I must admit that I haven't read Dan Brown's book and so I wasn't looking forward to watching this film at the first place. Maybe all the fuss in the media and the excessive publicity that forwarded the opening of this film, worked negatively on me. Or, maybe, I've had enough of Hollywood mainstream, commercial movies. I'm not exactly a fan of Ron Howard's work. He makes decent movies that, unfortunately, fail to touch me. " The Da Vinci Code" wasn't an exception. From what I've read so far, it appears that the film was faithful to the book.That's a good sign for a start but IMO it's not enough. A good story offers a nice background for a movie, but it needs more than that for the story to work on the screen. It's the director's skill that sets the pace and the tone, and makes the story interesting to the viewer.That's what separates a great master like Hitchcock from a league of just adequate directors . All that said, I must admit that I wasn't bored while watching this film.There was enough mystery in the actual story to keep me interested.Interested but not thrilled.I enjoyed the takes in the Louvre's interior and the beautiful landscapes, as a tourist would have done. Not for once, though, did I find myself sitting at the edge of my seat , wondering what will happen next. The actors didn't help either.Maybe they weren't given a chance to do so. Tom Hanks, who managed to break my heart in "Philadelphia", was a pale reflection of himself. Audrey Tautou, the ever engaging Amelie, failed to offer more than a pretty face. The only bright exceptions were the always delightful Ian Mc Kellen along with Paul Bettany. That was not enough though to save this film from being a successful mediocrity.
Review of The Da Vinci Code
