This movie is very sensitive but handled very well by Ron howard. And the actor Tom hanks makes it very watchable. The controversy was not worth. And pls do not compare the movie with the book. There is something called cenimatic liberty and they have done full justice to the movie. The climax was brilliant it says it all about faith. The scene where tom hanks says when i was dying i prayed to god jesus........ its all about faith. The climax of the movie wins over the controversy. The fanatics of the world should go to hell or else watch this movie.
The reviewer has not got the facts with him and has revealed the plot and spoiled the suspense for those who did not read the book. this is sufficient to project him as an inept reviewer. he is not fit to do the job. he blunders he has done in his review.... Holy Grail is not Sophie. it is not Opus Dei which is trying to obliterate the holy secret. it is just cashing in on it. and above all this person says "Howard and Goldsman give it their best shot, but blurred images of planets circling in a medieval time is the best they can come up with". Mannnnn..... Robert is trying to think of the missing orb which could lead him to the code. all those planets are supposed to be the orbs in Newton's tomb. he is going thro' them in his mind to see which orb is missing. if you could not even see 'this' better stick to watching afternoon soap operas. do not try to show off!!!!
Right from starting with a spoiler to lambasting Tom Hanks' performance, the reviewer has given the worst possible comments. Rediff's reputation is fast nose-diving by paying incompetent reviewers like this. If he had paid even the remotest attention to character traits while reading the book, he would have understood the deep and composed yet passionate character portrayed by Langdon and essayed brilliantly by Hanks. The movie was by no scale horrible, and in fact, stayed quite true to the book, both in keeping the thrill and relaying the depth of interpretations. The only take-away value from the article was the reviewer's cockiness and stupidity.
Hi, I would prefer Rediff.com to engage a good reviewer to review the movies. These guys dont understand how to review or what to do. The movie was made well and if you cant understand english, then u have to read the novel. If you cant understand the movie better go to your kindergarden refresh your english then start reviewing. These things make me move away from rediff and go for a better site which provides good review and good things to read.
The movie was pretty good and deserves more than the rating given by the critic. Rediff reviewers like to believe that they are at a higher level of awareness and knowledge than most other mortals. Pseudos!
Agreed the book is much better but the movie was very watchable and certainly not a waste of time.The reviewer seems to have got it all wrong to give it such a low rating
Right from spilling the beans at the beginning to pitting Jean Reno against Tom Hanks (duh!!!!), the reviewer seems to have written an essay with the sole intention to sound like a know-it-all critic. When in reality, this guy has no judgement of movie-making, acting skills or anything else. Off late rediff.com's reputation is fast nose-diving by paying incompetent writers like this guy. If he had read the book with even the remotest understanding, he could have figured the detached unemotional yet passionate character portrayed by Robert Langdon and played to perfection by Tom Hanks. And did Dan Brown come in his dreams and tell him that Sophie Neveu has an English or French accent, how many French people has he spoken to in his life to make a judgement on a confused accent. If someone like this wants to write his dumb personal opinion on a movie, he should do it on a personal blog and not on a news website like this. But I guess nobody will visit that blog!!!!
