A dark and disappointing adaptation

Rating: 3/10 (7 December 2006)

Let me state at the outset that I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of the storyline. Dan Brown himself has gone to great pains to point out that "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction, and it even so says on on the book's cover. The truth or otherwise of the story has been debated to death, suffice to say that I treated the book and the movie alike as fiction.
As for the movie itself, I have to say that I am no doubt in the minority here, but I found it highly disappointing and one of the worst big screen adaptations of a blockbuster novel ever, the putrid "Raise The Titanic!" aside.
In a nutshell, had I not already read the book, I would have had virtually no idea of what on earth was going on. One problem is immediately identifiable. The way the book is written, with so much reliance on codes and clever word games (anagrams) simply does not lend itself to a smooth transition to film. Although I read the book in one weekend, there were several passages that I would reread or stop and ponder upon for a few moments, before continuing. This obviously doesn't work with a film, where you have to follow the story at the film's pace and not your own.
Secondly, too much of the movie is set at night and/or in dark environments, where I found it difficult to see what was happening while still trying to follow the often heavily-accented dialogue. Admittedly I watched the movie on DVD and it may have come across better on the big screen, but I somehow doubt it.
Thirdly, there is too much detail in the novel to make a movie of acceptable length. Thus the film, while trying to say as faithful to Brown's tale as possible, rushes through many scenes in a desperate bid to get everything in without going on all night as it does so. It could be argued that the scriptwriters and everyone involved with the project took the view that almost everybody who watched the movie would have already read the book anyway. It certainly comes across that way, but that isn't the purpose of filming a book, is it? On top of everything else, I though the acting was largely weak. Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor, but he is seriously miscast as professor-turned reluctant action hero Dr Robert Langdon. Harrison Ford, for instance, would have been a much more effective choice. Audrey Tautou's accent may be charming, but it made it extremely hard to understand what she was saying, a serious flaw for so central a character. And although I enjoy Jean Reno's acting, is he really the only French actor who can speak English? He seems to turn up in every movie that requires a French male character these days. Having said that, he is just about the only person in this entire movie who is believable in the role he or she is playing.
If you haven't seen the movie, read the book first. Read the book anyway, and draw your own conclusions, if you haven't already done so. The film version, however, is strictly superfluous.