Direction and editing were horrific

My thoughts exactly. Would somebody please give Ron Howard a freaking steady-cam for Christmas?! I lose interest rapidly in any movie that makes me dizzy, i.e. Cloverfield, The Jason Bourne movies (as good as those may be) and now this. It was fine at the beginning to show the disorientation Langdon feels but it was tiresome to see the whole movie with extreme close-ups, shaky camera and awful editing. It actually gave me a headache.

I totally get the book and the movie are different entities, that they were made for different audiences and hence they must be differences between them, but this film adaptation left a lot unexplained. Many details that made the book enjoyable. The book also seems written with the same pattern as The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons if it's any consolation. Professor expert in solving riddles meets intelligent young woman who helps him in his quest solving clues hidden in classic works of art. In Europe. Yeah, not exactly original, is it?

The guy is a art history expert, so it would make little sense in having him involved in hunting ghosts. The similarities are much more in structure than in plot. There's always a gruesome murder, a crazy billionaire, an freakish assassin hunting him, a plot twist betrayal, etc. It happens even in his non-Langdon books.

what I liked was the sound-editing though. Especially in the first half with Langdons amnesia and dream-flashbacks.

Does Ron Howard just want a paycheck at this point and phoned this in? Or else he let his grandkids cut the film while he napped just for a lark.

Some minds are like concrete. Thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.