Dan Brown's novel is hands-down one of the best damn book I've ever read in my whole life. The book was preposterous, yes, but it was bloody entertaining and gripping. A sure-fire hell of a thriller. Now, Ron Howard's adaptation was, in my own words, acceptable. It sounds off-beat but it deserves the word. I didn't say that this is a bad film, but rather feeling thankful that it wasn't disappointing, although it misses a notch from Dan Brown's masterpiece. The book reads like a great film. The film rolls like a good book. But good and great are two different words altogether. I think Ron Howard was respectable enough to be chosen as the director of this adaptation and Akiva Goldsman was also respectable enough to write the screenplay, but what I really do think was that I know Mr Goldsman wanted to be really faithful to the book, but being so faithful had suddenly transformed the whole movie as if he had turned Dan Brown's book word for word. What I really like in the film was that it was faithful enough, including the plot, the storylines and the cliffhangers. Yep, even the cliffhangers are present. Dan Brown's chapter cliffhangers are written all over the movie, and the filmmaker decided to adapt it also. Ron Howard's directing was absolutely engaging but sometimes, the film feels a bit hurried. There are some scenes in it that feels so short and confusing. Some scenes which compasses only within seconds that an audience would really feel a bit left out. There are also the "talks". That's why children aren't allowed to watch this movie, aside from Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene would maybe distort their Christian minds. There are a lot of talks in this film, as what I do expected, and children would surely go to sleep by the time Leigh Teabing started preaching. Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon was also acceptable. Gladly he didn't overplay the role, much respect too for one of my most favourite actors. He was fine as the titular character and his bearing just rightly envelopes the way Langdon does. Audrey Tautou (pronounced as Toe-Two) was a bit amazing. I love her and she portrayed Sophie Noveau in the exact chemical component, watch out for the intense scenes she was in, especially choking the hell out of Silas and slapping him countless of times. You could really feel the hate in her eyes, her wrath in her fingers. Of course, I've been starting to love Audrey since I wantched her in A Very Long Engagement. Too bad, I haven't watched Amelie yet. Now, I think Paul Bettany is the best actor here. His portrayal of Silas the Albino monk was like coming right out from Dan Brown's book. He's phenomenal! Jean Reno as Bezu Fache was acceptable but subtly underplayed and Sir Ian McKellen, bloody Ian, he did play around with his role and I think he just played around it fine. Leigh Teabing suddenly becomes the crippled Patrick Stewart's Professor Xavier of X-Men with an intelliegence beyond million light years. Of course, the plot. I don't want to discuss here or argue about Christianity or people trying to ban this movie and that this film must be restrained from being released in theaters. I don't want to argue if Jesus really had a prostitute for a wife named Mary Magdalene and that his blood line carried on until now, being protected by a modern order called the Priory of Sion and that there's a society trying to kill the so-called blood line, a Roman Catholic branched organization called Opus Dei. It is preposterous. It is contemptuous, in the side of the Vatican. But here's the little thing, since I don't want to argue because I have been arguing this for a couple of narrow-minded people already. Dan Brown's work is a piece of fiction. And I just couldn't understand why people doesn't know the meaning of "fiction". Maybe grab a dictionary and look for the meaning of "fiction", maybe you'll understand why. So why make a big deal out of it? Why does the Catholic Church make so much fuss banning it? It's just fiction, right?