A chilling adaptation

Rating: 9/10 (21 May 2006)

To preface my comment, I would like to say that most movies based on books range from superb adaptations (LoR, Shogun) to so awful the writers (dead or alive) are spinning in their graves (Necronomicon, Congo, about a thousand more...). What The DaVinci Code does is make an incredibly solid adaptation.
Frankly, I have no idea about what most of the critics are talking about. The movie "xXx" was, strangely enough, an incredible movie because of the characterization of Vin Diesel's character. What I think a lot of people are forgetting about The DaVinci Code's main character is that, frankly, he's not exactly personable. That's right: Robert Langdon is THE HEAD OF THE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLOGY DEPARTMENT AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, he is not Indiana Jones (though Jones was a professor, he was actually characterized as charming, unlike Langdon who is awkward), and he is not James Bond. Tom Hanks, with the punctuated phrasings and awkward movements seem more correct than having him sip a martini and expose the code; it is only at times of deep, intellectual argument that he explodes in anger.
Why does he not act absolutely terrified when guns are discharging next to his head and he being chased by the authorities? Because he did that during Angels and Demons, which occurred two or three years before the DaVinci Code. Enough of Langdon.
Likewise, it is impossible to cram all the information from the book into the movie; the movie does get every plot point down, and as someone who is a fan of the book, I could not complain when I walked out of the theater. Another point is that many people seem to point out that the book is God's gift to literature: if you analyze it, all the book is is short, punctuated chapters that use a "Description-Explanation-Action" schema to express a really interesting idea. It's not literature, it's popular fiction. The movie is a fine adaptation of this schema, employing the scenery with great gusto (I was disappointed that they missed out at Kings College, but it was 2:29:00 long movie), the explanations came with full, flash back scenery for those without imagination of knowledge to know what a Templar was, what a Roman city looked like, etc, and the action was superb.
Silas was not the only good part of the movie; though he was freaky enough to exploit Brown's imagery of Opus Dei. McKellan was bound to be the best actor, and proves the Leigh Teabing was in fact the only one in the book that actually had personality. Tautou actually made a grander impression in my mind than the Sophie from the book.
Overall, this is a great adaptation. It's certainly not one of the greatest films of all time, but a steady 8.7 would best describe the masterful work of Howard, Hanks, and Tautou in accordance with a really good (yet fictional) idea.