Superior to it's source material.

Rating: 9/10 (20 May 2006)

Having heard about this book constantly for more than three years, and seeing that a film version was in production with a slew of my favorite actors, I finally decided to read it about a month ago. While it was a decent way to spend a boring afternoon, it was nothing beyond that. I found all the characters (with the exception Lieutenant Collet) trite and shallow, most especially Silas and Bishop Aringanosa. What annoyed me most about the book is a problem I see with a large number of thrillers; while the plots are usually decent, no thriller writer can write worth a penny. Dan Brown is better than most, but his character development and ear for words are about as good as a Special Ed high schoolers. The movie, while flawed, rose quite a bit above it's source novel.
As far as the lead goes, Robert Langdon may be Tom Hanks' weakest bit of acting since "Joe vs. the Volcano," but even a lackluster performance from Hanks is a cut above most of what you'll see for until Oscar season. It was a horribly flat role, and Hanks managed to put at least a bit of life into it.
As for Audrey Tatou, a decent job, but I had trouble adjusting to seeing her in a thriller, having gotten used to her in films such as "Amelie." Still, she was a believable Sophie, though that role could have gone to almost any young women that could have faked a french accent (or had a real one, as the case is here.) Mms. Nouveau was not quite as an empty character in the book as Langdon, but very close.
Sir Ian McKellan, however, was brilliant, as he was clearly having the time of his life playing the eccentric Grail historian, Sir Leigh Teabing; clever, crafty, witty, Brown seemed to have written the character with Sir Ian in mind. One of the better characters in the novel, McKellan almost steals the movie.
However, that distinction goes to Paul Bettany, as the fanatical albino monk Silas. In the novel, Silas comes off as sort of a rampaging bull, or something of that nature; Bettany seems more like a great white cat, tense, coiled, ready to attack and kill at any given moment.
The rest of the cast is decent, at worst (Jean Reno was especially notable,) and the directing is about what I've come to expect form Howard; over-dramatic, but decent over-all. As far as the plot goes, well, we all know what it's about.
While not the best or most intelligent movie of the year so far, much of the flak this film is receiving seems undeserved, probably coming from people who were hoping that Brown's glorified scavenger-hunt could become a Best Picture contender. Of course they were disappointed. But it is a well-paced thriller, with a (to some) fascinating conjectural background of "what ifs" and "whys" throughout history.