The Da Vinci Code Review

Ok, let's get this straight. This book has been on the bestseller list for literally YEARS. It is detailed to the max, yet much of which is visual. Those who have read it know it from cover to cover. So how could they make such a dull movie?

The Da Vinci Code is the story of a murder, which Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a Harvard symbologist, finds out he must investigate. Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a cryptographer for the French police, also gets involved. The man murdered was her grandfather. The two go together on a crazy adventure that leads them through the mystery of "The Holy Grail," which the movie claims to be the descendants of Jesus, and also Mary Magdalene's sarcophagus. The movie attempts to show that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and descendants thus ensued. Also, a bishop and an Opus Dei albino monk (though Opus Dei in real life does not have monks) named Silas are also involved, as well as an English scholar named Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellan).

First, let us get this nonsense out of the way. This movie, and the book, are FICTION. The tiny insert the book has that shows what is FACT is the only thing that is stated to be FACT. Therefore, nothing else is technically true in the novel, as well as in the movie. The book, but the movie especially, will not corrupt you in any way, shape, or form, nor will it cast a huge shadow on your faith, if you so happen to have one. Please, I beg you, do not take it so literally. It is a fictitious story. It did not really happen. It is all a big theory that not only has never been proved, but is also regarded by many scholars (including Grail enthusiasts) as a kind of off-beat, comical theory.

Anyway, the movie is, to be completely honest, very disappointing. Though, this could be due to the fact that the book is so engrossing. But with such a license as The Da Vinci Code, one would think that a better movie could come out. I guess not.

Tom Hanks is downright boring in the movie. Robert Langdon is a man of charisma who loves what he does. In the movie, he is just a dull nerd who suddenly begins to defend Christianity, which is also another fault of the movie. Robert Langdon was just as enthusiastic about finding the Grail as was Teabing, in the book of course. In the movie, he actually defends Christianity, sort of saying, "No offense," to those who cannot handle the good story. Also, Hanks does not do ANYthing with the character. He is VERY flat and does not stand out in any way. Audrey Tautou is a little better, but not much. I must say she does look the part and the accent fits well. However, where is her personality? What happened with her story of her grandfather? Again, she stays pretty much under the radar. Though, she does have a few witty remarks and actions (see the end) that sort of, but not really, allow you to like her.

By far the most faithful and best character is Teabing, and I mean acting wise, certainly not visual wise (he was chubby with red hair in the book). His charisma shines, and his enthusiasm for anything Grail really holds true to the book. Silas is also quite well done, though his story is not fleshed out enough. Prepare to get lost if you haven't read the book.

I also must admit that some of the camera work is pretty good. But with writing as dull and listless as is given, there really wasn't much to work with. I found myself getting uncomfortable and wanting to go do something at some points. It really didn't keep me as engrossed as I'd hoped.

Another big problem with the movie is that it strays just a bit too far from the book. This creates problems twofold. First, since many will have read the book, those people will notice the differences. Langdon's defense of the church is the biggest mistake in that it changes the whole dynamic of the movie. It is not some conspiracy, like the book presents it. Rather, it is a myth that might be, but probably is not, true. Second, if people have NOT read the book, they will find themselves EASILY lost on many of the plot points. Most will wonder why Silas is digging up the church. They really do not give a good reason why. So, if you don't know the story, you will be lost.

Was it a case of expecting too much? Perhaps. Nevertheless, if, Ron Howard, you are blessed with license such as this, it is almost your duty to adhere to it and make it very good. Don't change it if it isn't broken. And the fact is, the book wasn't. Seriously, go read the book. I mean, the movie works; it's not COMPLEtely broken. I guess the ending scene was pretty cool. But, with the source material at such a higher level, it's hard to look at this and say "Yeah, that's about right." It's too dull and a bit too slow. I just kept wanting more and it really never delivered. It kind of just said, "Ok, here's the movie, whatever..." almost like it didn't care.

I really did not want to agree with most critics. But the fact is they are all pretty much right. Is it a waste of eight bucks? Yes, if you have read the book. Can you make sense of the movie without reading the book? Probably not. Therein lies the dilemma.

I think I have exploded the truth pretty much...

2/5