn't it he who drives the movie, whilst the attractive Sophie acts as his aid?

Think bigger...

B

Average moviegoers will not be able to really delve or understand deeply the cover-up story. There was just way too much story and exposition in the book to capture it all in a movie.

Nonetheless, the movie was well done and stuck as close as they could to the story and events.

Ian McKellen was astonishing. He sure knows how to pick his blockbusters
Paul Bettany was great too. Audrey was good, nothing spectacular but aside from her accent getting in the way (of important dialogue) sometimes she fit the role.
I didn't want to pass judgement before I saw it but after having seen it, Tom Hanks was definitely miscast!

The transition from book to film can often be a tricky one. It is a process that requires much care and consideration from not only the filmmakers, but also the author of the literary work itself. It is their mission to do whatever it takes to provide the audience with an experience that is extremely satisfying and will not alienate fans that have already discovered the story. Director Ron Howard had quite a task on his hands in this regard, adapting Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code for the big screen. One of the most popular books of all time, Brown created a tale that successfully balanced mystery, thrills and history - completely changing how many view Jesus Christ. Now, with much controversy surrounding its release, The Da Vinci Code finally comes to the big screen. And it does something that one could never expect - it improves upon the original source material.

Superstar Tom Hanks takes on the role of Robert Langdon, a professor of religious symbology at Harvard who is drawn into a web of mystery after he learns of a death that occured in the Louvre art gallery. It seems that the curator, a man named Jacques Sauniere, has been murdered and left behind a series of clues to help others solve his murder. When he is called into the investigation by the suspicious Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), Langdon soon discovers that he is the primary suspect. Now, with the help of French cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), he must uncover the secret behind Sauniere's death - while also discovering what could be considered the biggest cover-up in all of history.

The film has been quite controversial because of its radicial statements over the authenticity of the Bible. Essentially, the film and novel both state that Jesus Christ was not an immortal - simply a man with a mission. It also states that Mary Magdelane was not a prostitute, but Jesus's loving wife. But the most underlying reason why the film has been met with apprehension is that it supposedly portrays the Church itself as malicious and evil. Most of the villains on display here are priests and monks, killing others because they believe it is what God wanted them to do.

Ron Howard has done a fantastic job directing this film, keeping things moving at a fast pace and always choosing interesting visual techniques. One of the film's strengths is the remarkable cinematography, showing the beauteous landscapes of Paris and London. Howard also manages to show the beauty of the Louvre structure itself and the lofty massiveness of several old churches. The film has very high production values, as exhibited by some stunning flashback sequences that seem very realistic. The screenplay by Akiva Goldsman is also great, thankfully refraining from omitting anything critical that was present in the book. He remains true to the story's roots but also takes the opportunity to further develop these fascinating characters. Hans Zimmer's remarkable musical score also deserves praise. It always feel appropriate within the context of the story and certainly adds something to every scene. Operatic and filled with tension, it will certainly add to the viewer's satisfaction.

The performances here are all excellent. Tom Hanks once again delivers a great performance as Robert Langdon, successfully conveying his character's cynicism and intellectual charm. He is very likable in the role and proves once again that he is one of the most talented actors working today. Audrey Tautou is probably the weakest in the cast and still seems fairly uncomfortable with the English language, but she still manages to make a decent impression and is great in scenes that feature little dialogue. Jean Reno is very good as the policeman with a secret, and Alfred Molina is interesting but underused as a mysterious Bishop. But the two best performances come from Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany. McKellen, who plays a close friend of Langdon's named Sir Leigh Teabing, is fantastic here and injects the role with a lot of charm and dry wit. He really becomes the character that he is playing and steals many scenes, providing some comic relief within the film's more serious tone. Bettany delivers the best supporting performance of the year so far as the murderous monk Silas. Nearly unrecognizible as the albino villain, he is absolutely terrifying throughout the film's entire duration. But he also allows the viewer to see deep within the character's tortured soul, showing his vulnerability and naiveté while showing us how he became the way he is. A truly brilliant performance from a great actor.

Overall, The Da Vinci Code is the best film of the year thus far and the summer epic to beat. It features brilliant performances, a fascinating storyline and great direction. It will thrill you, intrigue you and make you think - delivering one of the most satisfying moviegoing experiences in quite some time. Crack the code and catch it today!

10/10 (A+)