50% of the people will agree with this review

Rating: 7/10 (10 June 2006)

I say that because 50% of the people seem to agree with every review on the board. The film is that divisive and so the reviews are necessarily divided as well, along with people's reaction to them. I don't usually read novels but I read this one and I'm kind of sorry I did because it meant I knew everything that was going to happen ahead of time, just as with "King Kong". You wind up dissecting the film rather than experiencing it. If you are one of the few remaining cavemen who haven't read this book, I'd suggest seeing the movie first, then reading the book. It's easier to dissect a book and more fun to experience a movie.
The big problem in both mediums for this material is the tremendous amount of exposition required to have some idea of what is going on. There is conversation after conversation giving a "Cliff's Notes" version of history, at least the history Dan Brown decided to mix in with his dramatic speculations. The film at least cuts down on those to keep the action moving. It might have been a better idea to get all or most of that out of the way with Langdon's opening lecture, rather that jump-cutting to a book signing after his introduction. The filmmakers might have even had him dream about these events before he is awakened by the call from the police.
Ron Howard is a more experienced storyteller than Dan Brown and the movie shows it. It's much more streamlined than the book and handles things like the attitude of Teabing's butler much better. Tom Hanks is adequate as Langdon, (emphasizing his claustrophobia at the beginning is a master-stroke as it seems to confirm Feche's suspicions). Audrey Tautou is OK as Sophie, although the character is not very well defined in either the book or the film. Ian McKellen plays Teabing not merely as the closest thing to a "bad guy" in the story but something of a pathetically obsessed nut, also an improvement from the book.
Although the history in the story ranges from speculative to simply wrong, (the film also cleverly deals with this: Langdon noting that the Priory of Scion is "thought to be a hoax" but isn't), the basic idea of it: that it was intended that we be governed by traits both male and female, that our male dominated churches and governments have produced too much rivalry and violence and that we need more female nurturing, is a good one and well worth thinking about after seeing this film. But I'm still left with the basic question: If your group is opposed to the established church and possesses something that will "destroy" it, (surely an overstatement), why would you keep it a secret for 2000 years? Wouldn't this make more sense if the Church held "the Grail" and the Priory were trying to obtain it?