Just saw this movie. It was boring. I read the book knowing nothing about it but the book was worth it. I'm a huge fan of Ron Howard and for the most part the cinematography was really good. Obviously the locations were beautiful but the chemistry between actors was not.
Tom Hanks played the scholar, Langdon, but with little emotion. In tune with the character, but I wish he would have shown more charisma or machismo or something throughout the movie. His counterpart's character, Princess Sophie, was cute but not convincing as a problem code-deciphering heorine . I don't know why really, she just didn't make me feel anything one way or the other.
This movie seemed flat in general. I heard through the grape vine that it wasn't very good. But I wanted to see the locations and how the cripple actually explained the holy grail on the big screen. I preferred Ian M's character more in X-men as Magnito but he clearly outdid his co-stars in this movie. Perhaps he had the more interesting role. Playing the villian is always more fun and interesting, so the actors say on Inside the Actors Studio.
I suppose the hype for a movie and the controversy probably made expectations high for most people. I didn't have high expections going in but I was still bored. About 4 or 5 people walked out of the movie, they were so bored. I haven't seen that since Moulin Rouge; I think 1/2 the crowd walked out in the first 1/2 an hour of that movie. This one, they waited till the middle and packed it in.
I give Ron Howard kudos for making the movie. He knew it would be judged harshly by religious critics as well as movie critics and book buffs. Perhaps he should try making Angels and Demons into a movie. I'd like to see the Vatican diamond burning on the big screen.
The movie does make you want to see Paris though, so maybe they could re-edit it and use it for a tourism video.
Worth the money rating: $$$