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+)

[spoil]They didn't show the fucking ritual described in the book by sophie's father. [/spoil]

...what exactly was the sex ritual?

[spoil]Brown's case wasn't as persuasive as it might have been because he didn't just suggest that the feminine aspect of Christianity was surprised but went so far as to talk about all sorts of bizarre orgies and crap by secret societies that will leave most readers willing to accept the Vatican view of things.

As usual I"m going by a roughly 2 year old memory of reading it but that's the gist.[/spoil]

Nothing really fits the description of "major departure".

At the end some misc. members of the Priory show up at the Roslin church, and they DO FIND a substantial amount of Priory documents in the basement of the church. They also don't talk about her brother but it is slightly implied. Maybe that's it?

When I think of a "departure", I think an adapted piece that leads to a different conclusion. In my view, the movie ends up pretty much in the same way the book did. So the piece in Roslin wasn't a "departure" it was just changed for movie purposes.

I dunno.

Here is why DVC wasn't superb:

1. The whole first hour was too quick and unless you had read the book, things dind't make sense. They totally rushed through all of the stuff with the pentacle and all of Da Vinci's codes in the mona lisa and madonna on the rocks. They rushed through why Sauniere left the clues that he did and why Sophie and Robert needed to work together.

2. It was PG-13. Had it been R, the murder would have been more awesome; the sex ritual would have been truly mystifying; Silas more terrifying; the bloodshed surrounding the Holy Grail explored more

3. there was no visual vision with the film. for a film that centered around art, there weren't any beautiful shots of arts or architecture.

4. At times, the script was just baaaaad.

anyways, i gave it a C last night and stick with it today.


Ian McK

What you described doesn't sound like a big departure. I just read that there was something major in the film that was not in the book.

most negative feedback ive heard yet.

Paul Bettany has already had quite a few good roles in movies like Firewall, Wimbledon, Master and Commander, Dogville, A Beautiful Mind, & A Knight's Tale - but I found his work in this movie to be the least inspired of the leads...

^ agree 100%

To sir ian steals the show i say "Bullshit he does" He never rises above decent. Audrey Tautou is the true shining star in this project.

Loyal this is EXACTLY what I meant.

I agreed that Mckellen was very good in my review, i do not believe he stole the show.