Da Vinci suffered from book to film.. but barely

Rating: 8/10 (24 August 2006)

right.. everyone saw it.. it was the biggest deal for a while.. religion, always a big draw for the wings of average movie-goers. but, for those of you waiting for the delux-super-remixed-director's-cut DVD to come out before you waste your time watching it, i've got a couple words to say about the DaVinci Code (no spoilers). i'm not going to go into an in depth book review, but it was at the very least a very decent book. easy reading, characters that really captured your interest, action that blended well into non-action sequences. the only flaw i might pick at excessively is that it reads very very much like a movie script. i could practically see the camera zooms and the back-lit sets dropping into place, and the dialogue often reads like a series of close-ups. i don't know exactly HOW it came off so effortlessly like someone (Dan Brown) had seen the movie National Treasure and thought "man, i could write a movie like that, but make it way more 'adult' by including cult-stuff!", but it did. now, the movie based off the book (DaVinci Code, remember), came out pretty well.. fine performances, nice police-thriller feel, good direction, etc.. probably one of Paul Bettany's most outstanding performances, that being said, he was absolutely not the ideal actor for the role.. the book has the albino as a very distinct physical presence.. Bettany ALMOST makes up for it with his overwhelming attitude and facial acting, but a key element of Silas for me was that when he enters a situation (like the church, with the nun), other characters automatically see this huge hulking beast of a man, and then Silas speaks, and is very soft-spoken, and the initial rush of fear becomes one of slightly confused/off-kilter pity and ease.. which makes for a much more dynamic villain! and I'm afraid Bettany just doesn't have the automatic fear reaction.. simply being all white does not a scary-man make.. i couldn't go picking a better actor for the part, but Silas NEEDED to be bigger.. Tom Hanks, with the fakest looking hair i've ever seen, does an adequate job in his role, but he IS an extremely accomplished actor, and would've done that anyway.. i feel he does his character justice, as does Audrey Tautou, while not as cute and innocent as the Amelie we all know and love, Agent Nevue wasn't meant to be, so it came off well. the supporting cast was extra-fine, the french police played both 'dumb cop' and 'smart/sharp-eyed detective' very well in ever instance they were meant to, and made the characters believable enough for any and all transitions between the two extremes..
one thing i was depressed with was the casting of Ian McKellen in the role of Sir Teabing.. in the book, when we first meet Teabing, he's simply another tertiary character, humorous and helpful, but casting McKellen makes it obvious that we've just gotten our third main character. i far prefer the book's presentation of him as an expanding background character, not much more important than his driver, and then the humorous french-hating brit grows on us and becomes a part of the group in a much more natural feeling way.. in order to accomplish the same end result, we would've needed a much less known actor cast here.. but then, where are we going to find older British actors who aren't well known?!?.. honestly, i think John Cleese as played enough cameos, he could've pulled it off, and he's well suited to the growth of the character later on.. the book is full of characters who grow and become more and less than they were, and the movie for the most part matches them up.. Alfred Molina is a prime example. casting perfection. if the characters of Silas and Teabing had been chosen differently, to try to stick to the feeling of the book more appropriately (although, admittedly my distaste for McKellen is based on a much more surreal objection.. and i love ian mckellen, don't get me wrong, he does a great job, and always does.. he just brought too big a name to a character that in the book really benefited from being under-lit.. ), this movie would've been absolutely a Must-See.. as it is, it's only barely 'worth-watching'..
(oh, and in response to the previous review, yes, Tom Hanks' character was supposed to be a very unwilling protagonist, and he succeeded admirably)