The Other Da Vinci Code

          I usually dislike movie adaptations of the books that I read, the only exception being 2 States. But I don't dislike this movie. I loathe it!

                  The plot of the movie is: Robert Langdon gets entangled in a murder case with a beautiful French woman and ends up alone for all his trouble. To begin with, the beginning is all wrong. The conversation between Fache and Robert before they see the body lasts for a few pages in the book but here it's cramped into a few minutes. I don't mind that, but why in heaven's name do you have to insert the pyramid part in the very beginning? Was that really necessary?

          Ok, that did seem a bit hysterical didn't it? But even when it comes to acting, they all suck. Tom Hanks is most expressive during the elevator-claustrophobia scene and that's the least thrilling scene in the entire movie. The actor playing Fache actually cries. Sophie is supposed to have only a faint French accent as her grandfather spoke to her in the la lingua pura always but as the film Sophie had only a few years with grandpa, I guess her English education is incomplete. That's probably why the movie Sophie speaks English like a French actress.

         The one single reason behind my dislike for movie adaptations is the fact that they never ever stay true to the original story. If the screenwriters are so creative, why not write their own story from scratch? Why do they have to murder the original stories? Every movie adaptation I have ever seen, (except for 2 States) tries to change the story to show that the screenwriters have done something other than copy lines from the books. This is also the reason why I am not sure about watching the new series based on Cormoran Strike Series. And also the reason I stopped watching the shitty series that the producers have the nerve to call Shadowhunters. 

        But coming back to this film, they have changed the very essence of the story. The thrill doesn't depend on the story, the dialogue or the acting(because it's non-existent!) but on the vaguely chilling loud music that would me more at home at the Conjuring or any other stupid horror flick. One fundamental point, namely the rift between Jacques and Sophie is almost changed into an impulsive decision made by a 10 year old girl. How is she going to fund her school and later her college if she runs away from her grandfather, her only living family member when she's in primary school?

          The only good part in this entire movie is the character Leigh Teabing. Ian McKellen is brilliant in his role as the fanatic Grail historian who is filthy rich. It has the right amount of craziness but it would've been a tad bit better if the Grail virgin dialogue had been included. It's a pity that his part is slightly reduced from that in the book to accommodate the silliest climax in the history of climaxes. (God, that sounds wrong.)

        Talking about the climax, why did they leave Robert Langdon alone? After dragging him through Paris and all the way to London, the least the guy deserved was Sophie's phone number if not the date as mentioned in the book. All he gets is a good brotherly hug and (even worse) a fatherly kiss on the forehead(again, poor poor Langdon!) But I guess that was the punishment meted out to Tom Hanks for his shitty acting skills. 

      Summing it up, if it weren't for Ian McKellen, this movie would definitely get a 0/10. However, unfortunately, there are only so many marks that I can give the movie for one character who only enters the screen past the half-way mark. 

So, here's the rating:

4/10 - Below Average

Note: I recommend you see the cinemasins video of this movie on youtube.