While on a book tour in Paris, Robert Langdon, professor of Religious Symbology at Harvard University finds himself framed for the murder of Jacques Saunière, the curator of the Louvre Museum, whom he has never met. His analytical skills and Saunière’s granddaughter keep him one step ahead of the police as the search for the killer reveals an elaborate plan that could shake the foundations of world history and alter life as we know it.
As one of the over 60 million readers of Dan Brown’s book, I knew how the film ended yet I still enjoyed watching the puzzles get solved and the stories get told. However, I am not sure the film is completely satisfying because the story is much better suited to a novel.
The Da Vinci Code has a great deal of exposition and back-story that doesn’t seem intrusive when relayed in a novel. The film comes to a halt many times as numerous flashbacks inform the viewer of relevant information. Even when the plot moves forward, the pacing is slow because Langdon isn’t your typical movie hero. He’s very passive, usually reacting to situations rather than initiating them, and there’s not a lot of action as he thinks about the puzzles. The structure of the story throws the film's pacing off as well.
The action and conflict reach a climax when the villains are caught, but there is a lengthy denouement as the film continues because the major puzzles have yet to be solved.
The Da Vinci Code looks great, although when you are shooting in the Louvre Museum that is to be expected. Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman focus too much on the illustration of the puzzles and the back-story, causing neglect in other areas. The performances were adequate in the service of moving the plot along, but none of them were especially memorable except for Sir Ian McKellen, who is one of our greatest living actors. Even the normally reliable Tom Hanks doesn’t bring much to his role, which could be due to the subdued nature of Langdon.
Article comments
1 - Jewels
I enjoyed the book, and plan to see the movie. I have heard mainly negative reviews, although Fox News had a decent review. Apparently they share a kindred feeling about Akiva Goldsman. Howard apparently let a part of the movie fall apart - but regained control, it is a complicated novel, and like you pointed out may not translate as well to screen. Especially under the Akiva Code.
I have yet to see it as have had a work schedule to kill this week, so will be next weekend before I get to actually view the movie. I read your review as you're usually quite spot-on with your interpretations.
2 - Couch Tato
i watched it yesterday and i still think Tom Hanks didnt pull this one of
Im now in a dilemma would it have been better not reading the book before or its better having read..casue they were they edited it im wondering if guys will be left behind
Besides Ian McKEllan who i cant wait for next week in X3 i think Paul Bettany was excellent as well!
3 - Couch Tato
oh a thing i also didnt like were those special effects reminiscent of A beautiful mind that also had tha same Howard/Goldsmith/Grazer combination
especially when he was crackin ythe anogram i was like "russel crowe is that you?"
4 - Ken Edwards
I really enjoyed the film. It was well written, better than the book (but that is no surprise, The Akiva Code or not).
What I did not like, as already stated, was the heavy influence by A Beautiful Mind.
Other than that, it was quite enjoyable and I do not feel bad for paying to see it.
5 - Chelsea Snyder
I read the book -- twice -- and I hated the movie. Hated it. Hated it. Maybe I went in with too high of expectations, hoping the movie to be exactly like the book, and that's why I was so let down. Had I gone into the movie with no expectations, I'm sure I probably would have enjoyed it. But rather, I spent the last half hour or so sitting and getting more and more pissed at how contorted it was from the original ending.
I was also a little annoyed with Tom Hanks' soliloquy about how we believe what we want to believe, not any other source. A politically correct public service announcement? I guess it needed to be stated SOMEWHERE before people got even more pissed off, but at the same time, I guess I'm one of those people with common sense who knew that all along.
Overall, if you've read the book, don't go into the movie with high expectations. Ignorance is bliss, as is the case with most books-to-movies. If I would have just sat back and enjoyed the ride, it wouldn't have been a bad film, necessarily. But I guess I'm just too much of a purist, and expected the film to follow the actual story.
Paul Bettany did a good job as Silas. There. I said something nice.
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
It was a book?
7 - reggie von woic
Lol @ Matthew. It's spent over 160 weeks (and counting) on the Newyork's Bestseller top ten list...So yes, its was a book.
Personally, i'm not too eager to watch it right away. All the euphoria from reading the book hasn't died out yet, plus its reviews aren't as good as i wanted them to be. So unless someone comes up to me with free tickets, the DVD is only a few months away.
Ya!
8 - Heloise
Dan Brown gets a lot of stuff wrong: especially the marriage of Jesus with Mary Magdalene.
WHY JESUS WAS NOT MARRIED TO MARY MAGDALENE
First of all, if Jesus had been a Jewish raboni or teacher--rabbi, he would have been expected to be married. That was
like Jewish law. But marriage at that time was not based on two
people seeing each other and falling in love and
getting married just because that is what they wanted to do. That is
modern America not ancient Judea.
If Jesus had been married he would have married at a younger age
because people did not live long back then and would surely have
been a married man by the age of 20 or so. But according to the
Gospels he was in his thirties when he died. If he met Mary
Magdalene when he was 30 then he should have already been married to
someone else!!
If he did kiss her on the mouth it may have been shocking because he
was married to someone else, not because he was married to her or
kissing a woman when he was thought to be celibate.
Okay, if he married at the wedding at Cana then no more was said of
his wife or of his married life. Why? Well, who talked about their
married life in the Gospels? No one that we know of. Was Judas
married? It seems that being married was arranged between suitable
families especially if they were at least middle class people.
There is no reason to suppose that he was other than a middle class
man. Therefore his parents would have arranged a marriage for him
and he would have followed their advice. When he meets Mary, who is
really a virtuous woman, they become fast friends. She is his
disciple and that is the end of the story I believe.
What if he was celibate all his life? If he was a celibate when he
met Mary then he would not have broken it for her. He would have
remained a celibate. But now there is controversy over whether or
not he was of the Jewish religion, or if he was even Jewish.
Alice Bailey states that he was Jewish. But he could easily have
been influenced by the religion of Egpyt as well as the Greek
mystery schools such as Plato.
So, as interesting as the Da Vinci Code may be, it has no bearing on
how the lineage of Jesus was continued. It was continued but through
the magic of rebirth. It was a part of the French royal family, but
not the Merovingean family but from the De Valois family.
Finally, I believe that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a young
virgin by the name of Mary. She later married Joseph and they had
children together. He also had children from another family. So
Jesus in a sense was an only child because he was the ONLY child
from that unknown father...whom someone claimed was God. Jesus's
mother married into a middle class family and Jesus was able to
become a teacher which implies education of some sort.
He would surely have wanted marriage for himself because he was used
to having people around him and that was expected of him. End of
story.
Heloise
9 - Heloise
Hmmm, I think you've got something. Because I would have to say that the original Batman movie goes down in my books as the singlularly worse movie I never sat through. I actually walked out and it was at a DOllar movie. So, you would think that someone who bombed would have never gotten his grubby hands on another script.
A Beautiful Mind was okay, and much better than Batman, but since it is this Akiva the movie killer who wrote TDC, I think I will wait until I can get it free from the Public library.
Heloise
10 - El Bicho
Thanks for the compliment, Jewels.
CT, I had blocked out "A Beatiful Mind" so I forgot the code-breaking effects. Still, I don't mind it because it is a good way to show the activity of the mind working.
CS, considering that people are calling for boycotts, which according to the numbers I'm seeing have failed miserably, and they are worried that when the second coming of Jesus occurs, he will confess that the Da Vinci Code is true, common sense appears to be in short supply. Hanks speech is needed although if I don't know if I would call it PC since the entire film isn't.
"Dan Brown gets a lot of stuff wrong: especially the marriage of Jesus with Mary Magdalene."
Heloise, it's a fiction film, not a documentary. I'm not sure why the clarification is needed, but thanks for illustrating my point to Chelsea. The 3rd and 4th Batman films, which Akiva wrote, were much worse than the first. A Beatiful Mind was terrible.
reggie ixnay on the encouragementay.
11 - Chelsea Snyder
Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene - or anyone, for that matter? I don't know. What a lot of people should do is approach TDC for what it is -- a book. A piece of fiction, with ambiguous facts (that is, they can be debated from a number of sources and standpoints) strung together to create a story line.
If Christians, Catholics, WHOMEVER, want to read this book and let it strengthen what they believe, more power to them. If it changes your mind, then maybe your faith wasn't so strong to begin with. Like Tom Hanks said in the movie, people believe what they want to believe. No more, no less.
But that's just my agnostic take on things.
12 - -E
I liked the movie just fine. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it wasn't the worst either. It was entertaining. And the vfx didn't bother me. But then, I didn't mind them in A Beautiful Mind either.