i was one of those who were excited to hear they were making a movie out of the book. and one of the not-so-excited to hear Tom Hanks was going to portray Robert Langdon. already, the movie seemed doomed. but ok, saw the trailer and thought: 'this could be good'. then heard of the reaction of the critics when it was shown at the opening of the Cannes Festival, and decided i probably shouldn't waste my money on it.
as it turns out, it was showing in English at my local cinema, so i decided that, seen as i had very low expectations, the worst that could happen would be that they'd be confirmed. and frankly, it wasn't bad at all. i can understand that the critics thought it was bad. i mean, Ron Howard is a good director, and this kind of movie probably not what he's best at. but then you have to look at what he had to work with. whilst gripping, the book is poorly written (i do wonder, btw, whether people who translated it also wrote it better...) and does go on a bit on the religious, whilst not really giving us much on the people. and yes, how do you put 24 hrs into a 2.5 hr period? but how do you put weeks, months or years into the same amount of time? something's gotta go, we all know it.
as a movie, it's not bad at all. and Tom Hanks does ok (even with his hair, which apparently sparked a bit of a controversy in the States - i thought it really helped cos i wouldn't have liked to see the normal him in this movie). the star, of course, is the brilliant Ian McKellen, whom i love to bits. he is, as usual, magnificent!