Could have been worse, should have been better

Rating: 6/10 (19 May 2006)

I read the book and enjoyed the twists and turns and puzzle-solving and it's unique premise, so I was very much looking forward to seeing it on the big screen. This is a good movie, but not the great one it could have been.
Though Ron Howard kept the story moving and I didn't get antsy in my seat, I wondered afterward what the film would have looked like in the hands of another director. A director who can build suspense was needed for this film and that isn't Howard's strong suit. Howard and the screen writer did a good job of providing all the information and background necessary to understand a rather esoteric topic, but some of that information turned out to be dead weight when made part of the movie. Meanwhile, other information that should have been included was not. For example, Langdon's fear of small enclosed spaces really did not add to the movie and, in the book, Sophie was portrayed as more intellectual than she came across in the film. A romantic relationship between Langdon and Sophie began to develop in the book, but you don't see it in the movie.
Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon was somewhat of a misfire. In an obvious effort to appear professorial, we don't see a range of emotions in Hanks' characterization of Langdon. The book makes Langdon a man who is unwillingly swept into a murder conspiracy but who is equally impelled by his own expertise and resourcefulness. We don't see his struggles with the fear of being hunted and the frustration of figuring out his next move, and then his decoding talents come out of the blue at just the right time. Tatou does a very good job with what she's given, but the book's Sophie was shrewd and dynamic and Tatou isn't allowed to show these traits except briefly in the opening scenes. She devolves into a rather passive partner for most of the movie. Unnecessary minutes were given to Silas, whose perverse dedication to a religious philosophy could have been summed up more quickly without the short voyages to his childhood. Getting to know Silas detracted from the terror we are supposed to feel when confronted by him. Instead, we feel sorry for him most of the time and that interferes with the thrill of the chase-and-escape rhythm we should be experiencing throughout the film. Jean Reno is always the perfect French cop, but again, the dichotomy of his character is lost in the film whereas, in the book, the reader wonders if he's the "Teacher." Because of the time constraints of a movie, it would have made more sense to modify Fache because he never becomes suspicious in the way the author intended. McKellen is superb in his role as Teabing, stealing every scene he's in. My guess is Howard didn't direct him at all and just let him roll.
My rating of 6 out of 10 is slightly higher than my gut tells me because Howard and the screen writer were faced with the daunting task of not only bringing a record-breaking best seller to the screen, they had the additional burden of translating a big, complex subject full of conjecture, over-the-top characters, secret rituals, ancient histories, symbolism, and religious factions. Add to this that all the clues related to the central murder are in Mensa-type codes and you can imagine their priority was to make this story understandable to a mass audience who has not read the book. This earnestness, however, is what diluted the suspense and, ironically, left several unanswered questions. So, I keep wondering what Spielberg, who can build suspense, awe, and excitement in the span of only a few frames, would have done with a story like this.