The novel was better than the film. But what's new?
Because Dan Brown's fictional tale "The Da Vinci Code" had to be stripped down to the bare bones to fit into an acceptable length of time, the level of suspense in the film was considerably less than the novel's.
The action wasn't able to build upon itself because the scenes quickly flicked between the most important aspects of the plot. It was like watching a Cliffs Notes version of the novel on the big screen.
Tom Hanks was nothing spectacular in the lead role of Robert Langdon, but he got the job done.
Since the story was so electrifying, Hanks didn't seem to make an effort to add any sort of excitement to the role. He constantly let the action around him overpower any sort of attempt at character development.
Besides flatly playing the role, Hanks also looks horrible. He appears to have gained some weight, and also seems incapable of using a razor. His slicked-back hair is a poor attempt to look like John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction."
In one scene, Hanks' co-star Audrey Tautou — who plays Sophie Neveu — massages his head, and her hands look like little baby hands compared to Hanks' Godzilla melon.
No audience member wants to stare at an aging, big-boned man for more than two hours. But for some reason, Ron Howard found it necessary to include plenty close-ups of Hanks' swelling head.
Another odd choice by Howard was to include elaborate flashback scenes. Not only does Howard insult audience members' imagination, but by including these grainy flashbacks, he also insults the actors' ability to paint a picture with their dialogue.
The one shining acting performance was by Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing. McKellen, most well-known for his portrayal of Gandalf in the "The Lord of the Rings" films, added a level of enthusiasm to his character that was absent from the rest of the cast's execution.
Not only did McKellen kick it up a notch with his intensity, but he also forced the actors in the scenes with him to follow suit. When Hanks and Tautou have to match McKellen's ferocity, they are at their best.
Unfortunately, Hanks and Tautou have limited screen time with McKellen, and then they return to their sleepwalk.
Another disappointing aspect of the film was the way in which Tautou's character of Neveu changed from the novel in the film. In the book, Neveu works hand-in-hand with Langdon to unlock the codes, but in the film, it's Langdon who is solving all of the religious riddles.
Neveu was a strong, intelligent woman in the novel, which mirrors the empowerment of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, rather than a prostitute. But in the film, Neveu does not solve any codes, and instead comes across as more of a blunderer than an intellectual gumshoe.
The film is worth seeing, especially if you have read the novel. Viewers will have fun dwelling on Howard's cinematic decisions — what scenes should have been added or cut, or what actors would have worked more effectively.
Overall, it was impossible to make the film better than the book. The film would have had to be six hours long to do Brown's novel justice.
The most hapless aspect of the film was the actors' lack of excitement in playing their roles. They just went through the motions, relying on the strength of the story, and not their own showing.
