could have been better

Rating: 6/10 (26 July 2006)

1st we'll start with the simple things then get to the more complicated stuff. acting performances: not the best performance by hanks,excellent work by Ian McClellan and Audrey. these are the most notable, the other actors (molina and co) were just fine. when i saw the trailer of the movie, i thought that the time has finally come for Bethany to breakthrough and become a really heavyweight actor joining the elite of Hollywood but that didn't happen mostly because the movie have ruined the character that we have read and sympathized with. i think the biggest mistake was making this movie a 2h something. of course most pros and script writers would disagree saying that there are certain rules when you adapt a novel, but this novel was truly unconventional in so many ways. it isn't enough that its turned into a movie it has to be turned into a truly great movie. because i believe that the success to the box office was a tribute to the book. but how could have this movie been better? first i would make it an epic adventure like pirates of the Caribbean or lord of the rings. because turning it into a thriller is of no use, its the most read novel in the history of literature! so its not a surprise that teabing is the murderer or that Sophie neveu is the "decsendent" of Jesus Christ. so having a breath taking epic adventure full of riddle's and mysteries traveling through time and space to find what jack sauniere has Left his grand daughter after his death. another point is why is this movie only two hours something? it easily could be four hours! and it wont be long because what we enjoyed the most about the novel was Dan brown's ability to end every page with a cliff hanger, so its not long. as long as their is action taking place and as long as this action adds something to the story it cannot be considered unnecessary. an example is in the movie where langdon is asked to explain the pentacle on sauniere's body. langdon says it has nothing to o with devil worship. while in the novel he goes on for pages analyzing how this star evolved from being a sign of goddess Venus into a sign for devil worshipers. this doesn't only supply the reader with interesting interpretations but also makes the reader safer so that he becomes more shocked when he finds out langdon is actually a suspect. the longer time langdon spends explaining to fache, the more shocked will be the audience to find out that is a suspect. to sum it up the film failed in bringing the dark and tense mode of the novel to life. but thats because Ron Howard wanted to deliver a message different than the book's. the book is an invitation to renew our faith, while the movie is the conclusion that Ron Howard has come to after reading the novel. our faith is good, and helps us the way it is regardless of the historical truth (the well scene). Kenneth Brana would have been great as Robert langdon! i give it 6