Books fails to translate into Movie

Rating: 6/10 (25 May 2006)

The magic formula Dan Brown used to transform his book, The Da Vinci Code, into a bestselling novel didn't seem to be present in the new film version. What in book form had been a fast paced novel became a slow film, bogged down by an overabundance of dialogue. Although most of the differences between the book and film were fairly inconsequential and made simply in the interest of time, some major changes at the end were questionable. Unfortunately, the beautiful Paris scenery and creative cinematic techniques weren't enough to override the mediocre acting and sluggish plot.
One of the greatest strengths in Dan Brown's novel is the plethora of background information on symbology and early Christianity, regardless of whether these so called "facts" are actually true or not. It is through inner monologues that most of this information is revealed to the reader. Since it is difficult to reveal a character's thoughts on film, extra dialogue is used instead. The amount of dialogue that the script writers were forced to add is one of the major factors that slows down the plot. Some of the lines seem awkward and unnatural because they sound more like thoughts than what a person would actually say out loud. In an effort to avoid adding even more dialogue, the film uses an interesting technique to show the problem solving process in Langdon's brain. When Langdon is trying to solve the riddle on Newton's tomb, the tomb appears on the screen as a kind of hologram and the different parts that he is thinking about are highlighted. While this was a refreshing change from simply adding more dialogue, it wasn't enough to pick up the pace of the movie in the numerous places it started to slow down.
There were many small differences between the book and movie. Most were obviously made simply in the interest of time and made little difference to the plot as a whole. A scene where Sophie and Langdon try to escape Paris in a cab and a scene in which the two use a computer to decipher part of a riddle were removed. Neither of these changes, as well as several other small ones, really made that much of a difference. There were a few changes, however, that probably would have been better had they been kept the same as in the book. In the book there were two cryptex, the first one opened to reveal another. Because the second cryptex was removed, an entire riddle that was in the book was taken out of the movie. The riddle solving is one of the most interesting aspects in both the movie and novel, so the complete removal of a riddle from the movie was a little disappointing. An interesting difference in that the movie version is that Langdon is less open-minded than the one from the book. He discredits most of the grail myth and even argues with Teabing about several points. By giving Langdon a more moderate stance on the whole issue, the film loses some of the controversy that was created in the book. Whether or not this was intentional is hard to say. The most noticeable change in the movie is the ending. While in the book Langdon and Sophie never find the Sangrael documents in the Rosslyn Chapel, they actually do in the movie. The entrance to the chamber seems ridiculously obvious, hidden beneath a very evident symbol of the unified chalice and blade. Another grating difference was that in the film it is implied that Sauniere wasn't actually Sophie's biological grandfather while in the book he most definitely is. The changes made for the sake of cutting time made sense, but the other big changes were not only unnecessary, but often times irritating as well. The special effects and cinematography were very creative. Whenever a flashback occurs in the movie the picture becomes slightly grainy and takes a bluish tone. The grain adds to the effect of these flashbacks being distant memories, deteriorating over time. This effect was used to illustrate Silas's history as well as a few parts of early Christian history. Another interesting effect was when Langdon and Sophie were walking into Rosslyn Chapel, what the chapel had looked like hundred of years ago was projected around them, helping to put the fantastic age of the church into perspective. Ian Mckellen's portrayal of the eccentric Teabing was excellent, but for the most part the acting was mediocre. Tom Hanks seemed miscast for the part of Robert Langdon, described in the book as an attractive man in his mid thirties. Hanks, with his terrible hair and lack of sex appeal, seemed unsuited for the role. Silas, played by Paul Bettany, was fittingly creepy, but was unable to capture the audience's sympathy like the character does in the book. Part of the reason for this could have been the much abbreviated background of the character. A chapter's worth of his history is shortened to a three minute flashback in the movie. What is a fantastic thriller on paper simply doesn't translate into a great movie. Although the film is by no means terrible, its slightly slower pace and annoying changes could be disappointing for those who enjoyed the book. It's a movie worth seeing in the cinema once, but it's unlikely too many people will go back to see it again.