The book was cool and even made me put it down to go online to find a photo of the Last Supper to check for myself if it could actually be Mary sitting next to Jezus. As a bonus I liked the controversy surrounding the book. Not being the least bit religious I was fascinated to see people around the world fighting a book of fiction to defend their own books of fiction (ie bible). Travelling in France and visiting Cannes just before the premiere of the film, I decided to go see it. And I was not at all impressed and left the cinema with a feeling of being cheated out of what might have been a great film.<br /><br />What's wrong with the DVC? Too much to mention, but here are my (spoiler) highlights:<br /><br />1. The book is quite intelligent, fast paced, gets you to look at 'common knowledge' cultural 'facts' with a thrill. The film is never thrilling, not even during action scenes.<br /><br />2. The premises in the book about equally intelligent etc male and female counterparts, also found in the relationship between Neveu and Langdon is missing. The character development in the book is missing in the film, with the exception of a couple of way too obvious personal trauma's that are used to bring religion back into the context of the film (Langdon's experience in the well as a child).<br /><br />3. Some things that didn't come across as silly in the book (must have been more elaborately constructed) were plain stupid and inexplicable in the movie: It's ridiculous the way the Professor is suddenly turning against them. You fin yourself asking why he went through the whole theatrics before showing them his malicious intent. So in other words, essential plot structure is missing. This also happens when the beginning hints at Sophie's falling out with her grandfather and later Langdon suddenly says: what happened? I'm being shot at, so I deserve an explanation. In the book that makes sense. At this point in the movie it doesn't. There is no factual evidence presented yet that suggests her falling out with her grandpa has any bearing on the situation.<br /><br />4. , I didn't like the ending of the book all that much either, but I didn't feel the urge to throw up as I did with the film. <br /><br />5. The actors: To me Hanks simply is too much of a religious family man kind of actor to pull off the (religiously) critical scientist with an autonomous mind. Tatou is great to watch (her mouth!), but this film didn't give her the opportunity to shine as a performer. And although Jean Reno is one of my favorites ever since Le Grand Bleu, his character was just plain weird here. Unlogical again due to the script.<br /><br />To summarize: Howard must have thought this film, based on a bestseller, was a guaranteed winner. I'm however left with the distinct feeling that he sacrificed the sharp edges of the book as to not alienate too many viewers. By not adding anything interesting to the script to make it an original and captivating new controversial art product, and also by choosing an actor with the aura of a good Christian family man, Howard took out the exciting atmosphere of the book. Add to that the many abrupt revelations, the absence of thrills on any level, flat characters in general and towards the end a religious revelation to please the religious viewers (nooo, this is really not an anti Christian film people) and you've got a movie that offers extremely little besides disappointment.<br /><br />PS It seems Howard plus his scriptwriter now plan to turn the Bernini Mystery into a film, apparently hoping to cash in on another Brown-novel. However, that book wasn't half as controversial ór interesting as the Da Vinci Code was, so that doesn't bode well for their next project.