sub-average movie with some good parts.

Rating: 1/10 (23 May 2006)

tom hanks is usually one of Hollywood's finest actors but he stinks in this boring movie. there is no tension/chemistry between langdon and sophie neveu (the two lead characters). the first half of the movie is disjointed (but easily understood by those who read the book) and stilted (not easily tolerated by those who felt a rush of excitement by the book). ian mckellen (sir leigh teabing) is the movie's saving grace and his acting and line delivery transmute scenes in which he appears to the only enjoyable portion of the movie. his scene's seem to have a faster pace and more radiance from all the actors. for these reasons the movie is enjoyable during the 55% to 85% portion of its time-line. as i said the beginning is boring and the end just drags on uneventfully and dogmatically. the movie is very true to the book and perhaps this will answer the question regarding the many other book to movie conversions: why wasn't the movie exactly like the book? because it is a different medium and it calls for a different style of communication. i prefer a movie with a good screenplay to a movie based on a good book, anytime.