a "copy-paste" movie

Rating: 4/10 (14 June 2009)

When a book is made into a movie, more often than not a lot of things are being erased, switched around or altered in order to make a cohesive film that the audience can enjoy.
With the Da Vinci Code there isn't really that many changes, and it is basically because the original Dan Brown book is as close to a synopsis for a movie script as you can come.
The movie follows the events of the book almost chronologically with some alterations which will always occur, but generally does not disrupt the flow of the story.
However, when director Ron Howard and his scriptwriter chose to be as faithful to the book as they have, they have forgotten one important element: interpretation. There are basically no description or depiction regarding story, character or anything else that does not come straight from the book. This fact results in the movie not being able to assert its own position in the world of the Da Vinci Code, in which it now has entered, instead it gets reduced to a visual aid for the book.
I perticularly found Tom Hank's Robert Langdon flat as a pancake. Hanks, who through movies such as Philadelphia and Forrest Gump really showed his awesome caliber as an actor, never really delwes into the character and makes it his own. Ron Howard and to some extent Dan Brown, had a pre-conceived idea as to how Langdon should walk, talk feel and act that Hanks seems cut out of any relation to this character. It gives him no room to manuver and he becomes a stooge giving his lines with an almost wooden feel, that doesn't entice the audience in anyway.
The other main character Sophie Neveu is also just a pawn in the hands of the director. Audrey Tautou is, to an even greater extent than Hanks, left with nothing other than an already set idea and with even less material to work with. The writer has forgotten that the character Neveu has been trained in solving riddles by her grandfather, and as it is her grandfather who leaves all the traces for them to follow, you would think that she would be teaching the Harward professor a think or two, but that never happens.
Of course it is difficult when dealing with a bestselling novel which the entire world has read and loved, to begin changing the story too much as you would than alienate a large portion of potential movie gooers. However, Ron Howard should have taken more time to think about the project and tried to really make it his own, rather than just "copy-pasting" the book to screen.
Instead of watching this movie, read the illustrated edition of the book, because then you get the exact same locations as are present in the movie, but you will be able to create your own images as well.
The book is great in the sense that it actually invited the reader to think and guess alongside Langdon. This is not possible with the movie as Howard, while using every element in the book, still feels it necessary to explain that which would otherwise make the audience do their own thinking...you can't have a thinking audience...can you?