Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

This so-called controversial movie hated by critics does not really live up to the story or the names behind it. I expected a lot more from a Ron Howard film featuring Tom Hanks. Not to say that it isn't a bit of a historical thrill ride, but it loses some of the flavor and nuances that were found in the book. Plus, the movie doesn't seem to have the respect for the topic at hand that I found in the book. What I found were actors that didn't give the performances that I am used to them giving, broken dialogue that didn't make sense, and pieces of the puzzle missing from the story. But you don’t have to have read the book to see the film. It gives you all the needed information to understand the storyline.

Plot: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a professor of symbolism who in the movie has written a popular book concerning female symbolism. He is currently on a book/speaking tour and his current stop is Paris, France. The police approach him because of a murder that has happened in the Louvre. Jacques Sauniere was shot and then he covered his body with symbols using his own blood. The police are hoping that Robert can shed a little light on the symbolism found on Mr. Sauniere, especially since Robert had a meeting set up with Mr. Sauniere that afternoon. Only Mr. Sauniere never showed to that meeting and Robert doesn't really know what is going on. It seems that Robert is the only suspect being investigated by Captain Fache of the French police for the murder and Fache will stop at nothing to implicate Robert. With the help of the police’s cryptographer, Sophie (Audrey Tautou), also the granddaughter of Mr. Sauniere, Robert escapes the police in order to give himself time to figure out the clues that Mr. Sauniere left behind in the symbols. They could be the key to who murdered Mr. Sauniere and why he was murdered. For, Mr. Sauniere held the key to a secret that could rock the world of Christianity (the location and history of the holy grail). Along the way they are aided by Sir Leigh Teabing, a rich Englishman who has been searching for the holy grail all his life and seems all too happy to risk his life to help Robert and Sophie on their quest for the grail. Will this unlikely crew be able to penetrate the mysteries of the grail? You will have to see the movie (or read the book) to find out.

Visually, everything looked good. No dazzling special features, but if you have a solid plot and good acting who needs special features? Now the directing had an issue or two, the movie seemed to get hung up in some places. The necessary historical content slowed down the flow of action in the film. The integration of the action and the historical plot information was probably difficult for this film and the merging of those two elements didn't happen smoothly. Thus, creating the afore mention hanging up of the film. There was also dialogue that didn't seem to have a purpose or didn't seem like it was part of the conversation at hand, suggesting editing problems. Also the soundtrack didn't add to the film and was down right annoying at times.

Plus I don't think Akiva Goldsman adaptation of the novel to screenplay was very good. What got cut out of that film were things that changed the motivation of the characters. Now I understand you can't put everything in a book on film, and perhaps because of all the inner dialogue and the psuedo-historical background that is given in the novel, this book should never have been made a film. But what they changed or left out changed the characters so much so that my opinion of the characters in the novel is very different from their counterparts in the film.

Now for the acting: I feel like Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon) basically phoned in this performance. I see nothing in this character that suggests the kind of acting that I know Tom Hanks can do. His character wasn't much of a character, nor did I think it was reflective of the character (A shy, historical academic caught up in something he can explain or get out of) in the novel. Audrey Tautou did a well enough job as Sophie. The spunky, supposedly smart cryptographer (I do think her character was allowed to be a little smarter in the book--in the movie Robert comes up with all the answers in the book its more half Robert and half Sophie) who gets caught up in the aftermath of her grandfather's murder. I think they hamstrung this character a bit by making her lean on Robert too much (she's a cop for crying out loud), but that is the typical for female/male roles in film. Jean Reno is perfect as Captain Fache, doggedly determined to get Sophie and Robert. Paul Bettany is just weird as Silas the albino who gets mixed up in this whole thing via the church. The movie gives you a quick not so understandable flashback of his life, but never really gives you an account of his motivations. Really the only well-done character was Sir Leigh Teabing, Ian McKellen. He is an eccentric old Englishman with lots of money who is also crippled. He is wily, smart, and charismatic--Ian Mckellen carries it all off to a T. His is the only character that is at all reflective of the character in the novel, or is even a nicely done--fleshed out role in the film. All in all I found the acting very much lacking.


What the book has going for it is lost in the visual telling. The air of mystery, the respect that a historian would treat the topic with, and just the flow are missing from the movie. Coupled with bad dialogue, bad directing (thought I would never say this about a Ron Howard film), bad editing, and bad acting just tanks this film. I would have to say see Poseidan first at least it had good effects. Or see something else--surely there is a good movie out there.


Recommended: No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older