Whoaaa! This movie is going to be a classic! Not the most faithful when it comes to representing the book, but it is as good as it could have been!

Noticeable:

• Tom Hanks is one of Hollywood's most consistent actors. He has played the role of Langdorn to perfection, but his makeup artist has not done as well as one would expect. Hanks looks older than my visualization from the book.
• Sophie played by Audrey, was a poor representation of the character. Sophie was a major component in the book. Although the role of "woman" in Christianity was highlighted even more in the movie, this was an even bigger let down!
• McKellan has played wonderfully the role of Teabing. This beats his performance as Gandalf the Grey and the White in The Lord of the Rings. He is the major player in the movie.
• The sets were breathtaking. The churches of Roslin, Westminster Abbey and France were all perfectly as one would have imagined.
• There were sequences that came out of turn and others that were skipped.
  

Deviations:

There were a few blatant deviations from the book. The most noticeable ones were:

• Bishop Aringarosa and Captain Fache's interactions left me wondering whether it was the right movie I was sitting in.
• On the same context, Fache's dialogue, "You used me", was hilarious. It was not in the book.
• The Bishop's dramatic turnaround to England was skipped altogether.
  
• The script writers obviously had no time for the 2nd cryptex which I was eagerly looking forward to.
• The writers got jumbled up when it came to Sophie's contributions to cracking the code. They made these Langdorn's as well. This has contributed in a major way to numbing the Sophie role.
• Teabing redirects Langdorn and agent Neveu to his whereabouts using a sign in the book, whereas in the movie he uses his "crutch" marks.
• The bank manager's communication with Captain Fache and the Lieutenant could have added more drama, but I guess they ran out of time.
• The "basement ritual" was discussed by Langdorn during the flight to England in the book, but in the movie, it was deferred to the very end.
• The ending itself was actually an interpretation of the director and in the book, it was not necessarily the way it was shown in the movie. The depiction of documents showing family trees, Langdorn stating that "You are the secret" to Nevue were all in the movie only.
• Similarly, in the book, there was a meeting of Nevue and her brother that was not shown even in the extended scene in the movie.
• The epilogue was dealt with nicely in the movie, making it even more touching than the book itself!
  
• There are times when I could see the challenge in hiding the suspense in the movie where there is constant perception of sight and sound. It is much easier in the book for that very reason.
  

Verdict
All in all, it was a fantastic movie, with some superb visuals, excellent cinematography and some good performances. Inspite of all its differences, it was a good representation of the statement from Dan Brown.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 5:36 PM