I have to say I didn't think it was that bad (though I'm still not interested in reading the book). It's certainly not the greatest film ever made, but I've seen a hell of a lot worse. I, personally, don't think it warranted the extreme slating it got.
If you're looking for a film to pass the time, it works. I found it to be enjoyable when viewed as a simple detective story. Plus, I had the bonus of seeing places that I'd been to and trying to see if I could remember the names of artworks. I also foun
d Paul Bettany's character Silas quite interesting - it was probably purely the fact that he spoke a lot of Latin (which I LOVE, it's a very attractive language); had the cool look going on due to being an Albino, along with his scars and habit; and I've always been intrigued by people who are so devout in their religion that they're willing to punish themselves to repent for their sins.One thing, however, that really irritated me though was the extreme use of chiaroscuro. I realise that it fit the tone of the story, as it's based on the observations or "clues" found within art and this style of lighting is commonly associated with religious depictions. Also, as the majority of the film takes place at night it makes sense. But, sadly, the extremity of its use meant that much detail was lost causing the viewer to momentarily become withdrawn from the scene; and when given the overhead shots of buildings to show their magnificence or importance their beauty is also lost.
Thats all for now. We might have to start up our own little films review website :o)
