Decent adaptation, even though I wasn't fussed on the specifics for once. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou didn't exactly have much chemistry, but we can take solace in the fact that Ron Howard decided to ditch that particular subplot (it was kind of pointless in the book anyway).
I liked the reenactments, particularly the one of the Council of Nicaea. Beautiful locations, of course (the churches in London and Paris). Ian McKellen was kind of hammy, but it was the kind of film that merited that sort of performance. Paul Bettany was suitably mad as Silas. So those two I liked, and I couldn't help but like Tom Hanks in some bits of the film. Audrey Tautou was pretty, and fulfilled her purpose. And Jean Reno was surprisingly menacing as Fache.
The message at the end of the film is that if Jesus married and had a child, why should it take away from his divinity, and I have to say I agree with that to some extent. While I prefer to see Jesus as a celibate figure, if historical evidence turned up that he wasn't, I wouldn't be upset or anything. I do think many Christians forget that Jesus was human as well as divine, and thus I like anything that touches upon the human side that seems to be neglected.
I think that maybe Dan Brown's first Langdon novel 'Angels and Demons' would've made a better film. It's set at a faster pace than Da Vinci Code, still has the interesting historical and symbolic elements and probably simply would've translated better. However, religion versus science is old hat I suppose, and been tried and tested before.
And now, I have two essays to really hunker down and start work on. However, the lure of Rose and Maloney is proving to be a little too much. Particularly as Anthony Stewart Head (who seems to be turning up in every British tv show lately) is guest starring. Saw another promo for Jericho before as well...there is some good tv coming up in the next few months!
