There was actually a pretty audible gasp within my crowd when it was revealed who the Teacher was. I guess a lot more haven't read the book, lol.

I know, I know. Perfect timing.

To be fair, there's a sizable difference between "very good" and "never rises above decent".

....

much better.

I definitely liked the book better - I thought the book did a lot better job describing some of the historical parts and demonstrating where Christianity borrowed heavily from the Pagan religion (stuff that I found interesting). But, overall I enjoyed the flick. It was pretty faithful to the book. It definitely was not near as bad as some reviews or RT scores make it out to be, but at the same time it is no masterpiece... I'll go with a B.

Meh. I didn't really care for it. C+ish

It seems I may be alone on this.

But in all honesty, I was gripping to my seat the whole 2 1/2 hours. It was a phenomenal movie.'

9.7/10 A+

First A+ of the year

The first 45 minutes was not well done, especially the Louvre segment. The book was full of tension when describing the bathroom aftermath (e.g. how close they came to not avoid Fache running by) as well as the confrontation with the guard, but by cutting a lot of stuff out, Howard made the whole sequence feel rushed, disjointed and void of any real tension. And because of that, Hanks and Tautou failed to build a legitimate chemistry together. When Neveu corrected Langdon by saying "He left the key to us", it didn't resonate, unlike in the book. The bank segment and what happened afterward with Vernet didn't generate much excitement either. It felt they were just going through the chapters and failed to take advantage of what a movie could bring. The one bright spot with the film up to that point is the way they depict Langdon's thought process when trying to unscramble the words (by flashing the letters).

However, once they got to Teabing's house, the fun finally began. McKellen is indeed fantastic, and even though there were a lot of talkings for that part, I wasn't bored at all. I love how they use the visual medium to highlight Last Supper as Teabing told the story. I also like the fact that they introduced the back-and-forth arguments between Langdon and Teabing. From there on, the train overcame the inertia and started galloping.

The technical aspects of the film are mostly adequate but not spectacular. No where I felt I was mesmerized. The score is not memorable either. Still overall, I enjoyed the last 2/3 of the film after a very unimpressive opening. B-/C+.

Well, well, let's see now. There are problems with this film, but nowhere even near the magnitude critics wanted to cry out, in my opinion.

Firstly, the problems. The music was just not appropriate at times. It was well used at the ending (great ending, but I'll get to that in a second), but otherwise, just didn't seem to flow with what was actually happening sometimes. The lighting was also poor, actually. I could barely see what was made out on screen in certain dark scenes. Some scenes had to be more adequately lit so that they didn't seem so obscure. And then little things here and there that can't be classified as a "whole". They were just little bits that felt awkward or wrong.

What I loved was that the film was non-stop eventful and kept chugging along through the story. I disagree that the first half of the film was "slow". Once Langdon enter's the museum bathroom, the story moves along very well.

I also like the development of the relationship between Langdon and Sophie. There is the first scene which was intended to be awkward when they are first meeting and Sophie is revealing to Langdon this "crazy stuff" about Langdon being suspected for murder, etc. Then there is a wonderful, distinct scene while in the back of the locked transport vehicle, when Sophie puts her hands on each side of Langdon's face and then tells him about the story of how her mother used to do this to her to calm her down, and then tells him about how his parents died. (The flashback to the car accident was absolutely shocking.)

Furthermore, Sophie's little arm touch of comfort after Teabing is explaining the story of how Langdon fell down a well felt really touching and not forced. She did it very well and it seemed completely natural.

And then the hug at the end solidified the journey they had gone through together. Another wonderful touch that was not in the book was Sophie touching her foot in the water, as Jesus did, to "walk on water" and then Sophie saying "Nope. Guess I should try the wine" in reference to Jesus turning water to wine. This is after she discovers, along with Langdon, that she is the last living descendent of Jesus Christ.

Ian McKellen was obviously superb as Teabing. Totally captured the spirit of his character and as always he knows how to say his lines with real command and grace. He's a real actor.

Best "thriller" moment in the film was the flashback escape from the airplane and into Teabing's black car. The whole scene is played out, and the cops find nobody on the plane and Teabing is free to leave. And then nothing is revealed about how Langdon, Sophie and Silas escape until there is a flashback of the events combined with the best music use in the film (the one time where I thought the thriller music REALLY came into play). It was just timed so perfectly. You could feel the energy, you could feel the whole scene flowing so well.

Silas' first chasting scene was great. It really showed the pain of infliction but the will to continue each time he looked up at Jesus on the cross on the wall. Great camera work here, and a great performance by Paul Bettany. In fact, I think Paul probably did the best job in the film of really grasping his character.

Locations were beautiful, cinematography was overall great (especially the transition into the last museum where the final clue lies to open the cryptex). A great street level shot combines the present and historic time around the building (which was historically where Alexander Pope blessed a knight who was buried, and is presently a museum) using some cool use of CGI. And then the camera moves to an overview shot of the building, while Robert and Sophie walk from outside to the inside of the building.

The ending of the film was simply put AWESOME. The ending of the book was sort of a let down in that nothing is really discovered about the grail and Robert Langdon simply kneels down. Here, in the film, Robert kneels above the pyramids graciously, and the camera zooms wonderfully down and below the ground, and there we see Mary Magdalene laying! I loved this. This part really got me mesmerized.

Again, it was the additional parts that the film used that were not in the book that really added the film experience, including the historical flashbacks (which really helped non-readers of the book to keep a grasp on all of the history talk) and was great visually.

I also loved the symbolic use of the rose, which was not only on the case of the cryptex, and the rose line, and the usual stuff, but the red rose in a vase, present both in the flashbacks to represent Mary, and present also in the basement of the church where Langdon and Sophie enter.

Overall, an extremely enjoyable film, and I'm quite impressed with the script, which adequately telled the story, and the only major "cutting" from the book was the library scene, which isn't that important and is instead truncated to a key word search on a cellphone instead of a library computer. I though both Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany pulled out excellent performances, with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou pulling through in some key scenes (Tautou was able to use her big, expressive eyes in certain scenes to show her emotion towards either her grandfather or the secret). Hanks did well in arguing against Teabing while in his mansion, showing the story Teabing was spelling out to them was debatable. He also did a great job in the final scenes, including in the museum when he throws up the cryptex which ultimately smashes on the ground, and the final kneeling above Mary Magdalene.

I was impressed. I didn't think this book was transferable to film, but dang did Ron Howard prove me wrong.

PEACE, Mike.

I thought this was also the best thriller moment in the book as well, only that the book played it out even better.

What I liked that only the film could do was show it to us in a neat flashback, which combined with the music and cinematography created a nice, unique thriller moment. It was different from the book, but just as effective, in my opinion. I supposed what I'm trying to get it is that I felt Howard used the film medium to his advantage at some great times, like that. There are always certain things you can do with film that you can't do with literature, and vice versa of course. I really enjoyed the book, infact, just take a look at my mini-review like thing in the literature forum.

Interestingly enough, I think non-book readers may enjoy the film moreso (at least on first viewing). I'm glad I read the book first, but it also would have been a cool experience for myself to have been able to see this film not knowing where the clues and such led. I wonder how it would have been if I were in that situation. My older brother who saw the film with me (but didn't read the book) was able to follow along, even if some details were sometimes unclear.

PEACE, Mike.

I agree about the flashback. However, when reading the book I was pretty sure that they would use a flashback for this one.

I might disagree on the second statement, though. I think some people who haven't read the book might find the first hour way too rushed and hard to comprehend. I just think that all the puzzles they solve are simply better read than viewed.

That is true. I'm actually not certain, just a hunch of course. I will never ever know personally, since I did read the book before seeing the film, so I will never know what it is like to see the film without having read the book. It's interesting to think about.

PEACE, Mike.

MikeQ. = Best review of DaVinci EVER!

So whats the grade?

Well, thank you! I wanted to be as direct as possible to explain my position, and not use broad statements, since this film has brought a lot of talk among people.

I would give the film an A-. And this is coming from a person who is usually on the "Ron Howard bash-wagon", heh. In this case Ron used a lot to add to the film, and I appreciated it.

PEACE, Mike.

Very good!

I agree with your review almost 100%, and yet I gave it an A+ as I enjoyed it in a different way because I knew little to none of the things they spoke of. It was all so fascinating, and it made the experience that much more rewarding.

When the letters/numbers/planets started flashing in front of Landon is very A Beautiful Mind-ish.

Wow. Maybe the most boring film in history. I can't remember the last time I wanted a movie so badly to end. I'm just happy it's over. D

Looked to be typical sex..girl on top heh. It was a younger looking woman..didnt know if the guy was a old geezer or not.

First hour was dull and just a rambling mess, it picks up once teabing comes up. A somewhat satisfying thriller.

C+/C

As someone who didn't read the book I found the puzzles a bit dull, for example the opening scene wasone that I was watched I imagined it must have been a great read. As a non-reader of hte book, the movie was meh till Teabing showed up.

I felt the first bit was actually TOO fast-pasted and frantic. There was a lot of action going on while we hardly knew anything about the characters. If I hadn't read the book, I probably would have been frustrated.

The book was much more intriguing, but that's to be expected. Film adaptations rarely, if ever, live up to our interpretations of the novel. As a thriller, it worked, but it could have been so much more. It kind of reminded me of National Treasure, except with more talent and class.

B

I was pretty enthralled by it all. I can actually see how the puzzles and everything leading up to Teabing might bore non-readers of the book, but I was just as interested in seeing their transition to film. I had a lot of fun.

Many of the criticisms seem to stem not from the obvious lack of character development, which I'd already come to expect, but from the dullness of the film, and those critical are partially right: The film has absolutely no visual splendor. It's all very dark and murky and not interesting to look at, so dark at times it almost seemed as though the projector were out of focus (maybe it was!).

But I was entertained. And those two and half hours flew by for me. B+

B-


I didn't give in to the hype of the book up until a couple of weeks ago when I actually decided to read the thing before the movie came out. I must say that while a book was a very entertaining and worthwhile read, it never struck me as anything special or even nearly deserving the hype it got. It is entertaining, but nothing more than that. I read things like it before and I read better. It is interesting, but the author sometimes displays his lack of great writing skills as the romance between Langdon and Sophie towards the end feels forced (It was a good move to ommit it in the movie) and some characters showed a lot of stupidity during the course of action.

Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining throughout, something I cannot say about the movie. Thing is...it were the puzzles and the guesses that made the novel so interesting and I just feel that it was never possible to transfer this excitement of solving puzzles appropriatly to the big screen. It was just never a good book to adapt. The movie rarely catches the fun of the source. Tom Hanks might be a decent casting choice, but he doesn't have anything to do here. His best scene is between him and Teabing when they tell Sophie about the "Holy Grail". It's not Hanks fault. Frankly, the character of Robert Langdon is dull in the book to begin with. Not much has changed. Same goes for Tatou. She isn't bad, but doesn't have anything to do at all. As most have said, Ian McKellen (while not looking like his character at all) delivers the best performance, but even he isn't quite Oscar-worthy.

In the adaptation, the movie sadly draws the line between good and bad too clearly. In the book, Aringarosa and Silas have never been throughout bad characters. Aringarosa actually gets somewhat of a redemption at the end of the novel. None of it to be seen here. It's all too simplistic.

However, once Teabing, Sophie and Langdon leave France and head to London, the movie catches on the excitement of the book. The scene of them getting from the plane into the car was the best in the entire book and same goes for the movie. Moreover, despite the enormous length, I never found the movie to be boring. The showdown is a bit anti-climatic, but same was in the book. As mentioned above, I am glad that the romance between Langdon and Sophie was eliminated and I am glad the movie did not delve further into this rather non-sensical sex ritual.

On top of that, visually, the movie is pretty nice. The way Langdon solves the puzzles is portrayed well (Christian mentioned A Beautiful Mind...that was exactly what I was thinking during the film as well). Nice cinematography too.

On the whole, it is just a slightly satisfying experience. Howard took a solid, but not great book and turned it into a somewhat less solid, but still decent movie.