‘The Da Vinci Code’
Harvard professor of Religious Symbology, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is in Paris on business when he’s summoned to the Louvre. A dead body has been found, setting Langdon off on an adventure as he attempts to unravel an ancient code and uncover the greatest mystery of all time.

The movie adaptation of Dan Brown’s hugely successful novel, was directed by Ron Howard (‘A Beautiful Mind’, ‘Apollo 13’), who is the single most important factor in the movie’s failure. Quite how he managed to miss the mark so spectacularly is anyone’s guess.

The novel, while not particularly well written, practically reads like a screenplay, and in the right (perhaps more daring) hands, could have been a great pop-thriller.

As it stands, the movie is flat and uninspired. This could be due to the fact that everyone and their mother has read the book and been bombarded by media coverage concerning the backlash from the Catholic Church, but that’s no excuse.

Examples of previous Oscar-winning, million-selling book-to-movie adaptations such as ‘The Godfather’ and ‘Silence of the Lambs’, were such huge artistic and commercial success stories, because the right cast and crew were allowed to bring the stories to life.

Tom Hanks, as central character Robert Langdon, is utterly forgettable. Admittedly, the character from the book is not exactly Indiana Jones, but Hanks brings none of his trademark likeability here.

Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, however, shines when he appears half way through, and carries the movie for the duration of its running time. Paul Bettany, as crazed assassin-monk, Silas, does an adequate job with what he’s given, yet always seems like he’s in the wrong movie.

Audrey Tautou, as Langdon’s sidekick asks a lot of stupid questions, and serves only to make sure the audience hasn’t missed anything. Extra support comes in the form of the ever-watchable Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina.

All in all, ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is an all-too-literal adaptation, remarkably boring in places, safely played, miscast and utterly disappointing.
2 out of 5

‘X-Men: The Last Stand’
When a cure is found to treat mutations, lines are drawn amongst the X-Men, led by Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), and the Brotherhood, a band of powerful mutants organized under Xavier’s former ally, Magneto (Ian McKellen).

The third in the mega-successful comic book movie franchise was rushed into production and completed in half the time it should have taken. It shows. The two previous X-movies were directed by Bryan Singer (‘The Usual Suspects’).

After being offered the chance to make ‘Superman Returns’, Singer bailed out of ‘X-Men 3’ and upset a lot of people at Fox studios. Tom Rothman, Fox’s head of production, vowed to have the film completed and in cinemas before Singer could release his ‘Superman’ movie in July, no matter what.

Firstly, it could have been a lot worse. The movie has no right to be any good, given its production history, Singer’s replacement, Brett Ratner (‘Rush Hour’, ‘Red Dragon’), has delivered a solid summer blockbuster.

Where Singer excelled at interweaving the characters’ stories and developing the depth, subtext, and themes of intolerance and rascism, Ratner is a one trick pony. He blows stuff up really well.

The main cast returns, for their third and final, contracted appearances. ‘X-Men’ is an ensemble film, and most of the fan favourites are given reasonable screen time, with even more new mutants added to the mix.

A pair of particularly jarring deaths takes place in the film, main characters too, and some will be surprised to see them go. Many mutants lose their powers, through ‘The Cure’ too, which will no doubt annoy many, but does serve to add a sense of danger and urgency to proceedings.

The visual effects have clearly been affected by the short turnaround time, but while not on a par with ‘X-Men 2’, still deliver the bang for your buck. On one hand, the lack of any emotional depth on show compared to the superb second film, really detracts from what could have been a fitting end to the trilogy, but on the other, it really delivers on the action, in a way Singer could never quite manage.

Its incredibly short running time too, affects the pacing terribly and the hardly-there soundtrack doesnít help either. If you’re expecting, smart action, you won’t find it here, but if you only want to be entertained by comic book superheroes for a couple of hours, it’s a no-brainer.
3 out of 5