Given the negative critical response to Dan Brown’s
novel, The Da Vinci Code, it’s slightly peculiar
that the public has been so surprised in regards to the
abundance of loathing reviews that Ron Howard’s film
adaptation has inspired. Superfluous
religious-controversy regarding the material aside, the
story is virtually impossible to respect; it was poorly
written and conceived in Brown’s novel and has been
reworked for the screen by writer Akiva Goldsman with
the same lack of quality.
The plot is virtually
impossible to explain in a short synopsis, and given its
reliance on cheap-surprises, it is probably better for
the sake of potential-viewers that I not go into detail
about here. I will say that the narrative involves
protagonist Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (Tom
Hanks), who is recruited by the French Police to
investigate religious motivations behind a mysterious
murder at the Louvre. Sooner than later, Robert begins
to discover that the murder is actually a part of an
elaborate race to find The Holy Grail, involving Opus
Dei, historical-cover ups, and men of faith deceiving
one another left and right. The movie’s many twists and
turns, like those in the book, are often tiring, but
there are still a few that may enthrall viewers who are
not familiar with the story.
For the most part, Howard’s
film suffers from the exact same problems that its
source material did, but makes up some ground in terms
of its ability to craft thrilling action sequences and
develop interesting characters. The first ninety minutes
of The Da Vinci Code are actually very well-done;
Howard is more proficient at setting up both the plot
and the players in it than Brown was. However, seeing
that screenwriter Goldsman copied the plot almost
verbatim from the book, the third-act seems to drag on
forever (the movie runs a whopping 149 minutes) and the
concluding dialogue is often more laughable than it is
triumphant.
While I am unable to forgive
several of The Da Vinci Code’s flaws, I must
defend the studio’s choice to cast Tom Hanks in the
lead-role. Filmgoers, especially those who feel a tie to
Brown’s novel, have been criticizing the decision ever
since it was announced, but Hanks is actually rather
good as Robert Langdon. General objection to the move
concerns Hanks’ image—when one reads The Da Vinci
code, one is not inclined to think of the actor as the
character—but his solid performance justifies his
participation in the project. Not only is Hanks able to
work well with Howard due to their past history (Splash,
Apollo 13) making movies together, but he also is
able to make Robert a more relatable protagonist than as
depicted in the book. He recites his fair-share of tacky
dialogue and this occasionally makes his acting seem
cheesy, but it has the same effect on that of his
co-stars, Audrey Tatou in particular. Had screenwriter
Goldsman cleaned up this aspect of Brown’s writing in
his script, then perhaps the film-version of The Da
Vinci Code would’ve been of a better than
merely average.
On the whole, I prefer
Howard’s Da Vinci Code to Brown’s original.
However, this review marks one of the few occasions in
which my critical opinion doesn’t matter. No matter how
distasteful the material may be and no matter how much
controversy it may stir up amongst devout followers of
the Catholic Religion, the movie will go on to—like the
novel—make millions, if not billions of dollars of
revenue. In terms of delivering cheap thrills and making
viewers feel like they’re intelligent for being
able to follow a rather intricate plot, The Da Vinci
Code represents the full-package. As for me: I’m
still waiting for the next American Classic to grace
American Silver-Screens.