It's going to be difficult for any screen version of a book to capture the audience as the story did when it was first read, and it's particularly difficult in a story such as Da Vinci Code. For the Code is a thriller which mingles facts with well trodden theories and leaves little room for reinterpretation in an attempt to give the audience a new and exciting path or a new surprise conclusion.

So what is left? To tackle the story head on and be as faithful as possible, bringing the book to life and catering to those who have already read it, yet retaining an accessibility for the new audience.

Code does that very thing, and it does it well. In fact in my eyes it does it better than the book did.

Many thanks to the staff at Edinburgh Vue Ocean Terminal cinema who helped out with this review. Friendly and eager to help, as well as giving a great cinema experience. Now, to the film.

The press reviews of this film since the Cannes premiere have been exceedingly poor, indeed the first seven reviews shown at Rotten Tomatoes were amounting to a disastrous zero percent. Whatever those critics who rated it so poorly were thinking I just don't know. Whether they were caught in the hype and the anti-film feeling I cannot tell, suffice to say this is not the bad movie they make out.

Flaws it has, but these have much to do with the original source material and the complex historical subject matter as with anything else.

So to the movie itself. I do agree that it is heavy with exposition, which is one of the main complaints, but with this subject matter you cannot expect the audience to know all the backstory. It is unfair to expect them to be versed in such things as the Priory de Sion, Knights Templar and the history of the Church, and for these reasons strong explanations are required.

Actually, these moments aren't too obtrusive in the tale and I actually welcomed them more than moments of action. Remember this isn't a dialogue light tale such as Poseidon, this is a story delving into history. It's not a swashbuckling Indiana Jones, but a more realistic historical investigation.

Once you realise these things then the film is actually quite enjoyable. The tension and pace are very well handled in comparison to the book, and the new chapter - new challenge - next level idea is discarded. There was something else I had issue with in the book, that was the overly childish hand holding narrative throughout. I had feared that this would also be apparent in the film, but luckily it only hit three times.

One example is when Langdon solves the first riddle in the Louvre. Here he writes the answer on his pad, the audience can quite clearly see him writing this. Then he finishes and turns the pad to Neveu and the camera, once again we can read it all. Yet there is this apparent need to have Langdon read it aloud once again. Thank you, but if we have to be intelligent enough to follow the historical aspect of the story then we can easily follow this simple plot device.

The story is, of course, identical to the book. It remains truly faithful, and unfortunately that does take away some of the tension and surprise. If you have already read the book then you know what is going to happen step by step, and you find yourself looking for the differences. Yet there aren't too many and those that are tend to be for pace and length reasons. However, it still does a good job of providing tension, surprise and delivering a thriller to the audience.

Ron Howard does a very good job with the historical explanations and problem solving scenes. Using a style very similar to A Beautiful Mind he lets the riddles reveal themselves before your eyes, and for the historical explanations the images take you back in time in quite a dreamlike style. One of the best examples of this style is outside Westminster Abbey, as the characters race towards the entrance Langdon explains the past and the two worlds merge together onscreen. like ghosts from the past.

The weight and importance of some of the historical moments also make their way onscreen well. When the Knights kneel before the tomb and Teabing explains the significance of that moment you do feel slightly humbled and in awe of what that would have meant to them. It's a feeling that grows throughout the scenes of his explanation.

The music sits well with the movie and helps build these moments of reverence. The lighting is quite understated, considering some of the restrictive locations that they had to film in it's a surprise that some of the scenes look so good. Through the Louvre, Rosslyn Chapel, the many Churches, it remains dark and quite mystical.

Tom Hanks has been accused of being wooden and lifeless in this role and I disagree with that. His performances to date have always been typical Hanks and that usually means they have a nervous energy to them. Here he's restrained, controlled and he's always inquisitive and questioning rather than being decisive, overly emotional and open. I would argue that he's giving a more realistic and faithful performance for the character of Langdon. After reading the book and being shocked at the choice of actor, I'm now pleasantly surprised and agree with Howard's choice.

Ian McKellen is perfect for this role and seems to enjoy it giving a delicious performance from beginning to end. His early scenes of explanation are very enjoyable and he plays the traditional Englishman very well, after all you can imagine that this is the very person he actually is. His quips and one liners seem part of his natural character and the brief debate between he and Langdon seems to be so natural. I really did enjoy watching this gentleman on screen, as I always do.

Audrey Tautou gives a good performance despite being sandwiched between the two heavyweight actors, and Jean Reno has a strong moment of restrained emotion when he discusses his failure with his fellow policeman. Another moment of acting that you can almost feel.

Aside McKellen, Paul Bettany has the best role in the movie and portrays it very well. My body tensed and flinched at the scenes of flagellation, and his constant pain and torment is quite tangible. I have to say though that the scene where he attacks Langdon was quite ruined by his appearance on the Jonathon Ross show the previous evening. There he discussed the scene and how, during the attack, Hanks farted. When I saw the scene I almost burst out laughing thinking of that moment.

Overall, farting aside, the film is a good thriller. I think the main reason it is receiving such negativity is that the book has been so widely read there's nothing new to expect from the film and the tension and surprises are somewhat weakened. However if you can put that to the side and watch it afresh then it is an enjoyable film which is well paced and provides some intelligent thoughts with some entertaining performances. I suspect that viewed in a few years, when the book phenomenon has passed us by, this film will gain in strength.

IMDB Film Details