Disappointingly Mediocre

Rating: 4/10 (20 May 2006)

I'm no die hard religious guy and I'm not saying that its bad because of its controversy, but I had high hopes for this movie and was disappointed. The casting was good, but Howard did a terrible job in this flick. Some of it seemed kind of lame, and i feel he left out some important details from the book. The characters are developed poorly, which doesn't surprise me because he blows through the first 150 or so pages in around 5 minutes, which is to say disappointing because i thought that the beginning was was the best, as well as the most important part of the whole story. In certain parts I felt it it was almost necessary to have read the novel to understand what was going on. Ialso didn't like how he made some parts word for word from the book,yet added in things and left others out. As it says in other reviews there is absolutely no chemistry between the main characters. Events in the movie sometimes seemed out of place, leaving you wondering, and then finally their answered an hour later.Some of you may disagree with on this, but I thought that the movie was almost a slap to the face of the book. The book talks about how the major religions down play the importance of women, compared to the pagan religions which worshiped them (to which no no real explanation was given except machismo). In the novel Sophie is quick witted, as a cryptologist, and langdon even says that he was intimidated by he r intelligence, while in the movie langdon some how knew everything it seemed, figuring out things that took him in the book, he knew seemingly instantly case and point: the vitrouvius man or the anagram,o Draconian Devil!O Lame Saint! This had the potential to be a great film, the novel was excellent, but it was just made poorly.
P.S. If your whole views on religious foundation can be shaken by a movie be it this or maybe the passion, your are obviously stupid and more impressionable than a 3 year old. Also Robert Redford should have played Langdon