The murder of a renowned French curator sent the entire French state into panic, and the only man who can help investigate the crime is none other than Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). Langdon is a Harvard symbologist, is dedicated to revealing the mysteries of ancient codes. Who would have guessed that Leonardo Da Vinci's legendary painting of Mona Lisa hides the secrets to Christianity that has never been revealed to the world before? With the help of stunning Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), estranged granddaughter of the murdered curator, Langdon helps to find the murderer and make the French policemen's lives easier, by putting his life on the line.
by alanswanwork
on 17/01/2007 3 of 3 people found this review helpful
What I really hated: Tom Hanks
Some of the castings were pretty good, especially the French casts.
However, Tom Hanks does not cut it as Dr Robert Langdon for me.
I would had expected a younger and more suavy cast for the roll.
The movie itself follows quite closely to the book as far as I could recall.
Not too bad, but not good enough to make me look forward to other Robert Langdon movies.
Even before the movie arrived in Malaysia, gossip was rife because of all the controversies, which set high hopes for the popularity of the movie. If it had been screened in the old days, director Ron Howard would probably be stoned to death or burnt at the stake. But these days, the possibilities for what can and cannot be shown are limitless. Boundaries are often tested and in our time, even a country like ours is given the opportunity to see for ourselves exactly what "The Da Vinci Code" is all about.
Tom Hanks plays Robert Langton, a symbologist, who is sought by the French Police as he is being suspected to be the murderer of the curator found dead in the Louvre. What is bizarre about the death is that the deceased is found in a strange position. He is naked, his legs and arms are spread and his chest has a scrawled symbol and anagrams, much like one of the famous paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. Surely it is a cryptic message of some sort. Teamed with Sophia Neveu who happens to be the curator's granddaughter, Robert uses his knowledge to sniff out clues that would lead him to unravel and 'redefine' what is known to mankind as the Holy Grail.
The movie is based on the book written by Dan Brown, which sold over 60 million copies and translated into about 40 different languages. A great storyline I must say, that captivates, intrigues and makes sense of certain universal truths that some of us hold true. Audiences should remember however, that some stories should not be taken too seriously. "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction and fiction is fiction.
There were some rather eye-opening but very painful scenes to watch. Silas, the monk whips himself regularly just so he can be closer to God. Not many of us would want to experience this sort of sadistic pleasure but it is this element of inflicting pain on oneself that makes the show unique. It reminds me of the extremes that religious people go through just to feel God's presence. One might also find that these acts of pain also exist locally.
Audrey Tautou and Ian Mckellen gave strong performances. They kept the movie pacey, witty and action-oriented. Hanks played his part well too, though I thought he could have put on a better accent. Paul Bettany is also a character not to be missed as he plays the determined cold-hearted murderer unyieldingly.
In spite of all the hype that the movie has played up, I enjoyed it. It was action packed and the cast's performances were solid. This is a movie worth watching. For the curious at heart, go ahead and satisfy your curiosity. And for those who feel they won't be able to stomach the storyline, all I can say is, if it isn't your cup of tea, don't drink it.
Who needs the publicity? The hype and controversy surrounding the movie itself is enough to make heads turn and eyes cast in the direction of the ticket booth. Headed by some of today's most popular actors in the lead roles, "The Da Vinci Code" is definitely one of 2006's major blockbusters.
Set mainly at night (smart move by the director, Ron Howard), the movie is dark and sinister and adds to the brooding atmosphere of the murder, suspense and conspiracy theme of the movie. With the movie kicking off with scenes of the curator running through the dark galleries of The Louvre, obviously in fear since he's being chased by a homicidal albino monk, most people would predict that the film will race along at a breakneck speed. Well, not quite...
Howard remains so faithful to Dan Brown's controversial novel that he ensures all of the most interesting theories translate intact, but watching the stars drone them out one after another until the film's final moments, is far from fascinating.
Fortunately, Howard delivers something Brown doesn't - dramatic recreations of events relating to the book's central provocative theory that the Catholic Church has been covering up the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a daughter, whose bloodline has survived into modern-day Europe. This also includes scenes of the Inquisition, with those of women being tortured, burned and drowned as well as that of Mary fleeing the Holy Land for France and giving birth there.
Action fans will be delighted by the hair-raising car chase in which Sophie Neveu, charmingly played by French actress Audrey Tautou, steers her little Smart Car backwards along the streets and pavements of Paris with the police in hot pursuit.
The other actors themselves played their respective roles to almost sheer perfection. Tom Hanks, with his long hair swept back, has a professional look that ideally suits the role of the unsuspecting college lecturer, Robert Langdon, who is drawn into a murderous conspiracy. Paul Bettany is bound to give audiences nightmares as the limping, psychotic monk Silas while Sir Ian McKellen portrays a strong supporting role as the manic Holy Grail historian Sir Leigh Teabing.
As the weight of the novel's success increases, its flaws start to surface. The film adaptation, riding on the book's massive accomplishment, isn't let off the hook easily. The adaptation is faithful, perhaps, but faithful is rarely enough to satisfy. There's nothing technically wrong with Howard's film, but Brown's approach to the novel is essentially untranslatable, but that's perhaps more a criticism of the book than the film.