The Da Vinci Code (2006)

People are voting emotionally.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Well, when we look at the movies which were made on the novels of Dan Brown i.e. Angels and demons and Inferno; The Da Vinci code is the best. The problem with Angels and Demons and Inferno was that these movies altered the story of the main novel and that's why if you have read the book and then you are watching the movie, the movie fails to impress you to the extent the book did. This is not the case with The Da Vinci code as the story line of the book and that of the movie are nearly same. The movie shows the history very beautifully with apt illustrations. The acting of Tom Hanks is commendable. The albino Silas also plays his role very smartly as is his role in the book. The background music in the movie is is very appealing to the audience and people feel as if they are in the movie ,as if everything is real. Do not go with the 6.6 rating on IMDb. It could have been that people who follow Christianity did not like this movie as it raises questions on their religion.However if that fact is ignored. there is no reason for not liking this movie.

*I will try not to include spoilers but if I see the need will notify you priorGood: It is very interesting and the mystery behind it is intriguing. The acting is great. I like the way the music is very quiet at the start but as the story progresses to its climax, the music gets louder and more aggressive. The cinematography is quite mixed with some great shots but some that are just an eyesore. Interesting and compelling main protagonist with 'the descendant of Jesus' doing decent as well. Despite this, Ian McKellen steals the show with his obsessed, conniving villain.Bad: Some shots and majority of the lighting is very off putting and sometimes contradict their better counterparts. Once such example is an elevated shot of a castle which should look great but the lighting makes it appear to be very murky and it drastically obscures your vision. There are so many twists and turns which would normally be great and interesting but, for the most part and excluding the grand twist, they just seem to be there to add drama. It is also needlessly long and could be cut back a bit by about 30 minutes or so. There are a lot of scenes just dedicated to exposition and explaining every little fine detail about something. These are annoying and shows lack of directed storytelling. The monk, Silas, is just stupid as a character.they try to make us feel sympathy for him but he is clearly delusional. Insane villains can be compelling (The Joker, John Doe, Hannibal Lecter etc) but this is just sick and twisted and just uninteresting.*Potential Spoilers!!!Best Part: This is a movie without any particularly stand out scenes but the grand reveal of the true villain was more pop up than the rest of the movie.MVP: Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing7/10

With the upcoming release of the new Ron Howard-Tom Hanks thriller INFERNO Sony has chosen to re-release their first two original outings together with the Dan Brown character of Robert Langdon. It's a good thing to as some may have forgotten how great those two movies were. Not only that but it makes a great excuse for upgrading from the old DVD to blu-ray formats. And of those fortunate enough to have upgraded to the new 4k format it is available that way as well.But let's go back to the beginning with this, the first film. Hanks stars as Langdon, a professor of religious iconology and symbology, a less action prone Indiana Jones. While lecturing in Paris he is called upon by Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) to help in the investigation of a murdered curator at The Louvre, Jacques Sauniere. Langdon was supposed to have met with the man but failed to do so. Now he stands over the man's body looking at clues put in place by the man as he was dying.As he interprets the clues for the captain another officer, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou) arrives with information. She loans Langdon her cell phone and tells him to call a specific number. When he does, he gets a recording made by Sophie telling him that he is about to be arrested for the murder and to go to the men's room. She aids him in escaping and off they go with the police in pursuit.It turns out Sophie was the granddaughter of the deceased and believes a message he left behind with Langdon's name on it wasn't a clue to the name of his murderer but one to lead her to seek his help. Using the clues left behind by Sauniere they discover that he was a member of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion whose duty was to protect the Holy Grail. With not only the police but a separate secret society, an outlaw sect of the Catholic Church, they must not only clear Langdon's name but find the real murderer and save the grail at the same time. But just exactly what is the grail? What we have here is a well thought out mystery that takes the time to offer clues to its solution from start to finish. As I said earlier the character of Langdon is a sort of Indiana Jones figure, a scholar with an overwhelming sense of wonder at all things in his field. The look of amazement on Hank's face as Langdon when he is presented with various items, paintings, symbols and more throughout shows the love and respect the character has for each. It is a subtle display that shows why Hanks is one of the best actors in the business.The movie progresses at an even keel combining moments with a sense of urgency beside others that show the thought process going on as Hanks and Tatou attempt to solve the puzzle with each clue moving them forward to yet another. This is author Dan Brown's method on display, telling us not just what is happening in the here and now but how it relates to history as well. While my guess would be there is some narrative license being used at moments, much of the history told is well researched and solid. This makes the movie not only a thriller that holds you in its grip but one that fills you full of history and information at the same time.In watching the film I was amazed at just how well it was done. Howard has pulled together some of the most talented people in the business behind the scenes as well as on screen to present a compelling story that grabs the viewer by the throat and never lets go until the final credits roll. You never want to turn from the screen for fear of missing out on something. Even ten years later and two viewings in the past I still found myself fascinated. The film remains gorgeous to look at and entertaining to the extreme.If you've never seen the movie then by all means buy a copy today. You'll find it one of the best movies made in some time as well as one of the greatest thrillers around. And if you pick this one and its sequel ANGELS & DEMONS up soon you'll have time to get caught up in the story of Langdon before the next movie comes out. It will be time well spent.

In preparation for inferno this week I have gone back and watched the first film in this trilogy the da vinci code. The film sees a professor go on the hunt for a mystery that could shake Christianity. Tom hanks plays Robert langdon and he is great in this film. You buy him as a professor and he is easily the most interesting character and sometimes is the voice of the audience. Audrey tautou plays sophie and she has great chemistry with hanks in this film, she was a pretty strong female character and worked well alongside hanks. Sir ian mckellen is really good in this film, he is great alongside hanks and tautou and seems to have fun in this film. However, there are quite a few boring characters who are very bland. Paul bettany plays silas the monk after hanks and at first he showed promise but then becomes a generic bad guy that is forgotten about for the majority of the film. Alfred molina is a great actor but in this film he wasn't even needed and actually really slows the film down. The story has some interesting intrigue involved as the film develops. However, there is just too much going on in this film story arc wise which really bogs the film down with some pretty predictable plot twists. The script is very bland with allot of history exposition that could have probably been explained in a better way. The style of the film has some interesting developments in it. But it is a bit slow paced and I think the film is about 10 minutes too long that hurts the ending. Overall this is a pretty average thriller that isn't a must see.