Longer, with suspense is better

Rating: 3/10 (29 May 2006)

I'm sure that if I had not read the book first, I would not have understood this movie. The plot was very disjointed and as is, I think it will be hard to follow for those unfortunate ones who have not read the book. The movie was OK...but I don't think its all that Ron Howard lovers hyped it up to be (no offense to Ron, because I do enjoy his work). It was mostly slow, and parts that you were supposed to figure out later on (to add the thrill of suspense) were handed to you in the first five minutes of the movie. The ending was anti -climactic at best, and left out several key elements to wrap up the story. Casting was also a bit odd. I'm sure Tom Hanks does not remind ANYONE of a young Harrison Ford, nor is Silas monstrous with red eyes. In fact, all I can think of is him walking down the road penniless and hungry in A Knights Tale. Jacques Saunière also does not fit his description, as he seemed a bit beefy to be a frail old man. If the story had played out as it did in the book, with all its suspense, I think they could have gotten away with it being over 3 hours long. 2 1/2 hours is not enough time to capture all Dan Brown's magic.