Disappointing! Where's the thrill in this thriller?

Rating: 6/10 (19 May 2006)

I have to admit that I am very disappointed. This film is supposed to be a thriller, right? But where's the thrill? I was expecting to be entertained and to be in the situation of the characters themselves. The critics are right. The movie is boring. Of course, the first viewing will be fine. But if viewed multiple times, this film is likely to bore anyone to death.
I've read the novel from which it was based and I can say that if this film was viewed by a non-reader, they will be lost and confused. I have a feeling that most of the people (apparently non-readers) in the theater I was in didn't understand the movie well. They just come in to check out about the film and satisfy their curiosity.
There are several reasons why I really want to see this. 1) To see how they present the key scenes 2) To see the locations! 3) To compare my own vision of the film vs the director's vision (just like any other movie adaptations) 4) To see Ian McKellen on the big screen for the first time since The Return of the King... 5) To see how they handle the mystery of the Holy Grail or whether they will stick to Dan Brown's theories or not.
As you may notice, I'm not after the film's faithfulness to the source. I actually didn't mind it now after I got used on LOTR and Harry Potter were adapted. HP2 is very faithful to the book that it takes away the excitement from the viewers. They never let the viewers engage in breaking the codes. Many fans hate HP4 because it deviates from the book but I say, it is the best movie in the Harry Potter franchise (as well as HP3). In DVC, it's like I'm watching just to see how things will go, there's a little element of surprise. I want to see more. The movie is too long. It would be better if they removed the "Robert the claustrophobic" subplot in the movie.
This film is TOO faithful to the book. Even the lines are lifted from the book word per word and it's a good thing. They edited the film in such a way that it follows every chapter breaks in the book. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate well onto the screen. I wish the screenwriters add something more to make this movie more exciting. At one point, they even showed a flashback on how the Langdon and Neveu escaped from the plane (just like in the book). But in the film, the scene is out of place. I have to say that being too faithful to the source material is not always a good thing. If I am to blame someone, that would be the author Dan Brown. Yes, his book made many non book-readers to pick up a novel and read (including me). But when I re-read the novel, the flaws are evident. It becomes too shallow. And because of that, the movie suffers.
One of the key elements in this movie focuses on a "secret that if revealed, would devastate the very foundations of Christianity" Given the prerelease controversy surrounding the novel and the book, the secret the movie is talking about is already revealed to everyone that it isn't a spoiler anymore. For non-readers, the only thing that they have to figure out is the identity of the Teacher and a thing about Sophie.
As for the actors, Tom Hanks is obviously miscast. BTW, I liked the way how Langdon think visually. The planets, anagrams etc. Langdon here is not the same as on the book because the Langdon here is doubtful. He even engage in a debate with Teabing. Audrey Tatou (Sophie) is very pretty. I've seen her in Amelie and she was amazing. Jean Reno (Fache) is the kind of actor who's always in a Hollywood movie in need of a French actor. I think he is the most sought-after French actors today. Paul Bettany is very creepy as Silas. Too bad he wasn't given enough screen time. I was surprised to see Silas naked because he was wearing something in the trailer. In the movie, he's totally nude and I pity him for his "corporal mortification" thing. Ian McKellen (Teabing) delivers a great performance once again. It's in the way he speaks, wit, humor and eyes that make him a lovable character whatever role he is playing. He gives credibility on even the most crappiest line. Many people are surprised to know that Ian McKellen is gay. Someone in an internet forum said that he is the most straight-looking gay actor.
There are several scenes that I don't like very much. There are few action sequences in the film but many of them were poorly done. One of them is the SmartCar scene. It's not handled well. The camera is shaky that you can't understand what's happening. Most of the movie is talking scenes (just like the book). The theories are presented in a nice way through flashbacks. These flashbacks are nice. They could create a separate movie through them.
I don't think anyone will have their faith shattered just by viewing this...especially Filipinos. And I don't think that the movie is blasphemous. Maybe I got used to it. That was my first reaction before reading the book. But once I read the prologue, I never stopped reading.
The Da Vinci Code is not actually an excellent book but it is good page-turner. The movie adapts the book too faithfully that the real essence of adventure and thrill is lost. If you want to be entertained, go and watch National Treasure. It's a better movie. Dan Brown's novel succeeds because of its controversial premise. But I have to say National Treasure is a better thriller.