Is this even the same story?

Rating: 6/10 (20 May 2006)

I read the book a week before the movie and, despite serious objections to the falsely claimed "facts" given by Dan Brown, I was drawn in by the engaging cat-and-mouse/treasure hunt story and wanted to see how this story can be adapted to the big screen. Despite the film's keeping to the basic storyline (search for the holy grail and its true meaning while evading multiple opposing forces) I left with the overwhelming sensation of "what the heck did I just see?" Granted, one can never transfer all the minute details, exposition, dialog, or action that the book contains into a 2 hour film; however, there is a fine line between editing out certain parts and adding new parts that have absolutely no relevance or relationship to the original story. In the film version of "The DaVinci Code", director Ron Howard not only crosses this line but leaps over it with reckless abandon. The pacing was all wrong, far too fast to develop any sense of tension (except the scenes where Silas physically attacks his adversaries). Character interaction in some cases were so different from the book that you are looking at a completely different person (see spoilers below). The ending was for the most part completely different (again see spoilers below). But despite all these changes, the overall film (standing on its own) was a serious let down in the entertainment factor. Bad pacing (as stated before), motivation of major characters changed unreasonably or were never explained, dialog seemed forced by some of the characters (Sofie and Langdon), and the ending just reeked of cheese.
6 out of 10. Definitely no where near the quality of film that Howard or Hanks usually produce.
********************************** SPOILERS **********************************
This is mostly for those who have read the book. As I watched the film I couldn't help but cringe or scream (internally, wouldn't actually do it in the theater) "HOWARD YOU *******" based on these blatant changes:
1) Silas's eyes are blue in the film, not red as the book states.
2) "The Sacred Feminine" theory that is so blatant in the book is not as aggressively "preached" in the film. A change that I actually found relieving.
3) Bishop Aringarosa, to put it bluntly, is not the same person. The book portrays him as a righteous priest duped by to find the Holy Grail in hopes of saving Opus Dei from being excommunicated and is horrified at what was done in the name of God. The movie, however, portrays him as a zealous member of a inner circle within the Vatican (no where mentioned in the book) who will do anything to destroy the Holy Grail including lying and murdering.
4)Fache's motivation for thinking Langdon is guilty is different. It starts off like the book, Sauniere left Langdon's name at the crime scene thus, in Fache's mind, Langdon is identified as the killer; however, later in the film we are told that Fache is after Langdon cause Aringarosa lied (as later revealed) that Langdon told the bishop he committed the murders in confession.
5) Fache and Aringarosa's relationship. The movie portrays Aringarosa as a manipulator like "The Teacher" and pulls the strings of Fache's sense of faith and duty by framing Langdon. When the truth is revealed in the end, Aringarosa is unrepentant and still hell bent on his mission. The book is nothing like this. Why Howard decided to make a blatant change to the story is beyond me.
6) Only one cryptex, the smaller one with the Issac Newton riddle, is kept in the film. Any reference to the larger (heavier) cryptex and the "Sofie" riddle are completely gone.
7) Langdon is approached by Collet at the lecture and not at his hotel room. Minor point, I know.
8) Langdon and Sophie's trip to the Swiss Bank is on foot instead of by Taxi (they even added a scene of Sophie paying a guy to not take drugs).
9) Rosalyn Church is completely different than described in the book. Don't know if the movie shows the actual church or not. Furthermore, Langdon and Sophie actually go beneath the church and find Priory documents and evidence at the sarcophagus was present. No such event was in the book.
10) Major changes concerning Sophie's family: Sauniere was not her grandfather but acted as one after Sophie's family died to protect her; Sophie and her brother were in the car wreck and only she survived; as stated before, her brother is really dead; it was her parents that took her to Rosalyn church not her grandfather; she was scolded (rather harshly) by Sauniere because she was trying to find out what happened to her family (not because she snuck into his room and found the key).
11) Langdon figures out the rose line riddle all on his own with absolutely no help from Sophie's grandmother.
12) Sophie confronts Silas in the airplane. This scene didn't make any sense. Not the way Sophie acted, but how Silas talked to her which I felt was totally out of character.