Drop Expectations and See a Great Adaptation

Rating: 9/10 (20 May 2006)

I'm seeing a lot of lukewarm responses to this film, but I think the reason why is all the speculation that went along with people as they went to see it. In my opinion, that's what kills most good films: people have presupposed expectations of a film and when the film goes in a different direction, then they just write it off as stupid or pointless because it doesn't match what they were thinking. I feel this film is suffering from this syndrome.
First of all, let's consider the director: Ron Howard. The films he has made in the past have been geared towards pleasing a large audience. This is what he brings to this film. He took the heart of the novel and preserved it in the film. Therefore, allow me to take issue with some of the comments made about the film being too wordy. The book itself is very wordy. It's a concept novel that contains a bunch of what-if situations strung together into a mystery/thriller, and requiring a whole lot of explanation. The film is a perfect reflection of what the book was all about. To spice up the large amount of exposition, Howard puts in filler footage so we can more easily imagine what is being described. Works great for me, because the only expectation I had going into the film was that I would be able to see what the boom only described.
Second, let's consider the actors: Tom Hanks. I love him; I'll admit that right now. I remember seeing "Splash" and "Bosom Buddies" as a boy, and I've grown up watching his films. My comment to my wife as we left the theater was that I felt he really did a good job of portraying the character of Robert Langdon as there weren't a lot of the idiosyncrasies (such as facial expressions, voice, etc) that are trademark Hanks (only one that I recall from the entire film). Taotou was perfect as Sophie, the young person coming to terms to what her grandfather was all about. And my wife and I agreed that Jean Reno played the perfect Fache; we cannot imagine anyone who could do a better job with that part. Ian McKellan may not have met the book's physical description of Tiebing, but he was excellent in the film using a wide range of emotions (I loved his display when Hanks and Taotou arrive at his place).
Thirdly, we have to keep in mind that there has been a lot of hype over the premise of this movie. However, I think it's important to point out that none of that hype was touted by the filmmakers. Both Hanks and Howard simply stated that they wanted to make an entertaining film, and that's just what they did. The fact that so many people protested and made a big hullabaloo (great word, eh?)needs to be forgotten before entering the theater.
One things to keep in mind is the source material for this film: it came from a book. Being an English teacher, films based on books are a kind of specialty with me. I have seen many failures, some near-misses, and a few stellar entries. This film is one of those that sticks closest to its source material. It keeps almost perfect pace with what the book developed; the buildup and relaxing of tension/suspense is mirrored exactly. The expository sections that have to be there are there, and yet enhanced by the filmmakers to make them less dry. This is one of the best book to film adaptations I have ever seen.
I, for one, loved the film (my wife, for another, loved it also), and I am hoping it is really successful because I would love to see "Angels and Demons" on the big screen sometime in the near future.