An acceptable summer popcorn movie that improves on the book

Rating: 6/10 (30 May 2006)

SPOILER ALERT!
While not a perfect film by any means, and surrounded by far too much hysteria, the film can be an enjoyable experience if one puts aside all the hype surrounding it (which may have contributed to the negativity of some of the reviews of the film).
Although others disagree, I thought the film improved many aspects of the novel. Because I enjoy mysteries, and have some expertise in symbols, myths, and archetypes, my Catholic-raised spouse recommended the book. I enjoyed it, but thought it was sloppily written, derivative, and not particularly compelling (as in the page-turning sense mentioned so frequently by others). As someone who is knowledgeable in history, I found the "historical" aspects of the books laughable, but I didn't take them seriously. As a long-time feminist, I was more perturbed by the claim that it was "feminist," because it certainly did not strike me as remotely feminist, or even very empowering to women, in its depiction of the "sacred feminine," an archetype often seen as ensuring male enlightenment, a point both Langdon and Teabing bring up in the novel (Men find heaven through sex! Mary Magadelene moves from prostitute to wife and mother! Very enlightened).
Because I am also a film scholar who has started a research project on the film, I went to the film with some trepidation, hearing that it was faithful to the novel. As I tell my students, such faithfulness rarely makes a good film. I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, the movie is close to the book, but there are some key changes that made the film better for me than the book (those who love the book certainly would disagree, but I thought the changes made the story better at my first viewing. I still think that after viewing the film three times and reading the book four times).
I won't detail all of the changes from novel to film, but one is the choice to have Langdon be more skeptical of the more far-fetched "historical" claims spouted by Teabing (the wonderful, scenery-chewing Ian McKellen). As a college professor, I found Tom Hank's low-key, somewhat befuddled performance appropriate to how an academic might behave in such circumstances (unlike the "Indiana Jones in tweed" description of Langdon in the novel). I also felt it was better to make explicit the implied connection of Bezu Fache to Opus Dei.
I also thought Sophie Neveu fared better in the film. I know a lot of people believe the book Sophie was stronger, but I did not (nor did my husband or many others I've talked to). I was not impressed with her character in the novel, nor did I find the character particularly believable. I thought she was far too weak, naive, sheltered, and dependent for a French police cryptologist. Beyond throwing the soap out the window (implied in the film), threatening a painting (filmed but not used), and holding a gun on a taxi driver, she doesn't do much else except to solve three puzzles by herself (the Fibonnaci sequence, the Madonna on the Rocks anagram and the mirror writing; all the rest are solved by the male characters, even the first cryptex, where the men help her get the right answer). She certainly never thinks for herself about the preposterous stuff Langdon and Teabing are feeding her. Perhaps many think she is strong because she comes on strong, like Marion in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," but as the story progresses, she loses power and presence, becoming in many ways a prop dragged about by the male leads.
In contrast, I thought the film Sophie (the luminous Audrey Tautou) was stronger, and more believable, both in her behavior toward Langdon and in the reasons for her conflict with her grandfather. In the film it is revealed that he has forbidden her look up anything on her family (a departure from the book; indeed, in the published screenplay, the grandfather slaps the young Sophie to get her compliance). She is sent away to boarding school, then, on a visit home stumbles upon the hieros-gamos ritual as a much younger girl, so her shock is more credible, at least to me (I found it very unlikely that a grown woman in graduate school would be shocked, shocked! to find her grandfather having sex in the basement. Turned off maybe, but not so much she'd never speak to him again). The film Sophie does almost all the things the book one does (okay, she only solves two puzzles, not three, and the whole taxi scene is not shown). She is far more physical toward Silas, both at Château Villette (where she slams his head on the floor twice, and takes his gun--not in the book), and then in Teabing's plane (where she slaps him twice when interrogating him, also not in the book). It is true she does wind up being dragged around at the end, but that is a problem in the novel as well.
As for the rest of the film, the desaturated flashbacks also added to the film, as did the choir-like score, enhancing both the mystery and the suspense. The cinematography, while not the best, blends real location footage with sound-stage work and CGI effects to make it appear first as if the characters are really in various spots (e.g. Westminster Abbey, parts of the Louvre and San Sulpice--the mattes are especially effective there) and as if people from the past are surrounding the main characters at points in the film.
Because I love all types of movies, and have seen thousands, I've rated it as 6/10, but I really see it as more 6.5./10. No where near outstanding, but certainly not horrible either, given its genre (I've seen far worse).