The Da Vinci Code as a novel is an international bestselling phenomenon, but The Da Vinci Code as a movie is bound to be long forgotten by year’s end. Directed by Ron Howard, the Hollywood veteran behind such memorable films as A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man, this adaptation of Dan Brown’s religious thriller is 149 minutes of monotonous exposition and tedious European spy thriller clichés.
What makes Dan Brown’s novels so popular is the narrative background on such subjects as cryptography, secret societies, religious orders, and alternative history. But it’s difficult to translate such ideas to the big screen, and it’s here that The Da Vinci Code fails as a commercial thriller. Entire scenes are composed of lectures on the history of Christianity and the life of Leonardo Da Vinci. Michael Crichton has a similar style of writing that focuses on scientific breakthroughs and cutting-edge technology, but his novels adapt better to the big screen. Whereas Jurassic Park briefly lectured audiences on the inner-workings of DNA, then quickly jumped to two hours of dinosaurs terrorizing people, The Da Vinci Code keeps explaining, hypothesizing, and lecturing only to leave its audience hanging. The ideas are intriguing, but they make for a far better novel than silver screen blockbuster. Minus the interesting conjecture, the film is nothing more than a poorly written 1970s drugstore spy thriller.
Tom Hanks plays the lead role of Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of religious symbology lecturing in Paris. When Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle), curator of the Louvre, is found murdered and strangely positioned in his famous museum, local authorities initially consult Langdon for his expertise. But the professor soon learns from Sauniere’s granddaughter, government cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), that he and the prime suspect are one and the same. Creating a diversion for the police, the two discover a hidden trail of clues created by Sauniere in the moments before his death, clues that just might lead them to most elusive treasure in human history – the Holy Grail. With Interpol hot on their trail, and the true murderer still at large, Langdon and Neveu enlist the help of Grail historian Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) to teach them the history of the Grail’s protectors, The Priory of Scion, and to help them uncover the endless clues that promise to unravel a 2,000 year mystery.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Nicholas Stix
Interesting review, but you neglected to talk about the real issue at the heart both of this movie, and of world civilization: Tom Hanks' makeover.
From the TV ads, he appears to have lost thirty pounds, and either got hair plugs or a rug or somethin,' because ol' Tom, who was seriously thinning out on top in recent years, suddenly has a very full head of hair, though not the (somewhat?) curly hair of his youth, IIRC.
This movie could determine the fate of the King of Hollywood, which is one issue that is of equal importance to Saudi fundies and American nihilists.
2 - MiniShrink
I'd just like to clarify that I haven't seen the film yet. However, based on whatI've read in the book, I'd have to agree on the comment about Tom Hanks' character, but that was Dan Brown's fault. Robert Langdon as a character was comprised of an award-winning mind, a gentleman-like charisma that cannot possibly be faulted, and an athletic build complete with flawless looks and his own pet poodle, and it's hard to project any amount of depth into a poorly-written character like that. Dan Brown may be skilled in layering plots together, but his character depth is obviously lacking.
3 - Ty
My wife who read the book: Why did they make changes to the story that did not need to be changed?
Me, non-christian who didn't read the book: I'd like to reiterate that no one in the USA would give a damn about the book or movie if all this crap was about hinduism and not Christianity.
I also would like to point out that it was quite cheap for Ron Howard to use his stupid special effect from A Beautiful Mind in this movie. If you have seen both films, you know what I am talking about, especially when both lead characters of their respective films are figuring things out.