Inconsistent, albeit good, adaptation

Rating: 4/10 (19 June 2006)

After having read the novel twice, I had confidence that a film adaptation could be quite good - the book was suited for it. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The movie was good, yes, but not as fantastic as it could have been. In fact, I would go so far as to say the book was better than the movie - I simply found it more entertaining. Still, this movie is a (fairly) faithful adaptation of the novel, with a few changes that don't really affect the overall story or theme.
Of the changes, the ones I found the most noteworthy were the added character development of Langdon - falling down a well? really? - and the missing puzzle, and of course the end. The end was where the film really dropped the ball - it is far too long, and the revelation could have been done much smoother and more effective. The beginning also could have been compacted - the scenes in the Louvre should have been longer, but the other scenes (Aringarosa & Silas) could have been significantly trimmed. The pace was quite uneven at the start, the cutting back and forth between the separate stories was far too jarring. Even the scene in the bank felt rushed; I couldn't help but feel that these scenes could have been much better realized. The movie didn't really find its groove until they get to Teabing's, where it took off. The scene where they are revealing the true nature of the grail was the best scene of the book, and it's even better in the movie with the accompanying flashbacks and the arguments between Langdon and Teabing (which are not present in the book but are welcome here). After that, the pace really picks up and the movie flies by until the climax - which, unfortunately, is a good 30 minutes before the end of the movie. Talk about a premature ending. I felt the villain reveal was kind of botched, also - it wasn't nearly shocking enough. The scenes at Roslin are needed but were boring, until the final conversation between Langdon and Neveu, where their chemistry finally showed itself. And the final scene was superbly done - much more effective than the novel. A very uneven product results.
The performances were all over the place. Hanks seems to be phoning it in until the scene in Teabing's mansion, where he holds his own against McKellan. I still think he was miscast. Tatou didn't really impress me, she felt kinda flat at times. McKellan was the star of the show, I even felt his performance was Oscar-worthy. It's a mark of his incredible performance that the movie immediately picked up once he entered. Reno was terribly inconsistent - considering the character was written for him, I felt he could have done a much better job. Bettany is sufficiently creepy as Silas - the first scene of him chastising himself went on a bit long, though. And Molina is wasted - I think the entire subplot with him getting money from the Church could have been dropped altogether, actually. No one else makes a decent impression.
Technically, this film is, again, all over the place. The production design was fantastic, but the lighting was off sometimes, and I felt that some of the art & architecture could have been highlighted better. The cinematography was appropriately sweeping at times, and not even noticeable at others. Same with the music - I didn't even notice it until the incredible final scene. The only aspect at which the film really excelled was, surprisingly, the visual effects - the historical flashbacks were very well done, and the visual style they incorporated was very effective. Howard does a decent, if not noteworthy, job directing - pretty much like all his other works. All this makes for an uneven result.
So, overall, this film is probably best described as 'inconsistant'. Story, performances, pace, technicalities - all were all over the place. Considering the book flows very well, this is the fault of the filmmakers. Still, it's a good film, but not the great one I was expecting.