hetrickgoatfarm

(2013-06-19 07:11:12)

The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code was a movie that originally was a book and had highexpectations from what people read verses how the movie was portrayed.The movie was a good mystery movie and kept the viewer on their toesand wanting to know what happens around every corner. What I likedabout the movie is all the history facts and how they all tie intogether with all and the scenes which the movie was shown in. Thismovie has a lot of history with flashbacks that help understand thereasons why Sophie was raised by her Grandfather and why he had taughther what he did.This movie has a few scenes that were hard to comprehend as they movedfast and talked even faster. When you have to rewind a movie a coupleof times to get what just happened, it doesn't seem to keep the movieflow. Even though the movie was two and half hours, the movie stayed atthe same pace and kept my attention. I felt like the movie has codesand secrets that are found out about the Christian faith which has beenrevealed in the movie.

Chibichasechan

(2013-06-18 18:14:52)

Pretty good for a movie from the book.

I love this movie very very much.But this movie or book is a very controversial subject matter. Okayguys it's called FICTION!!! GET OVER IT!! Now that I got that off mychest back to the Movie.The book was definitely better and I was very disappointed when I foundout that the director missed SO much from the book to the movie.But the part that REALLY made me mad was the ending, how he screwed itall up like that. I literally was planning on smashing and breaking therented disc, but decided against it.Like COME ON! Jacques Sauniere IS her grandfather!! It's not that hardMr. Director to put that part in the movie! Sure it makes a betterending but COME ON! You already screwed up half the movie. At least getsomething RIGHT! I have also researched that the history of the movieis extremely far-fetched and do-sen't fit at all, and for someone whohasn't read the book I would believe to be confused while watching themovie. Im my opinion you should'nt watch this movie until you read thebook. You will have a lot better understanding of the movie.Well sorry for taking it out on all you guys but I needed to take thatout on something.

bkoganbing

(2013-06-16 21:53:01)

Rocking Christianity to the Core

So what's all the fuss about? Tom Hanks is a visiting Americanprofessor of Theology in Paris and Audrey Tautou is a cryptologist withthe French police. Hanks is accused of murdering Tautou's grandfatherand she believes him when he says he's innocent. The investigatingdetective, Jean Reno, has another agenda going as he's a member of OpusDei. The DaVinci Code is a murder mystery chase very much in the style ofsuch Hitchcock thrillers as North By Northwest and The 39 Steps. It'snot as good as those two, but not bad either. Ron Howard has made anentertaining enough film and should put a lot of money in his pocketwith all the protests going on. As is usually the case, they're drivingup the box office. You can't buy the kind of publicity thatfundamentalist Christians are giving this film.So what's the protest for? We've got a couple of secret religioussocieties protecting their secrets and killing a lot of people to doit. One of the secrets is that Jesus was in fact a very human soul whodid human things such as get married to Mary Magdalene and have adaughter. Supposedly she went to France with her child and is in factburied in France. And there are descendants walking around today.The novel by Dan Brown certainly was well received and sold millions ofcopies. But folks it is when all is said and done, a NOVEL. It's a workof fiction from an imaginative author, nothing more. In fact at thevery beginning of the opening credits it says that the movie is takenfrom the NOVEL by Dan Brown. Ron Howard will need several Brink's Armored cars to haul away all theprofits he will make with The DaVinci Code. Ironically the same peoplewho are beating him up over this film were praising him last year overCinderella Man. That was a good family values film and it was, I likedit a lot. I liked this one too.By the way special mention should go to Audrey Tautou. She conveys anAudrey Hepburn like quality in her role and hopefully this will be abreak out film for her.

(2013-06-16 07:15:41)

It's a joke...

Someone wanted to make Indiana Jones part 4, starring Tom Hanks and created a such puzzled labyrinth that I think the book author wouldn't be able to tell the whole story without looking into his notes. After watching this movie it leaves a bad taste in the mouth that you have vaisted 2 hours on nonsense. 5 Stars for special effects.

chinesebaboon13

(2013-06-16 15:55:19)

Da Vinci Code is Good but not Great

I went to see the movie "The Da Vinci Code" with my brother openingweek. He has read the book but I hadn't yet. I am a fan of many of RonHoward's films and thought this could be one of, if not his best,picture yet. I am a little disappointed after viewing the highlyspeculated film. It was way over hyped. Don't get me wrong, the moviewas not terrible but quite entertaining. It just did not meet up to thestandards that the media had set prior to the film's release. It was agood movie. It just wasn't that amazing, spectacular, breathtaking,intriguing film that you see so very rarely nowadays. It was one ofthose movies where you walked out of the theater and you thought aboutit for a little while but then it would never cross your mind the nextday, or the following week, or ever really. It was not memorable. Itwas a good movie, but that was about it. Save your $10 or $8 and rentthe movie for half the price.

madpigmadpig

(2013-06-16 05:37:16)

Not entirely forgettable, better than I thought it would be.

The very first you'll notice is that the director is madly in love withHitchcock, from the overly bouncy shot of the old man running in thefirst scene, to the constant close-ups of everything (even chasescenes), all the way to the shot of blood swirling down a drain. Eventhe basic meter of the movie is much like the later works of Hitchcock.I wouldn't complain about the acting, it's really kind of interestingto see this kind of movie done by a director and cast that one thinksof as the emotional equivalent of comfort food (porridge, hot cocoa,etc...).The basic concept of the plot is very reminiscent of several sciencefiction stories (which is why I forgive the out-of-place computergraphics used to display Dr. langdon's thoughts) and is a refreshingdeparture from rather more monotonously mundane or emotionallydisgusting story-lines that choke the entertainment industry. Havingsaid that, however, I must point out that there is quite a bit ofunnecessary material such as the overabundance of scenes where thecrazy monk stands around naked and/or beating himself, we can see theirmakeup department has a talent for realistic wounds, but we don't needthat much time to appreciate it. Then there's the constant barrage ofhints, making the entire plot known to the audience and leaving nosurprises to look forward to. it just isn't as much fun if you alreadyhave all of the important story points handed to you by a carelesscamera shot, a character blurting out something that gives away the endwhen your only part way through, or a "good guy" that seems just alittle too naive to actually be a good guy. Lastly, I found the all ofthe flashbacks and personal phobias unhelpful, uninspired, andunconvincingly portrayed. Also they never did explain what that ritualwas that frightened Sophie as a little girl.I recommend that you come in just about when they introduce IanMcKellen's character (a scene entitled "Seeking Sanctuary" and watchfrom then on, you'll miss the boring stuff and find that it actuallymanages to be an entertaining movie.

joemcdonald-1

(2013-06-13 22:43:00)

Sometimes a Question of Faith is an Act of Faith

With all the hype behind The Da Vinci Code, it was impossible for themovie to be as popular as the book. Yes, it had huge box-office gross,but that's because all those who bought the book went to see the movie.The real question is if the fans of the book will be as loyal to themovie and swat down their money for the DVD? That remains to be seenand yes, the Ron Howard does have it's high points, especially if youdidn't read the book, but also exposes the plot holes the bookcontains.For example: It's impossible for an albino to be an expert marksman,simply because those afflicted with the condition suffer from badeyesight. Also, Dan Brown uses theories to support his own conclusionsin his book, which at times are flimsy at best.With an All-Star cast of Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Sir. IanMcKellen, you can expect superior acting and it's there. But the moviedrags at times, which is one of it's downsides.But one thing the movie does make you do is think. No matter what youbelieve, it's the questioning of religion, which reaffirms ones ownfaith. This is clearly a fictional story and shouldn't be treated asanything else, but if one goes leaves the movie with a clearer sense oftheir own beliefs, then Howard did his job.Which is why one wonders why religious leaders are quick to condemnthis feature. The questions it raises, brings one closer to his or herreligion - Catholic or any other belief - not send someone away.Overall, this is good entertainment. Not the best movie of the summerand not Howard's, Hanks's or McKellen's best work, but a worthwhilewatch.Rating: **1/2*

deltajuliet

(2013-06-13 17:46:44)

Good Movie, Engrossing Movie

I haven't read the book, but I've heard good things. Tom Hanks and RonHoward seem like a great movie-making combination... I was lookingforward to this.Having not read the book, I wasn't quite sure what to expect; however,from the opening murder in The Louvre, to brief discussions ofChristian dogma, to Hanks telling stories about secret societies, I wasutterly engrossed. Hanks seems to, as usual, be hypnotizing in his leadrole. Audrey Tatou, playing the lead counterpart to Hanks, isn't quiteOscar-worthy here, but she does a pretty decent job. The real scenestealer is Paul Bettany, playing the most engrossing character of themovie, Silas. Jean Reno also lends his talent to the film, though he'snot fully utilized.Ron Howard is undoubtedly one of today's greatest directors, and heworks his magic here quite well. Scenes are beautifully shot, pacing isgreat, and everything related to the director is top-notch. Kudos toRonny H. here.I can't comment on the story in comparison to the book, but as anewcomer, it was quite good. The mix of action here, dialogue there,and a theological background all over is quite good. Is it better orworse than the book? I can't say, but if it's worse than the book, Iwouldn't imagine it would be by that much.

martijn-56

(2013-06-13 00:48:41)

Doesn't live up to treasure movies from the past

I usually only write positive comments when I do but this is anexception. Since there have been treasure hunt movies around for awhile, it is almost inevitable to compare. Although the cast was notbad in this movie, surely Indiana Jones and also National Treasure weremuch better. Indiana Jones had the tempo but still also theincomparable nostalgic atmosphere and the effects, where NationalTreasure was a more modern technique treasure hunt that made up for thelack of nostalgia by the intriguing scenes of e.g. stealing theDeclaration itself. Well we have seen them all. The point I want tomake is that this movie lacks the right tempo and atmosphere. Also thesupposed chemistry between the couple was nowhere to be seen in thismovie. The atmosphere was not there either. This despite the fact thatthe locations were nicely picked and the movie followed the book quiteclosely. What made the book entertaining was the tantalizingly slowsolving of the riddles themselves and the smart flash-forwards. Thecouple was constantly chased but they didn't know it. In this moviethey solved the riddles even quicker than in National Treasure. Thattook away what could have been the most entertaining part and also theonly way to build up tension in this movie. I never had the feeling ofbeing involved in it, nor in the panicky feeling of an endless chasefor the grail and of having to stay out of the hands of the police.Probably an extra half an hour could have done the job to slowly buildup the tension. In National Treasure there was indeed a beautifultreasure, but here the immensely important grail papers (who were notfound in the book) looked more like some notebooks behind glass. Theywere just mentioned but the scene that showed them was too short. Alsothe vault behind the church, which according to the book is known butnever dug up, could have been a great opportunity for a movie. Make ita night scene with trying to find the right brick to open the secretcellar beneath this church. Could have been a classic treasure huntscene but this movie missed the opportunity.

movie025

(2013-06-12 14:26:12)

Nuanced conclusion : Very entertaining and quite spectacular, but don't take it too seriously.

As many readers of "The Da Vinci Code", I was curious about how thefilm would be. So I went to the movies yesterday to find out how it hasworked out. I took my brother with me, not only for company but also toform an opinion on this movie that wouldn't be too unilateral.Directing a film which is based upon a book of which are sold more than40 million copies worldwide is one of the reasons why there was a lotof pressure on the shoulders of director Ron Howard. People will evenpay attention to the most minuscule things that Howard has had to leaveout of the movie, they will start to complain and say how it shouldhave been done, or in the worst case, they would rather have seenanother director for this film. However, I think he has dealt with itvery well, or better, he has done a great job. My brother says that hehasn't done it as bad as many would think. Another thing is that justas the book, the movie is fiction. The objective of author Dan Brownwas to reduce the differences between fiction and non-fiction as smallas possible.Well, now something more about the movie. I think that the historicimages and locations are magnificent, but it are the actors who carrythe movie. Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. At first, I was surprised thatthey chose him, at second thought, I had all the confidence in him, andyes, he didn't let me down. Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu. I heard thatmany were surprised that she was chosen for the role. Conversely, Ithink she was perfect. She is easy on the eyes and now I know she has alovely French accent as well. Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing. He wasfunny at certain times and mean at other times, but what reallyoccurred to me was his diction and pronunciation. It was impeccable. Hecertainly was stealing the show. Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa. Iknow he is a versatile actor and here he has done it very well. JeanReno as Bezu Fache. The author of the book created this character withJean in his mind. Therefore, further comments aren't needed. PaulBettany as Silas. No one could have played it better than him. Youreally could see the pain, fear, relief, and joy in his eyes atdifferent moments. At times I felt some compassion for him. My brother,on the other hand, finds the acting reasonable, above average. Whatappealed to him the most, was how they had put on screen, the thinkingprocesses of Langdon and the stories on the ancient times, the MiddleAges, and the Renaissance.After watching the movie, I think that the movie has lived up to myexpectations. I knew the plot, nonetheless it has been almost a yearsince I read the book. Hence, there were numerous moments where I wassurprised. My brother thinks that the film goes immediately into a flowacceleration in the beginning. Too many things happen in such a smalltime span. As a consequence, the spectator doesn't know what the movieis all about. This applies to those who haven't read the book (yet). Ihave to agree with him on this. However, Howard makes it up byespecially focusing on the end of the movie in order that all thequestions, which both actor and viewer in particular have, will beanswered.To the people who have read the book, I know that the book is much morethrilling and exciting than the movie. There's no question about that.My advice to them is just pretending that you haven't read the book(yet) and let the movie surprise yourself. That's what I and my brotherhave tried to do. Afterwards you can compare the movie with the book,if you want to. To the people who haven't read the book (yet), it's arather intelligent movie. Thus you have to stay concentrated, in orderto understand it. But there are some parts where you can loose yourconcentration for a while as the various escapes. Our nuancedconclusion is that it is a very entertaining and quite spectacularmovie. However, keep in mind that it's just fiction. So don't take themovie too seriously. It merely wants to show another part of the truth.

kokroc

(2013-06-07 00:17:05)

The Da Vince Shame

Here in Malta a lot of fuss was on all the local media about Christianvalues and about boycotting the movie. Well a reaction to that a lot ofpublicity was made for the movie and the tickets literally flew fromthe cinema's ticket booth. I read the book and couldn't wait for therelease of the movie but yesterday I went to see it at the localcinemas and its utterly boring and a disgusting adaptation of the book.I expected it to be a good movie but to my disappointment it turned outto be a rushed movie made in time to continue riding the wave ofsuccess that the book is doing.The only good thing in the whole movieis Sir Teabing, his English humor is nice and manages to make you smilea bit.Now my idea about the movie is not to go and see it , not becauseits "damaging" and "dangerous" to our old crumbling religion , but itsa complete waste of money and time

kerousel

(2013-06-06 17:02:31)

The Book is Always Better Than The Film, And That Is Not Saying Much.

My whole world has been flipped upside down....Mission Impossible 3 wasbetter than the Da Vinci Code.The movie seems to suffer from the same shortcomings as the bookitself. The basic story is an interesting one; not the religiouscontroversy, but rather the elaborate treasure hunt the characters taketo unravel the titular secret, and the twists and turns they encounteralong the way. One of the problems with the book is Dan Brown'smediocre prose, and the movie seems to be plagued by more of the same.Much of the dialogue is unmemorable or ridiculous, and some of thedetails that made the book intriguing and the characters likable havebeen altered or removed.The film alternates between short bursts of unsatisfying action andponderous scenes of exposition, second-guessing the audience's abilityto grasp the more "challenging" concepts by stating them repeatedly.The film itself is over-long, yet still manages to leave out some ofthe book's more interesting scenes.The movie's only saving grace, IMHO, is the cast. Tom Hanks is asuitable Langdon, as far as I am concerned. The character is not adifficult one to translate to the screen, being fairly flat. The alwaysradiant Audrey Tatou brings a wounded grace to her French cryptologist;Paul Bettany (one of my personal favorites) makes the albino Silas asympathetic character, even lacking the scant scenes of narration fromhis point of view the novel offers. It is Ian McKellan who deserves themost credit for his role, giving the film a much needed dose of humorwith his sparkling portrayal of Sir Leigh Teabing, the physicallycrippled but quick witted historian who helps Langdon and Neveu intheir modern-day Grail Quest.All in all, I would say that fans of the book should see the film, ifonly to take in the disappointment for themselves.

rebeljenn

(2013-06-03 05:18:13)

Dull

'The Da Vinci Code' is an action/adventure film about a man whostumbles fatefully into a mystery surrounding the death of a man at theLouvre gallery. The mystery surrounds Jesus and his relationship withothers attempting to seek out the truth and destroy it and destroy him.The film flits from scene to scene, but there is little that engagesthe viewer. (I expected the film to be more engaging because the bookwas in the best-seller charts for months.) The performances of theactors is probably the best element of the film, sadly. The plot moveda little too slowly with some elements of the plot that seem to bestrange coincidences. (For example, the main character was linked tothe Teacher through a friendship with him. I could understand how,based on their interests, they two were good friends, but I found itless believable for the Teacher to be the villain and the one leadingthe chase.) Unfortunately, the film was dull and this will be one thatI won't watch again. If you plan to see it, do not expect a lot.

(2013-06-02 14:03:26)

Can you say BORING

I cannot understand how someone can turn an interesting book into one of the most boring movies of all time. This movie was a complete disappointment. The first mistake was casting Tom Hanks as Langdon. I understand that Hanks is a great actor and I enjoy him in most everything he has done. But, he was the wrong choice for this role. Some people are meant to play certain characters and Hanks was just not meant to play a character like Langdon. I am not sure even casting someone else would have done this movie any good. It would have been a good start, but this movie would have been bad even if someone else played Langdon. The movie did not flow well, it left out things of importance and it changed aspects of the story for reasons that did not make sense. If I had not read the book, this movie would have been not only boring but confusing. The fact that I read the book was the only reason I was able to sit through the entire film.One other note, I feel bad that Audrey Tautou has been getting a bad rap by many who have seen the film. I think she did a good job playing Sophie Neveu under the circumstances. Had she been cast along side a better Langdon and had a script that actually worked she could have shined. Her real problem was working in a movie that was bad from the start.

serve_cool

(2013-06-02 02:40:48)

The book was absolutely brilliant, but the film let it down spectacularly.

The book was absolutely brilliant, but the film let it downspectacularly. Tom Hanks was awful. Half the plot was changed to tryand make it more exciting, but it just made me feel even worse aboutthe film, came out thinking what a waste of 2 hours of my life. Sir IanMcCellen wasn't that bad compared to the rest of the cast. Since whenin the book does Miss Neuveu become the new Grand Master and in thefilm sauniere is not her real grandfather. Bishop Aringarosa was notfriendly with the Vatican in the book, but in the film he is workingwith them to destroy the Holy Grail and the inspector is not a memberof Opus Dei, like in the film who takes orders from Aringarosa. I beingquite picky now, but Silas does not shoot about 5 police officers andthen Aringarosa. The worst is that they don't explain that there is ateacher behind all of it, which doesn't create any tension and any thathas been produced, well lets say Teabing gives himself away on camerawell before any climax.Anyone who hasn't read the book will find the film OK, but for me andmany other people we found it an utter disgrace.

mindjoust

(2013-06-01 11:22:08)

Director Liberties Adds Drama

Slight variations from the book, but when you watch the movie, some ofthe differences make sense. The guard is not pointing a gun at SophieNeveu, but she and Langdon escape without confronting him. Historydepicted in the book is shown in purple as flashbacks, in scenesreminiscent of Braveheart and Gladiator. The hint of graphic imagery inthe book, ie. tightening the cilice belt around thigh, is made moreintense in the close ups. Langdon is shown to possess a photographicmemory, which proves to be beneficial later in the movie. The ghostlyanimations in London, and cross sectional views of Westminster Abbeyset apart filmmaker from the novelist. Time factor is another issueaddressed by Mr. Howard. Instead of wasting time (as noted by Langdonin the movie), they borrow cell phone and search the web, finding nameof Alexander Pope. The Neveu lineage and family is brought intoquestion at the Rosslyn Chapel, and largest tangent from the novel.Sophie is an only child, and not related to the young male tour guideat the chapel, though a crowd of strangers are brought into the chapelto show Sophie people willing to sacrifice themselves to save herlineage. At the end of the novel, Langdon is depicted as standing belowthe ancient Rose Line in prayer to Mary Magdaleine. The movie end seemsmore accurate for someone visiting the Louvre after hours. Langdon isoutside, standing over one of the Arago Medallions, pondering thepuzzle "She rests at last beneath the starry skies". This finaldeparture from novel is followed by the camera work spiraling down thepyramids, to what is depicted as a secret chamber beneath the Louvre,and the sarcophagus of Mary Magadeine.The movie never slows, providing a definite conclusion, though findingthe tomb of Sir Isaac Newton should have been more complex than cluesfound through a cell phone.

ramin99

(2013-05-27 12:33:04)

Worthless Fictional Conspiracy

So when was a conspiracy theory worthy and non fictional you may ask.Yes, most of us know the idea of the US government orchestrating 9/11is ludicrous, but what if Hollywood spent hundred of millions to try toconvince you otherwise and present it as fact? I am not a religiousperson, still this film offends me because it wants to take itsaudience for idiots. What if I told you George W. Bush and fatherkissed some Saudi sheikhs and princes on the cheeks, thus Bin Laden wasborn, and I know where he's hidden because I, being the computerengineering genius I am, decoded the code Bill Gate somehow slippedinto Windows architecture and now I am being closely monitored andfollowed by both CIA and some fanatic jihadists. Sounds like lunacy,which is exactly what this movie is about. But hear me out ladies andgentlemen, let's give my (absurd) idea a chance: give me a Hollywoodsuperstar, some hotshot director specializing in build-up and tension,a hot chick, some impossible riddles to decode, and you will beconvinced the real Black Stone is to be found in a secret chamber underToronto's CN Tower. Avoid this turkey at all costs.

regsoft2

(2013-05-27 11:10:11)

Watchable

The film is like watching one of those text based PC adventure gamesfrom the 80's. I can see it now: "You are Robert Langdon accused ofmurder; the French Police are trying to catch you; you must solve theriddles and find the real culprit, while discovering the real bloodlinefrom Jesus that could shake the whole catholic church before yourenergy runs out". The protagonist, who is lecturing to students at thestart of the film, in an Indiana Jones type manner, is called upon bythe French Police to help solve a strange murder. There then followstwo and hour hours of puzzle solving and distracting flashbacks. Thefilm, despite it s subject matter, is watchable but suffers from beingoverly long. In fact, the best use of time, is the telling of silas'past in 30 seconds - just like a Tony Scott TV commerical. The Leadrole isn't really demanding for Tom Hanks who puts in a delivery thatwouldn't be out of place in the 'Keanu Reeves' school of acting. AudreyTautou seems miscast in the role. You may as well have put in RachelWeiz (more fun then!). The only reasons worth seeing the film is forIan McKellen who really steals the show. Paul Bettany proves he canplay a nasty villain, too. There is a twist at the end, if you stayawake that long.

lunaticprophet

(2013-05-26 06:39:50)

waste of time

If you've read the book.. this movie is a total and complete waste ofyour time! I had high hopes for this movie. I hoped, but didn't expectit would be as good as the book. And though I didn't agree with thecasting of Tom Hanks (I thought Clive Owen was a better choice), Icouldn't argue that Hanks is a great actor (his last few picturesnotwithstanding). Seemed a pairing of Ron Howard & Hanks would deliveran excellent film.This certainly was not the case. The movie drags even when it's in highgear. So much of the book is just glossed over that there is no soul tothe movie. Hanks' Langdon is walking through the movie as if what'shappening is an everyday occurrence... where's the fear, awe andincredulity?? Such a great book and story completely wasted in thismovie. As I've said; if you've read the book, this movie is a waste. If you'venever read the book.. you should and forget this mess. If you have nointentions of reading the book, then who knows you might actually thinkthe movie isn't that bad.

Elisha

(2013-05-25 08:41:27)

Finally! Hollywood releases a NEW kind of film!

I walked into this movie expecting it to be a flop. I had read the critics' reviews beforehand, which described the film as "disappointing" and "...a small, surprisingly ordinary movie." I walked out of the theater dumbfounded.How could they smash such an intriguing film? In my entire life, I have never seen such an elaborate, well-thought out plot come out of Hollywood. Of course, the writers had the novel to work from, and according to averybigfan Yahoo! user "The first three quarters of the film is faithful to the Dan Brown bestseller." I also interviewed a few people walking out of the theater, and they agreed that the novel fit the film as well.I believe some people are disappointed in this film because they were expecting to see non-stop action. However, according to IMDb, Yahoo! Movies, and The Davinci Code homepage this film is drama, thriller and adaptation - NOT an action movie. Only about 1/3 of this film had action - The rest was dialogue and suspense. However, this film was far from dull, and you're sucked into the story right from the begining. Even the opening title scene had me on the edge of my seat. I had to refrain myself from drinking my soda during the film because there were so many surprises that I was afraid something would jump out and startle me and my Sprite would go everywhere.However, as always, there were some unfortunate downsides to the film. The Davinci Code is a mediocre piece of work coming from award-winning director Ron Howard, and probably has no chance of being nominated for any type of award. Also, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou, the two main characters, were outshined by side characters. There was an insignifigant amount of character development and playing as Robert Langdom has to be one of Hanks's worst acting jobs so far. There were some interesting visuals such as flash-backs, close-ups, and historical sequences that made the film easier to comprehend - especially for people who haven't read the book. The film is fast-paced, and there were a few unessecary cuts, but overrall, the story was delivered well.In my opinion, The Davinci Code was a creative, memorable film. It gave audiences a fresh, new thriller and twisted facts around to make the story appear believable. I'm not quite sure why other people didn't like it. Maybe it was the lack of action? Maybe the disappointing acting? But there's one thing I know for sure - This film is going to cause A LOT of controversey. Review Written By:Elisha - Future movie director/school newspaper movie review writerAge 14