I haven't been able to write for quite some time, not because I didn't find anything interesting or provoking :) but due to the tremendous impetus of work on my brain making my blogging abilities inert.
Ironically I was not very excited in welcoming The DaVinci code, even though the star cast reads Tom Hanks, whose acting has been prefixed by all the becoming adjectives, and the movie is directed by Ron Howard, who is arguably one of the 10 best commercial movie directors in Hollywood.
As everyone knows the movie is based on the book by Dan Brown, which has been a bestseller for more than 152 weeks now.
Although its hard to find a lot of creativity in fiction, I really relished reading the book and recommended it to anyone who wanted to take a ride full of thrill, excitement and anticipation.
I still remember when I watched the first promo and though my conscious was telling me "Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, couldn't be better", my subconscious actor was asking "don't you feel something is missing there?" and as the promo gave me a glimpse of characters and feel of movie, whatever was cooking in Ron Howard's pot didn't smell right.
I recalled not to judge a book by its cover and told myself to wait for the movie and not listen to the instincts.
The movie opened with ho-hum and it was hard to get a ticket in first 2 days.
Finally I got to the moment of truth, is the adaptation going to be that good?
As the movie rolled, it turned out to be a good adaptation considering the script play didn't wonder away from the book. My instincts about Tom Hanks proved right, he looks uncomfortable as the revered professor of symbology, I believe the director intended to broaden the horizon of acting by showing the affects of the traumatic childhood incident on Langdon, but frankly it doesn't suffice.
Audrey Tatou is convincing as Sophie Naveu, though absence of focus on her troubled relationship with her grandfather takes away some intense scenes from her.
Paul Bettany as Silas, didn't feel like one of the best choices but surprisingly he has ably portrayed the shades of the ghost angel.
Best performance in the movie is delivered by Ian Mckellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, he is fantastic in developing the most intriguing character of the movie.

I felt like the heart was missing from the movie, most engaging moments from the book involve explaining cryptology and unveiling the codes and puzzles. It feels like that Ron Howard had the pressure of winding up the movie in adequate time and he missed the real "grail", professor Langdon solves riddles, codes, anagrams, puzzles so fast that I was wondering if he has gone through this chequered ride in past.
The movie is engaging but it lacks the magical treatment which Dan Brown has given to his book.
I don't need to write an anagram to write my opinion on this movie : ) , I would just say "Watchable but no justice to book".

Until next time...have fun and take care