Reviews

Before I went to see the movie tonight, I had read some comments here and in the German press which show a highly controversial discussion about Fincher's new work. Now I know why the opinions are so divergent. You must know what it's all about if you want to understand and enjoy the movie.

This is NOT a movie about a serial killer! The topic is the investigation which is carried out both by the police and the journalists. The only action scenes are the murders which are short and ruthless. During the rest of the movie, many people are talking.

Although it lasts for about two and a half hours, it's not boring. The length of the movie represents the wearying investigation. The weeks, months and years go by and there is no real success. You can actually feel the despair of all the detectives and journalists - and then there is the unresting and pertinacious main character Robert Graysmith, who wants to solve the mystery by hook or by crook. He is the only person who is constantly interested in the case while a cop quits the service and star reporter Paul Avery becomes an alcohol addict.

Although there are some anachronism goofs, it is interesting to see how e.g. the cars and the coke vending machines become modern during the movie.

Nevertheless I can only give 8 out of 10 points because there was hardly anything about the cryptic signs in the movie. Robert only shows a book about code-breaking, but - in contrast to "Da Vinci Code" - it is almost irrelevant. There should have been a better balance of code-breaking and the analysis of handwriting.

This is the third Fincher-movie I saw and it is totally different from "Se7en" and "Panic Room". Except for minor shortcomings, the director proves that even in 2007 you can convince the audience without explosions, chases, bloodshed and sex.

I saw the movie today and I liked it very much. I had read the novel before. So I concentrated on the question how the director of the movie presented this quite difficult and complex story. The journalists who saw the movie at the festival in Cannes severely critized it, but I think Howard did a very good job. I cannot understand why so many critics said that the protagonists spend too much time with talking which would make the movie boring. If you compare the plot of the movie with the book, you will see that the long explanations (e.g. about the conflict between paganism and Christianity or the hidden codes in da Vincis "Last Supper") have been shortened to the most important facts which you need to understand the story. The cracking of the mysterious "cryptex" is much easier in the movie than in the novel. Some dialogues and explanations appear at different positions. So the movie constantly switched between talk and action and so becomes lively and interesting. The director changes or even adds some scenes. Langdon and Neveu don't go the library in London, but use a mobile phone with internet access. At Rosslyn Chapel Sophie learns the truth about her family from Langdon, not from her grandmother. The scene with the blood dripping into the basin pointing Robert to the "rose line" in Paris isn't in the novel. Howard also added the fact that Bezu Fache is a member of Opus Dei. But all these changes and additions don't reduce the quality of the story. The only minor point of critic I would like to mention is the scene in Westminster Abbey. The producers were not allowed to stage the movie in the original church and so they had to build a copy of Newton's tomb. This work was not done very well. You can easily recognize that the big orb on the tomb is made of styrofoam.

So you should not discuss whether the catholic church or Dan Brown has the correct theory about Jesus, but enjoy the novel and the movie. Both are excellent!