Just got back from the movie and I got pretty much what I expected. I read the book in anticipation of the movie, figured everyone and their brother had read it so I might as well so I can discuss it when the movie popped. I found the book to be entertaining for what it was, which is a poorly written mystery caper. Nothing earth shattering in there and the execution was flawed, but if you don’t think about it too much it’s a decent diversion.
The movie was basically a direct translation of the book, compared to most other adaptations of course, and as a result it suffered from many of the same shortcomings. A movie because of the time constraint probably comes across even worse since the somewhat simplistic “revelations” of the mystery hit you in quick succession without building your curiosity and anticipation.
I thought Ron Howard dropped the ball several times in his direction. Many of the reveals were too random and he didn’t convince me any were natural. The clearest example is in the scene where Langdon discovers the riddle under the rose on the cryptic box. In the book, IIRC, it’s described that he’s absentmindedly handling the box as the study the cryptic. He accidentally feels the holes on the inside of the lid which leads him to poke a pen in there. This seemed pretty natural, any normal person could have made that leap, but in the movie Howard simply had him grab the box and poke a pen in there as if he suddenly knew that the “under the rose” line had a double meaning. Depicting it in the former way would have been more realistic and might have given the audience a chance to puzzle it out themselves while he studied the box.
As I was watching it I got the feeling that a person who hadn’t read the book might be confused by the movie. It played as a literal translation of the key scenes in the book with the interplay between the characters and much of the mood edited out. I thought that’d give a viewer without a previous knowledge of the story too little background to appreciate the point of the quest. Certain it seems that people who read the book get more from the movie than those who didn’t, which ironically tends to be the opposite of most books adapted into movies.
All in all, I didn’t expect much and I got just what I expected. Didn’t hate it but I’m as “meh” on the movie as I was on the book.
That’s not a mole, it’s the dried blood over the nick from when Silas held the knife at Sophie’s throat in the Temple Church. It’s shaped like a V because the point of a knife is shaped like a V, obviously. I suppose one could presume that the director intentionally made it apparent to be indicative of the chalice/blade symbol but I’d guess it’s just an attempt at continuity.