Faithful adaptation, excellent casting... and Howard didn't disappoint us.

Rating: 7/10 (29 May 2006)

Let me begin with what I think about the book. I think though it is poorly written, it is extremely clever in creating sensation. The characters are one-dimensional, the story too cheesy, but the plot and the theme are extremely interesting, revolutionary and its controversy well-marketed. And yes, the codes were entertaining.
Now for the film, which obviously created more sensation than the book, delivers enough satisfaction to both... those who read the book and those who hadn't. My companion haven't read it yet but she enjoyed the film as much as I did. Howard created a very faithful adaptation of Brown's novel. He only omitted a few rather unnecessary portions of the story for the sake of time and left out one or two steps in the story's code-breaking sequence, which was perhaps good for a moviegoer who haven't read the book. For example, the film deals with only one cryptex. The film also introduces one or two added scenes that only added to the entertainment... like Sophie's joking attempt to walk on the water in the end.
A strong feature of the film is its casting. Each main character is casted according to his/her nationality. Tom Hanks gives us another perfect professional performance as Robert Langdon. He's indeed not the way I imagined while reading the book but Hanks's expertise got over that feeling. On the other hand, Audrey Tautou's Sophie Neveu is absolutely what I imagined during the reading -- strong-willed, intelligent yet soft in demeanor. Tautou, an enormously talented actress as she is, makes Sophie one of the film's strongest points. There's much critical praise for Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing and I agree with the critics here. And finally for the two Opus Dei people, though Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa is under-utilised, Paul Bettany steals every scene he's in as Silas. His self-torture scene at the beginning is priceless.
Then what are the film's flaws? One is certainly its wooden dialogues. Well, the basic plot may give rise to laughter when you present them with such flat words. And some of the viewers in the theatre indeed giggled when Langdon let out Sophie's secret in the end. I believe its for the film's attempted simplicity for the 'virgin' audiences. Still, there should have been more smart lines. The next thing is the rush the film runs with. Yes, one has to adapt a 500 page novel in a two-hour film. Still, some key secrets demand slow detailing... otherwise much thrill is lost. That's exactly what happened. At least the final secret about the Merovingian bloodline needed more time to grow. I think three hours should have been the film's ideal duration.
Lastly, an appeal to the viewers: please don't rate or judge the film from your religious standpoint. Films/books are pieces of art and entertainment. I'm frankly surprised by this film's IMDb rating. It certainly is worth more. It's not a masterpiece, but it's definitely the year's one of the most entertaining films.