What Happened?

Rating: 2/10 (18 May 2006)

First, I want to address the few comments I've seen from people who say, "Don't rag on the movie, it hasn't even come out yet." Well, most of the reviews are from today and yesterday. The movie has indeed come out in Europe, where most of the current reviewers are from. And yes, I have actually seen the film.
I admit I went into this movie with high expectations. After all, with an incredibly talented cast and director, what could possibly go wrong? I think Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors of our generation, and I thought he would do the role justice. I adore Audrey Tautou, and I think Ian McKellen is great in everything he's in.
But boy, oh, boy did they have little to work with. The dialog was mechanical and almost read like a bad after school special script or a PSA. I think most of the problems in this movie were caused by the sceenwriter, though.
Character development is super weak throughout the film, the changes made from the novel were mostly stupid and pointless. It did feel rushed, although with so much ground to cover, I'm sure it was difficult to come up with the concepts they did use.
As far as the good, well, aside from the corny elements, Ian McKellen was superb, as usual. He's just such a good actor, though, and makes the character of Teabing come alive. Even better than McKellen, though, was Paul Bettany. I can honestly say I've never seen him in a movie, but I was blown away by his performance. He was perfect for the role, and I'm glad to see he's getting a lot of kudos for his performance.
**SPOILERS SECTION***************************************************** Why on earth did they feel the need to change fundamental aspects of the story. From what I can tell from the early reviews, I seem to be one of the few people who noticed how radically they departed from the novel with regard to "spilling the secrets" of the Holy Grail. In the novel, Teabing's story is incredible. It is difficult to grasp. Sophie Neveu turns to Langdon to confirm the story Teabing is telling her, which he does. He does NOT question Teabing's account of the Council of Nicea. In the movie, though, what the heck happened? Langdon practically screams at Teabing when Teabing says the Council determined the divinity of Christ.
In addition, the movie doesn't expound on Langdon's true knowledge of the Priory, the Grail, and the history of the Church. Instead, he defers to Teabing and acts almost as surprised as Sophie when presented with certain pieces of knowledge. This NEVER happened in the book. I think this is really, really, really important, because Langdon gives Teabing's claims credibility in the novel. To have Langdon play Devil's Advocate in the film cheapens the story and actually makes the plot much weaker (I could probably write an essay on this alone). I want to clarify that I am well aware that this is a work of FICTION. Yes, I get it. But Langdon's agreement with Teabing on the history and potential threat of the Church is vital to the plot of the novel. Without it, Teabing's hypothesis comes across as the ramblings of a madman. While many of the ideas Dan Brown has put forth in the novel are not entirely historically accurate, they are an integral part of the plot and shouldn't be cast aside because they may be offensive to some people.
All in all, I thought the filmmakers gave into public outrage and smoothed over the "offensive" parts or cut them out entirely. I guess this is a victory for all the ignorant people who never even bothered to read the novel, but it's a shame in my opinion. To me, it's the principle. It may sound dumb, but it bothered me so much that I really did want to walk out halfway through. BUT, all this of course is just my opinion.