Good, but sloppy

Rating: 7/10 (23 June 2006)

Let me say first of all that, having read Dan Brown's 'Angels and Demons' as well as 'The Da Vinci Code' - 'Code' is inferior child's play in comparison. Mystery, story, character development, intrigue, suspense, general strength of the writing - all at the superlative level in 'A&D.' That having been said, I enjoyed DVC the Book.
THAT having been said, I knew ahead of time that I would most likely be disappointed by the film. I had heard mostly negative things about it, and while I wondered how much of the negative press was simply bias of those nutty conservatives against a film that *gasp!* proposes an "unconventional" idea, I also had heard on more than one occasion that the film tears the book apart.
My opinion? Speaking in broad generalities, DVC the Film is a good movie. However, even disregarding the fact that the screenplay really does tear the book apart, the best word with which to describe this enterprise is "sloppy." The quick pace makes the whole affair feel dreadfully rushed; this is going to be a problem when one tries to cram a 500-some-page book into a film less than three hours in length. Still - rushed. And sloppy.
Tom Hanks, while a great actor, is NOT the right performer to portray Robert Langdon.
Paul Bettany, also a good actor, was an outright horrible choice for Silas.
Sir Ian McKellan... While reading DVC the Book, I noticed that even though Brown's description of Leigh Teabing did not even remotely resemble McKellan, the character's mannerisms, in my mind, instantly conjured an image of McKellan as Teabing. If the screenplay left the novel intact, McKellan would have been perfect. As it is, his performance is limited by the parameters of the role and the screenplay. A tragedy. Still, of all the performers involved, McKellan was the best casting choice, second to...
Jean Reno, as Bezu Fache - brilliant.
My only other major gripe - aside from various plot points in the book being altered, as I know is the unfortunate "norm" for Hollywood - is the way the final scene was executed, which was, like the rest of the film, sloppy.
COULD have been much more, IS a vaguely entertaining film.
If you have not read the book and want to see it, be my guest - but please read the book afterwards because this film does no justice to Brown's work or, more importantly, to the theories stated within.
If you have read the book - don't bother seeing it unless doing so involves (a) no exchange of money into the hands of a cashier, and (b) the concession that you have nothing better to do during the time that you would be watching this film.
Real rating: 6.5 / 10