“The Da Vinci Code” is supposed to be the blockbuster movie of 2006. “Lackluster” would be the more appropriate term.

The film is a reminder of why books are almost always better than the movies they inspire. It’s not that Ron Howard’s film is bad; it just lacks energy and at times is flat and tedious (and far too long at 149 minutes).

In reading the book, it’s easy to get swept up in Dan Brown’s intriguing prose, pause, and allow your brain to absorb all of the zany theories. But when that prose is turned into dialogue (by Oscar winner Akiva Goldsman), the visual medium only allows one passing chance to grasp all the theological teachings being torn asunder, and because the ear can’t absorb information as quickly or proficiently as the eye, the movie falters.

The story follows Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) as he’s called to the Louvre when an elderly curator named Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Mierelle) is murdered. After answering questions from Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), he’s told by another cop, cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou, “Amelie”), that he’s been framed for the murder and needs to get away.

It is soon learned that Sauniere was a member of the Priory of Scion, a secret organization that has kept the secrets of Christianity for thousands of years, and now Langdon and Neveu must decipher the clues left by Sauniere near his body, which lead them to more hints in the Mona Lisa and other Leonardo Da Vinci works. When the trail reveals that they are on a hunt for the Holy Grail they go to Grail expert Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen “X-Men”), an old acquaintance of Langdon’s.

In the meantime, a powerful Bishop (Alfred Molina, “Spider-Man 2”) has recruited an impressionable monk (Paul Bettany, “Firewall”) to kill members of the Priory, as they too seek the Grail. It’s a bad sign that this part of the story — which was a prominent and riveting part of the book — seems completely irrelevant here.

The acting is oddly flat for a movie with this much drama and so many stars. It’s as though Hanks, Tautou, McKellen and company are “trying not to screw it up” rather than bringing their full creative energies to the film. As for Howard, he has failed to bring the exuberance of Brown’s book to the screen, and should have realized that the picture needs a quicker pace. The one thing Howard did that works is borrowed from his own “A Beautiful Mind”: when a character is telling a story/providing background information, Howard cuts to a visualization of that story and effectively allows it to come alive.

Admittedly, the movie is entertaining on a simple, monotonous level, probably because anyone who has read the book is so eager to see the movie that it’s difficult to look at the film’s quality with objective eyes. As a reader of the book, I can say that if you step back and view the film objectively, it is a disappointment. And if you haven’t read the book and were planning to see the movie to learn what all the fuss is about, do yourself a favor: read the book.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed