A solid adaptation, but as its own film it lacks substance

Rating: 6/10 (5 June 2006)

Time and time again people have criticized movies like "The DaVinci Code" with that movie- bashing mantra "it's not as good as the book." To say that this doesn't apply to Ron Howard's adaptation would be wrong, but it does deserve, in a few areas, more credit than it is given. It is a strong adaptation of a best-seller, but does little else to make it a great movie.
First of all, a movie is a movie and book is a book, and as such there are things that make good books good books and good movies good movies. With that said, the key to an adaptation of a book to a movie is to take an already good book and translate it so that it can also do what good movies do. With DaVinci, this movie does a few of these good things. A good movie is visually interesting and Howard's greatest strength is bringing images and art to a novel that is strongly art-associated. To understand Brown's books better is to look up and see the images of the art he mentions. Howard also visually creates the historical explanations that are simply dialog in the book. That, and the dark, mysterious nature of the book comes out in Howard's visual choices.
Another signature of a good movie is good characters. The trouble is Brown's novel is so plot-driven, that only the book could allow someone telling this story enough time to give insight into the characters. Howard decides accordingly that the plot is most important here, and Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou's talent goes to waste and their "normal people" characters suffer as a result. They become mere pawns of the greater themes, theories and ideas the book has founded its popularity on. The only character who gets time devoted to him is Paul Bettany's devoutly religious and murderous character Silas. Him, and Ian McKellan's quirky Sir Leigh Teabing, another theorist on the sacred feminine subject.
With a plot-driven adaptation, 'DaVinci' and especially Ron Howard can only do so much, and though I'm not one of them, anyone who is unfamiliar with the book can enjoy the movie more on plot and theory alone. Especially being released in a time where the book is still incredibly popular, I don't hesitate to believe audiences who read the book expected new light to be shed on the story through film, not something a straight adaptation can provide.
So if you're looking for a movie to strengthen your love of the book's ideas, you'll be disappointed, but if you're looking for an entertaining couple of hours of a book put to the screen, this movie does a more than satisfactory job of it.