Famed symbologist Professor Robert Langdon is called to the Louvre museum one night where a curator has been murdered, leaving behind a mysterious trail of symbols and clues. With his own survival at stake, Langdon, aided by the police cryptologist Sophie Neveu, unveils a series of stunning secrets hidden in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci, all leading to a covert society dedicated to guarding an ancient secret that has remained hidden for 2000 years. The pair set off on a thrilling quest through Paris, London and Scotland, collecting clues as they desperately attempt to crack the code and reveal secrets that will shake the very foundations of mankind.

While watching the film I kind of got a lost in translation feeling from most of the movie. I felt like those who hadn’t read the book would be missing a lot of the explanations and character development that the book provided but the movie did not. So I had to wonder who would like the movie more the person who had read the book or the person who hadn’t. Because I know when you leave a lot of a book out of the movie adaptation it has the effect of leaving fans of the book angry but on the other hand there are those who haven’t read the book who might find themselves confused at times. So who gets the better deal, I am not sure, as we can easily feel in the holes if we had read the book but it may leave us disappointed on how much they left out. I liked the movie, but would I have loved the movie had it stuck more to the book or would I have felt the movie dragged along and didn’t have that action paced feel that it should have and would I have liked the movie more if I had not read the book, I’ll never know. Lets just leave it at the fact that I liked the movie but was not all that overly impressed by it.

I understand the reasoning for leaving out a lot of the elements and explanations from the book as the movie is trying to be a fast paced action movie that is constantly coming at you like a run away freight train. The characters leap from one dire situation to the next like out of the frying pan and into the fire and taking the time to go over all the finite elements of the book would have slowed that down and ruined that feel they were going for. So the movie varies for me from the book because the book wasn’t necessarily a fast past action ride it was more of book about intrigue and solving mysteries and seeing things we would have never thought we could see. Would this intrigue have translated to the big screen very well, probably not and that’s the reason they don’t try and go with the action adventure route abandoning the mystery of the book. I always like the X-Files meet Indiana Jones feel of the books and I missed that in the movie.

Sometimes it’s hard to separate ourselves from our own personal politics when we review a movie but if that’s your job and that’s what you are being paid for then you need to do it. I have been angered by the reviews that harp on the story and how it could be considered anti-catholic and how it goes against everything they believe. This is all in the book as well, so why know are we having so much trouble with it on the big screen. I can understand hating a movie because it goes against everything you believe but that’s not the reviewers job, their job is decide if the movie was any good and the reasons why. I am not the religious type so the story doesn’t bother me and it shouldn’t bother you either. This is a far fetched X-files type of conspiracy plot that is clearly fictional and fun at the same time, the reason the X-Files were so popular because you don’t have to believe the story just enjoy watching them unfold. That’s why the book was so popular and the reason the movie is too, they are fun, they are fanciful and in the end the movie wasn’t that bad of movie it just wasn’t the book.

When I saw whom they cast in the roles of the Da Vinci Code at no time was I happy with the casting. When I pictured Robert Langdon I never saw Tom Hanks in my head and when I saw the terrible posters with the terrible haircut and I was definitely not happy. I love Tom Hanks as an actor and he pulls the role off magnificently but even after how well he did I am still not happy with the choice and probably never will be. On the other hand Audrey Tautou does a fantastic job as Sophie and that’s where I think they went wrong on the casting. It’s too hard to separate Tom Hanks from all the other movies we have seen him for us to accept him as Langdon so they should have done what they did with the choice of Sophie and gone for a relatively unknown actor as well. As I didn’t like Ian McKellen in his role much either and that’s as much to blame as they never really developed his role in the movie as well as the fact that he’s another famous face. I liked the movie, I liked the book but you won’t see me as one of those rabid fans of either as they were good but neither blew me away.

Grade: B-