I think Ron Howards best work. But sadly he did not have a great story to work with. I know it was a best seller but that doesn't mean its good, trashy romance novellas have also sold well. The intrigue and mystery at the beginning is well woven but falls apart by the end, your left wondering. Is that it? Whats the big deal. All that for nothing. Oh well maybe something better and more mysterious and real will come along sometime. I hope someone makes a film with similar elements but a richer and darker plot and a story that goes somewhere. The Da Vinci Code, is much ado about nothing. But it goes to show that perhaps even with a bad story, good directing and editing and CGI, with a big star, can still make an entertaining film. However it did lag and sag quite a bit the whole last quarter. To sum it all up, So what? Does it change anything, not really.

How did you get a chance to see this so early? I thought the first official reviews came out today?!

I am still looking forward to it. It's a popcorn flick for summer, not an awards contender or anything. It'll be a fun ride.

What made the novel interesting for me was Dan Brown's ability to take subject usually treated as boring (art, history,theology) and transform them into a thriller. I wish I had a dollar for every Christian I've had to remind "It's a novel!" "Fiction!" "Don't give it the historical/theological credibility for which it really doesn't ask." I took it for what it was, a good novel. I too anxiously wanted to see if Ron Howard could use those same "boring elements" (not boring to all of course) and create an energetic thriller on screen. I think it was too much to ask or expect. We were given a decent movie that was entertaining. Give Howard his due. Not many would even want the job of trying to pull this film off.

I saw this movie Saturday night and I was disappointed at best. I enjoyed the book immensely and was extremely excited for the film adaptation. I did question the casting of Tom Hanks from the beginning as well as that of Jean Reno as Fache. Possibly because I cast every movie in my head as I read the book and these two were way off, including how Dan Brown described their characters. I realize the plot changes were put in to place to make the story more ‘viewer friendly’ and to reduce the amount of description necessary but it just was too much change. Below are some examples of this.

1. Making Fache a member of Opus Dei in order to create suspicion of his possible role as "The Teacher".

2. The lack of explanation into the falling out of Sophie and Saunière. They made him look like a sex fiend and never explained why.

3. Saying that Saunière was never related to Sophie.

4. The ridiculous introduction of the members of the Priory at the end.

5. The removal of the second cryptex.

I suppose, if I hadn't read the book, I would give this movie a C+ and write it off as another lackluster thriller. Unfortunately, I read the book and I give this movie a D. I almost fell asleep twice and will probably never watch it again. I'm curious to see if the same thing will happen with Angels and Demons.

It was pretty useless, considering that they took a predictable book and turned into an even more predictable movie. Tom Hanks has had much difficulty finding a movie worthy of his talent, as have many other wonderful actors these days (I'm looking at you Robin Williams!).