Don't Believe the Reviews

Rating: 7/10 (23 May 2006)

Much later than most, I read the book. When I heard that Tom Hanks was starring, I was surprised because there's really not much of a character for him to play in Prof. Langdon. After reading the reviews (did you see the crying Anthony Lane did in the New Yorker?) I figured the movie was wooden and too-close-to-the-book. I was especially deflated by the several reviews that said this was a terrible performance by Tom Hanks. The audience doesn't seem to agree and neither do I. I was at a 12:45pm show in New York today and the theater was 2/3 full. For a weekday, that's how we say "hit."
This movie is a fine thriller. Not the greatest movie, but a fine thriller Tom Hanks does very well with a role that doesn't have much in it. He doesn't overplay a thing and plays it real. I wish they hadn't had him say, "this can't be so" twice within the first ten minutes, but that's a nit. The movie follows Hollywood thriller conventions and does so well. The added wrinkle of the religious mystery they're unveiling is handled well enough, making for a successful "family" themed resolution. A little more development of Sophie and her issues would have made that resolution even better.
So why all the savaging reviews? I can think of a reason . . . or maybe 40 million of them. People who make their living in the arts (like many reviewers, particularly the effete ones)have trouble with Dan Brown's book selling 40 million copies. God knows why such things take off (pun acknowledged)but people who struggle to get published are kept up at night by what they see as the unmerited success of a hack writer. It happens. The movie is fine. Tamp down your expectations and it'll be fun.