Mr March Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 The Da Vinci Code (2006) Genre: Live Action Film – Dramatic Thriller The Da Vinci Code book by author Dan Brown has been discussed so much since release, the controversy has taken on a life of its own. So it can come as no surprise that the film adaptation has generated an equal if not greater controversy prior to release. Yet lost in most of the debate is a simple question for this film fan: is The Da Vinci Code a good movie? The Da Vinci Code is a thriller which delves into religious iconography and myth to tell the story of a Semiologist (called the fictional discipline “Symbologyâ€) named Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) who becomes involved in a mystery after the death of an old colleague in France. Hank’s Langdon is approached by DCPJ officer Bezt Fache (Jean Reno) and brought to the Louvre Museum to assist Fache’s investigation. Here Langdon meets the curator’s granddaughter and cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) who discreetly informs Langdon that he is Fache’s prime murder suspect. Escaping Fache’s custody, Langdon and Neveu investigate the curator’s death, leading the two on a perilous chase to discover a conspiracy by the Catholic Church that conceals the true story of Jesus Christ. If the plot of Code sounds contrived at this point, trust that it is very much so and more despite director Ron Howard’s effort. The introduction of Langdon into the conspiracy is just barely plausible, an error that ever impedes one’s suspension of disbelief. It doesn’t help the narrative that a side story about $20 million and Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) is never explained or that the relentless assassin monk Silas (Paul Bettany) is given flashbacks while stalking our heroes. The film is so full of useless information the last thing it needs is lengthy exposition, but we get that in spades with the inserting of Langdon’s friend Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen). McKellen spouts near endless drab dialogue, but he does manage to inject some humor and life into an otherwise dark and dull movie. How dark it is indeed, a film so clouded by shadow it comes off as annoying rather than anything a viewer could appreciate as cinematic style. So much goes tragically wrong in the execution of The Da Vinci Code it becomes a puzzle in itself choosing where to start a critique. The humorless main characters, the dreadfully lengthy exposition, the boring first two-thirds, the constant out of focus closeups, and yet more disparaging criticisms could be written to fill two reviews. The list of faults could be overlooked if a strong script engaged the audience. Instead, Code offers nothing engaging at all and opts instead for Langdon and Neveu literally stumbling unto solutions without so much as an ounce of deduction or reason. Who needs Sherlock Holmes when dumb luck will suffice? In defense of Code, the story itself is a rather fresh setting for a tried and true mystery thriller. While Howard’s directing of Code does little to distinguish the film from other such films as National Treasure, the concept of a conspiracy surrounding the true nature of Jesus is compelling. Many will find a lot of interesting thoughts and theories on western religions and the history of which is called into question. Even in such a lifeless film as Code, there are a few thrills to be had and some genuine twists will satisfy those with low expectations. However, the controversy preceding the release is by far more impressive and entertaining than the film itself. If any film deserves to be derided for creating a lot of hype about a lot of nothing, The Da Vinci Code certainly qualifies. Rating: 2 out of 5. The Da Vinci Code is an average conspiracy thriller whose only claim to fame is a pre-release controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 (edited) Wow, move over Ebert. A little contraversy was all this movie needed, as it's such easy fun to pick on the religous types. You can bet that Passion of the Christ and 'Code are high-fiving each other all the way to the bank... Edited May 22, 2006 by myk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowe Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Like to have a open debate about this book...but this topic has been locked once already. Good luck!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 (edited) The previous topic about this got locked because right off the bat it dove headlong into religious debate which is strictly verboten here on MW. I'll let this thread continune under the following conditions: Similiar to EXO's long dead Munich thread, this thread is to be about the specifics pertaining to the MOVIE and ONLY the movie. The Munich thread got locked because people could simply not talk about the movie, they had to keep injecting politics into things. The same goes with this thread about this movie. The first sign of this getting off the topic of specifically the movie and getting into religion gets it locked. I, as well as everyone else on the planet, are well aware that the core of this movie is material that several religious types find distasteful... so as impossible as it may seem please discuss this movie WITHOUT bringing religion into this. I really do NOT want to babysit this thread so the first violation of these rules gets it locked. I'm trying to be fair here and allow people a place to discuss this movie, but the MW R&R stand firm. Keep religion out of this topic and it will stay. Talk about how Tom Hanks looks like a goober in that mullet, talk about how the special effects where good or bad, talk about how the acting was wooden, the camera work was shoddy or how terrible the scriptwriting was... but stay off the subject of religion. I'll allow only the mention of it in the discussion of plot, Mr. March's review is a good example of this. Anything more and the baby goes out with the bath water. Edited May 22, 2006 by JsARCLIGHT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobywan Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I just don't like the concept. It exploits and cheapens the genius of Leonardo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladic Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 National Treasure was better than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORD KUNGFU Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 rating - it sucked liked a hoover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 whose only claim to fame is a pre-release controversy. I disagree. Not with your review, mind you... that was pretty much spot on. But I think the movie's claim to fame is less about the pre-release controversy and more about the popularity of the book, which managed to sell some 60 million or so copies to date. And the problem with adapting a book to a movie is that you have a smaller space to work with. Take Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, for example. There was a lot of complaints that some things were cut or slightly altered, but I think that the end result was a movie that moved along pretty well (my only real complaint was that things seem to be happening faster than the entire school year that the movie follows). Without going into a book review, I'll state for the record that I did very much enjoy all four of Dan Brown's books. So, how do you turn a good book into a dull movie? Apparently, you try to jam as much of the book into the movie as possible. As much as I can recall (it's been awhile since I'd read the book), most of the major events in the book are in the movie. But while the book plays out a little slower, presenting clues and providing more insights and background, and allowing more time to digest the info and to kind of play a long as the characters work through to solve the mystery, the movie plays out like a Reader's Digest version. The viewer isn't given much insight into the characters or their backgrounds, and no time to digest any info. Rather than being presented with a new clue when the characters are, the viewer sees that the characters have a clue, which they quickly solve and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerwalk25 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Can't rag on Ron Howard (excellent director IMHO) I put the blame on the screenwriter of Lost In Space and Batman and Robin (Akiva Goldsman ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Didn't read March's review.....don't think I want to anyways....for some reason, this film just doesn't click for me. Probably because I'm waiting for X3 and Supes. Maybe I'll just read the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I am waiting for South Park to rip on this subject. Anytime soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 Thanks for heeding jsARCLIGHT's warning. Indeed the thread is about the film itself. The controversy should be discussed only in loose terms as it pertains to the film. There is actually another, much older thread about the Da Vinci Code still open on MW, so please let this one remain so as well. THanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 whose only claim to fame is a pre-release controversy. I disagree. Not with your review, mind you... that was pretty much spot on. But I think the movie's claim to fame is less about the pre-release controversy and more about the popularity of the book, which managed to sell some 60 million or so copies to date. 401212[/snapback] As a viewer who has not read the book, I was prompted to view the film based on the film, not the book. Granted fans of the book will go see the film because they are fans. But on it's own, the film possesses no merit beyond the pre-release hype, despite an established fan base. Star Wars had an established fan base, but Episode One's claim to fame is that of a bad film and one of the biggest dissappointments in film history. I am going to read The Da Vinci Code now, since I think the story has some potential which was probably done correctly the first time in the original book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechaninac Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 (edited) Thanks for the review. I was already heavily leaning towards waiting for the DVD release before watching this movie. Your review clinches it. It seems to me that just like "Master and Commander", this movie adaptation manages to turn a good book into an exercise in boring mediocrity. If anything, all the controversy, legitimate and contrived, will have the effect of having the movie make more money than it deserves were it to stand solely on its merits. Edited May 22, 2006 by mechaninac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Thanks for the review, I'm glad to see it's making a ton of money, even if I'm not going to contribute to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I've only read the first few chapters of the book, but I thought the movie was just fine. Humorless characters in a humorless plot seemed pretty applicable to me. As for the controversey... meh... seems like just hype. Companies create fake fads all the time, so maybe the controversey is fake as well. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanedaestes Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) I saw the movie and felt that it was lacking a lot of things. All this hype and the excution was terrible. And the plot..... i know the book goes more into than that but i just couldnt help but think, " wow kevin smith did this so much better with Dogma." Edited May 23, 2006 by kanedaestes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortress_Maximus Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) Religious films in general hold no interest for me and besides where are the hot babes? Edited May 23, 2006 by Fortress_Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Haven't seen it yet, but there is one thing about these books, movies, and theories about Christ having a continuing bloodline that does bother me. They all seem to show this very linear bloodline that leads back to a single family. Now maybe it's just the engineer in me but this got my fiance and thinking. And even using a conservative estimate of two offspring per generation the produce two more off spring, and no intermarriage, after 80 generations (assuming a 25 year standard generation measure) you would get descendants measureing 1.2 x 10^24 people. Of course this is far larger then the world population, but even assuming intermarriage that basically implies that the whole of Europe, at the very least, would share in at least some genetic level the bloodline of Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 Brown's creation is not the kind of book you want to hold up to examination, because it won't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Again, I must be the only person who enjoyed this movie.... (as well as the book, which I bought about a month after it first came out) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 Again, I must be the only person who enjoyed this movie.... (as well as the book, which I bought about a month after it first came out) 404702[/snapback] I really got to sit down and finish the book. I read for a few hours and finished 150 pages, but I have to complete it. I saw potential in the film, but it was wasted. So far, the book is working for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 A friend lent us a bootleg DVD of the movie. My wife who has not read the book had no idea what was going on and fell alseep after 30 minutes. I also found the movie coud not sustain my interest and switched off about the time my wife fell asleep Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Well that's a comforting thought Graham... The book is looking more tempting right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpchi Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Haven't seen it yet, but there is one thing about these books, movies, and theories about Christ having a continuing bloodline that does bother me. They all seem to show this very linear bloodline that leads back to a single family. Now maybe it's just the engineer in me but this got my fiance and thinking. And even using a conservative estimate of two offspring per generation the produce two more off spring, and no intermarriage, after 80 generations (assuming a 25 year standard generation measure) you would get descendants measureing 1.2 x 10^24 people. Of course this is far larger then the world population, but even assuming intermarriage that basically implies that the whole of Europe, at the very least, would share in at least some genetic level the bloodline of Christ. 404531[/snapback] Not sure if your math is right on, but you sure made a valid point. There would be far more descendants than what one would think. Like thousands of them. LOL I do find the movie to be pretty decent, while I have not read the book. I don't find it boring or hard to follow. But it does feel like the characters didn't need much time to figure things out right away. Also, some points of the controversy seems interesting, but other times just seem too forced that even made a lot of the audience around me in the theatre laughed, when they are not supposed to. At times, it seems they tried too hard to make the point that everything you read from bible or history books is a big cover-up. Almost feel like watching Megazone 23 Part 1, without the Garland and the Sci-fi elements LOL. While not the best thriller or suspense movie I've seen, its entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORD KUNGFU Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Again, I must be the only person who enjoyed this movie.... (as well as the book, which I bought about a month after it first came out) 404702[/snapback] yes, you are the only person who enjoyed this movie. But you are from Wichita Kansas and that explains a lot. Lord K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renato Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I saw the movie last weekend, and I think it is a failure on many levels. For starters, it is totally the wrong way to adapt a book to screen, Like Mr.M said. What should be done is one should take the main elements of the plot and characters and re-translate them into a motion picture grammar, which is on the most basic level, worlds apart from that of the written novel. Again, refer to what MM said about having time to digest information, characters' backgrounds, etc. What the Da Vinci Code is, is just a summary of the book, word for word, skipping a few bits here and there. Thus, you end up with either of two negative outcomes for the audience: the people who have read the book will be bored because they know EXACTLY what's coming next (compare this for example with Macross TV and DYRL: the different portrayals of the same basic events kept the interest up); and the people who have not read the book will have no clue as to what the hell is going on. Not to mention that the characterisation is all but deleted in the movie version, leaving Tom Hanks as the most passive protagonist in recent film memory: OK, here we are in Paris, come to the Louvre, oh man, we gotta go to this bank, OK get on my plane, let's go to London, OK we're in Scotland now, blah blah. It's just him being dragged around Europe with no sense of what he is feeling, who he is, etc. Anyway, my advice is just ignore the film and read the book, lest the story be ruined. It's fun to read the book and try to solve the codes and puzzles the main characters encounter by yourself. I enjoyed it because it felt like, as I read, I was competing with them to see who could solve the riddles first. Anyway, that's my dos pesos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrono Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Can't rag on Ron Howard (excellent director IMHO) I put the blame on the screenwriter of Lost In Space and Batman and Robin (Akiva Goldsman ). 401216[/snapback] Well that'll definately stop ALOT of people from seeing it! LOL Knight26, interesting 'pure' numbers, but when you start throwing in variables like plagues, holy wars, world wars, nation against nation wars, famine, and societal pressures the numbers get jumbled pretty badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Leader Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Again, I must be the only person who enjoyed this movie.... (as well as the book, which I bought about a month after it first came out) 404702[/snapback] yes, you are the only person who enjoyed this movie. But you are from Wichita Kansas and that explains a lot. Lord K. 404795[/snapback] Actually, I'm not. I've only been here since 2004, and I'm not sure what the correlation would be anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.