There was a huge hype about this book. I resisted reading it, cause I don't read something just because it's popular (I've heard from many english major friends that the writing is crappy anyway). I heard all about the movie as it was being made and released. Heck, church's everywhere were protesting the viewing of it and so forth (which is just stupid if ya ask me). With all the protesting and conservative backlash, I decided it would be worth seeing, if for nothing else, that I could argue with my conservative friends and church members about it. So, I got my Dad to pay, and I saw it.
If you don't know the plot, you're way behind. But here's a really quick preview... It opens with a killing of someone important in the Louvre, and then goes to a respected American religious symbology expert, Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a professor at Harvard who is giving a speech on symbology. Afterwards, while signing books and meeting fans and collegues, he is summoned to the Louvre by the French version of the FBI, led by Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno). He soon discover's that he is the #1 suspect for the murder of a historian Langdon had been scheduled to meet with (the man killed in the opening). Assisted by a French cryptographer and government agent named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), Langdon is challenged to decipher a chain of cryptic codes and puzzles, all the while trying to stay ahead of Fache's lawmen and religious extremists.
It stays true to the book until about the last fourth of the movie (where it strays some, to bridge the gap between literature and screenplay). The acting is all pretty average; but it's revolving around a professor and government agent, so how exciting does the acting need to be? It isn't Indiana Jone's, after all. But it still just seemed lacking. For a two and a half hour film, it should have had more authentic acting to keep the audience's attention.
There were a lot of continuity mistakes throughout the film. Thing's switch hands in some scenes, tape reappears over Silas' (Paul Bettany) mouth in the plane, Sophie's hair is blowing in the wind one scene and fixed in the next, people get cut (and bleed) yet in the next scene there is no blood stain or mark on them, and in some scene's we can see the time of day changing through window's while changing angles and viewpoints. The little things make or break the watcher's suspension of disbelief. I guess they've never heard of that.
This is really nitpicky... but in a way, it isn't. Leonardo DaVinci himself said that he wanted to be called Leondardo and not be known or called by the name DaVinci. After all, DaVinci only means "from Venice" in Italian. So really, the book and movie should be called "The Leonardo Code". It may not be as catchy, but it's how he would want it.
It wasn't a horrible movie, but it wasn't great either. I really expected something better from a bestselling novel turned movie (especially with Ron Howard at the helm); I think most people are dissapointed along with me (especially by the critical response to it), but it's definitly convinced me to go ahead and read the book. If you're interested in knowing what The DaVinci Code is all about, then I suggest reading the book first and checkin the movie out afterwards... Unless you're afraid that it will shatter your faith. Then you can just read all the propaganda being put out and pretend to know what the movie/book says or doesn't say.