The Adaptation.

Rating: 8/10 (18 May 2006)

First of all, kudos to the cast and crew of the Da Vinci Code adaptation. The movie is more abridged than I would have it but it is certainly more faithful than Tony Gilroy reconstructing the Jason Bourne story or Steven DeZousa ripping apart Roderick Thorpe's story of Joe Leland for the betterment of the movie we now know as "Die Hard." The opening scene and the last scene are exactly what the mind's eye would see if one would read the book. The last scene even performs beautiful photogrammetry or "omnipresent" phantom camera-work to confirm the innuendos of Dan Brown's finale to the story. What is different? Among many, are the cryptex - I can tell you now if you've read that book that Sauniere in the movie obviously was more merciful than in the film, there was that shocking discovery regarding the cryptex in the airplane that was spared in the movie, the Hieros Jerjerous or whatever it was called was only flashed and not annotated by Langdon and instead of on the airplane, this flashback happens in the end. Let me also commend Howard for creating a beautiful atmosphere of the ages of old when Teabing or Langdon recount their interpretations of history. From the Council of Nicaea, to the execution of the Templars, and even later scene with "scepter-like" super imposition when Langdon explains about "A. Pope" and Sir Isaac Newton while crossing the street. And as one viewer has already noted, Akiva Goldsman was calculating enough to make Langdon and Teabing even debate a bit just so the unorthodox Gnostic ideas aren't necessarily fortified, and as Dan Brown stated in a forum - the audiences are free to believe which of the interpretations in these matters are correct. Langdon even emphasizes the words "MAY have... MAY have..." at one point in opposition to Teabing's strict affirmation regarding the Grail legend. Langdon also cracks the final puzzle instead of it being accidentally unravelled as in the book, the one regarding the missing orb. The five letter word. Missing are a great many things from the book, such as Sister Sandrine per Ron Howard or Akiva Goldsman's hand failing to say the line, "I do not see that one message in Opus Dei." before Silas silences the nun. Omitted also is the sequence when the otherwise maniacal Aringarosa, in the book tells Silas that forgiveness is God's greatest gift, in the end when they discover about the treachery. The reveal of The Teacher is less shocking in the film than it is in the book although I love the tease of cinematic sequence when Remy speaks to the initially anonymous villain. But among those which are made concise by Ron Howard, I appreciate the "instant library card" in the bus a very appreciated short-cut as to eliminate a rather taxing task that Langdon and Sophie had to do in the book.... I do NOT appreciate the fact that Sophie was not the one who deciphered the mystery language in the airplane, the engravings on metal, that Langdon thought was reminiscent of Semitic writing. It was a language, or system of writing that only Sophie knew about from her grandfather... And also, I didn't mind much about the absence of an extended recount of the Fibonnaci sequence, the androgyny theory of the Mona Lisa as these things I'm afraid are gonna require the observer to read Brown's novel. The discovery in the Rosslyn church is also altered much, but as I mentioned earlier it doesn't change the very very very last scene, but the revelations are similar nonetheless. Sophie, and no one else instantly spots the "blade and the chalice fused into one" in the church building which is not the case in the book. Zimmer's score is above par and it accentuates the visuals and nuances that Howard and his crew have put to the screen. And for Christians whether candid or the more religious, I may have sensed an attempt of Akiva Goldsman to put in Dan Brown's conscious thoughts and even his comments on the fact that Da Vinci Code and it's maker isn't one that has the luxury of absolute correctness. Langdon expounds more on his spiritual side, and regarding his childhood mishap at the well, and this tops off his unbiased convictions and makes ground for those who might be otherwise offended by the movie's Gnostic concepts. That scene was a payoff for what was foreshadowed, a question asked by Sophie in response to a question about belief that Langdon brought up earlier in the bank vehicle. By the way, Vernet doesn't get any denouement in the end, in the book he is only referenced but Goldsman probably chose to make him one we merely pass-by. Jean Reno is as intense as he can be as the zealous Fache, and it will also be a loss to NOT see his final exchange with Aringarosa in the book..... he has no resolve with Collet either and the funny alibi Collet makes about the error of the DCPJ on TV in the novel is nowhere in the film. Nonetheless Howard and company create a piece that reflects the bestseller and can hardly be called a sacrilege in light of it's source and author. But because of some writing decisions of Akiva Goldsman that I have disagreed with, I will give this an 8 instead of a 10 out of 10. And P.S..... P.S. Mickey Mouse doesn't get an explanation or an annotation of his presence in an appliance that Langdon owns, obviously to jive with how Goldsman put lesser bias in Langdon's stand of the Grail legend, the book gave Langdon more conviction on the theories and consequently the book chronicled hidden references to the legend in Walt Disney.
Grade B+