Or Ope makes a thriller. ... Having read the book, which was a real page turner btw, light on characterization as it's all plot driven, cliffhanger after cliffhanger, I had high hopes that when they made a movie version of it-- well, it would be something to watch. Actually, I thought it would always make a better movie than a book ... and I was wrong. I've seen, and have documented here, Hollywood's tendency to ... change ... material from novel to screenplay. Sometimes with the classics even. Well, Code was no classic, but the outright pandering to the critics of the novel's content (The J. man was just that, a man, and he got laid now and then, had kids, married of course.) left a very bad taste in my mouth. It's one thing to change a story's plot for the screen because of cinematic difficulties (which they also did, but I can't figure out why), but it's quite another to add commentary that wasn't in the book just so a few right-wing fundamentalist Christian fascists won't burn down the theaters it's playing in. Ope you really disappoint me. If they ever ask you to make A Catcher in the Rye, please pass it up for someone with more balls. Thank you. ... Besides this underlying, yet major flaw, in the film they also managed to take any tension out the plot. That's a neat trick for a story that hundreds of thousands of people couldn't put down once they started it. Hanks is in his most uninspiring role ever too. They might as well gotten Afleck to play the part. ... However, outrages aside, and if you can stand a watered down version, the movie might provoke you to ask a few questions about faith, history, or art. Maybe.