I wasn't crazy about the book like some people, but I wanted to see how the film turned out. I actually bought the book a few years ago, but only finally finished reading it about a month ago. I was quite turned off by the unsophisticated writing style.
For me, The Da Vinci Code is not a terrific film, for several reasons. There's little chemistry between Tom Hanks' professor Robert Langdon and Audrey Tautou's cryptographer, Sophie Neveu. Hanks' performance was passionless and devoid of intensity. In fact, this was among his worst acting jobs ever. Paul Bettany was one-dimensional but alright as Silas, the creepy albino monk into self-flagellation and devoted servant of Opus Dei. Sir Ian McKellen was very good as the rich eccentric historian Leigh Teabing. Jean Reno was his usual dour self as Capt. Fache, while Alfred Molina was credible as the conniving Bishop Aringarosa of Opus Dei.
What made the book mildly interesting, when the puzzles are revealed to the reader who is now able to participate in solving them, is not as big a part of the film. The intrigue of the puzzles was the heart of the book to me and it's been eviscerated in exchange for condensing the story into a film experience of just over two hours. This film would have had a much better chance of succeeding as an 8-hour, four part weekly television mini-series, later to be sold to adoring fans at Christmas time on DVD.
Ron Howard was the wrong guy to direct the film. He's excellent as a director of dramas, but he hasn't distinguished himself in the thriller genre. Or perhaps he did the best he could with the screenplay. Despite the combining of facts with fiction to provide an intriguing tale, the book failed to capitalize on its strengths and ended up being a disappointment and it would have been a miracle to extract a great screenplay from it. Still, the producers should have gambled on a director better known for excitement and intrigue rather than the melodramatic.
My rating for this film is 2.5/5.
Article comments