You can't put a book in a film camera Ron...

Rating: 4/10 (24 May 2006)

I think with this film they were trying to translate from page to screen as accurately as possible. However this approach not only bores those who've already read it, but those who knew nothing about it. Small changes are made just because it cuts a few corners and because the book was actually a sequel so Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) isn't greatly developed.
In theory the cast is really great but the character work is so paper thin(pun intended) they all look rather rather bored, Hanks especially who is bland and uninvolved. Jean Reno comes out OK as bullish detective Bezu Fache and Sir Ian Mckellan does well with what he has.
On a technical level and I don't know if it's just me but the focus pulling seemed really bad and the one action scene was totally botched through bad editing. Suspense was lacking, the pace the slow, despite the book being frantic until the last third and comically Tom Hanks seemed to have magic vision that allowed him to solve everything.
Silas the albino monk (Paul Bettany) was daft and useless, as he was in the book. If he'd have given the flagellation a rest until after work he'd have stood a much better chance. But that's just me I guess.
I was also disappointed in the mystery element to the film, there are so many puzzles, they're solved too quickly and it detaches the audience, plus the exposition is so arduous that it becomes dull and you wish Ron Howard would've had the balls to deviate from the book and rework it so that characters were developed better and suspense can be built. I think they should have been brave and created new scenes separate from the book and taken risks, but then it is Ron Howard, so middle of the road he should get his license revoked for bad driving.
To sum up, this film is not worth seeing if you've read the book, because you'll gain nothing, but you might want to give it a try if you know little about it. 4/10