Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

one-nine-eighty Based on the popular book by Dan Brown, this film tells the story a race against time to solve a centuries old riddle crossing through religion, literature, folklore and culture. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a professor/teacher/symbolist/literature expert/puzzle specialist who gets mixed up with a plot that put him both in danger, and in the driving seat to reveal one of religions biggest cover ups. It all starts in France, when a Louvre curator is killed. He is found in mysterious circumstances with mysterious codes on and about him. Langdon, along with Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) attempt to unravel the clues to the murder, and the clues to the cover up - this takes them through various locations all to do with Leonardo Da Vinci, as he was one of the perpetrators of the cover up. The cover up suggests that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child and there is in fact an active blood-line of decedents still alive. Throw in the mix various corrupt law enforcement agencies, various religious sects such as Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, various independent parties too - and you have a adrenaline fuelled mystery that spans the time of man and religion too.Directed by Ron Howard this film takes it's source material from the Dan Brown book of the same name. I have read the book but I wanted to review the film without the book in mind - so rather complain about differences or changes - I'm mainly going to be focussing on the delivery of the film rather than the contents of the book. Howard's choice of locations make the film visually pleasing, some lovely architecture has been really looked at from interesting perspectives. On first inspection his choice of casting too seems to have been a good choice; there are times where the lines are a little wooden, leaving me unable to connect or empathise for the characters - but for the most part performances are decent. Hanks and Tautou do well to carry the forward, while other appearances from Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Albert Molina (amongst others) all come off believable. Effects have been done tastefully for the most part, with emphasis on clues to help the audience along - sometimes practically spelling out the issue for audience members unable to understand. There's a decent pace for the most part but there are times where action drags a little - presumably to allow the audience to catch up. All in all this is a decent detective slash chase slash journey of a film. It's like an Indiana Jones style film with less action and more book smart. I'd give this a 7 out of 10. It wasn't awful but it's not totally my cup of tea. The hardcore book fans probably won't like some things about it, but as a standalone film it's got enough to keep viewers entertained.

stjohn1253 "OK, Pa, I will."And he did. The rich visuals, intriguing plot, haunting soundtrack, European setting, and convincing characters add up to just that: a terrific movie. Yes, it's rife with absurdities, speculations and falsehoods, but they simply can't ruin the experience. Critics who won't allow fiction to be fictional will always be disappointed. I'd bet that if he could, Andy would say: "You done good, boy! You done good."

adbandrewdavidboyle I have watched this movie a few times and I have no idea why it has not got a higher rating. An excellent adaptation of an intelligent and interesting book.Actually, it was probably due to unrealistic expectations when it was released and people's inability to remain free from the opinions of others.The acting and performances are excellent; the screenplay has depth and the action is breathless...it's a 9 fro me!!

EBJ *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