Why rush?

Rating: 5/10 (30 August 2006)

The movie is breath-taking, not like the book of course, but yet it succeeded to entertain me. The job wasn't well done, the movie was so brief and quick that I felt that the time I spent on reading the book and researching about it was a waste of time, too much events have been removed when they would have made the movie a lot better. Plus, the story is really different than the book as I was expecting a "Masterpiece". As for the acting, Tom Hanks is always convincing and real, but Paul Bettany made me feel pity on the deceived and used character of Silas, he was perfect. Ian McKellen was alright, and that's ll about the acting, otherwise in-significant. The ending of the movie was how I realized the book SHOULD have been. I was thinking that if the same book was written with the same ending of the movie, and later, a motion-picture, it would have been the most work ever to be so out-spoken to such extent. All I can say at last is that if there was a little more effort exerted in this movie, it could have been more than excellent. Last but not least, if you decide to watch this movie, I suggest you read the book first. You will have two totally different point of views about them.