The Da Vinci Code (2006)

• Review: ** ½ (out of ****)
• Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, Jrgen Prochnow, Jean-Yves Berteloot, Etienne Chicot, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Marie-Franoise Audollent
• Director: Ron Howard
• Screenplay: Akiva Goldsman (Novel: Dan Brown)
• Length: 149 min.
• MPAA Rating: PG-13 (For disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content)

There are many elements of DanBrown’s intriguing novel The Da VinciCode that make it to the screen of Ron Howard’s new film. However, thereare plenty of aspects that don’t.

What if the Holy Grail that hasbeen sought for centuries were not a chalice after all? What if it wereactually something much more empowering and significantly more dangerous to thechurch? Brown’s novel poses several questions and creates an intenselythought-provoking view organized religion.

As a reviewer, one can’t talkabout the film version without touching on the controversy. The Catholic Churchlashed out at the film before it debuted at the theater giving it a more impressivedebut than it probably would have had. The church did far more to hurt itscause than bolster its message. However, what it amounts to is ‘much ado aboutnothing’. The film is a significant departure from the novel.

In the novel, Brown tackles the roguereligious sect Opus Dei whose members subjugate women and inflict brutalpunishments on themselves for supposed sins. It is Opus Dei that’s the truevillain in the book, not the church itself. However, the film doesn’t portraythat. Instead, it portrays the entire church in a negative light.

The French-speaking part of thecast (Jean Reno as Bezu Fache and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu) is superb.Even Ian McKellen does a fantastic job (though he’s completely wrong for thepart in the book-comparative looks department) as Grail-nut Sir Leigh Teabing.However, two of the more important characters to the film are poorly portrayedand significantly less ‘right’ for the part.

Tom Hanks telegraphs in hisperformance as Dr. Robert Langdon whose research catches the eye of Louvremuseum director Jacques Saunière. It doesn’t help that screenwriter (if youcould actually call him much more than that) Akiva Goldsman creates anill-fitting backstory for Langdon. Hanks fails to capture the enthusiasm hischaracter possessed in the book.

Paul Bettany is even morewoefully cast. Bettany’s a fine actor but Howard’s reliance on him isregrettable. The albino Silas is hardly hulking as the book describes him andfar less menacing at that. The film version is maniacal and razor-sharp despitethe book’s version which is lumbering and brutal.

However, the disconnect betweenthe novel and film doesn’t end with poor casting. The Da Vinci Code, while languid in places in the book,nevertheless kept the readers attention, waiting impatiently to reach theconclusion. The movie, however, ratchets up the ennui by making it seeminglymore lengthy. Plodding to a finale that doesn’t even approach the quality ofthe book conclusion, we’re left with little more than a pale comparison. Onlythe “reveal” of The Teacher’s identity is handled better on film than in thebook.

Fans of the book will miss asignificant portion of the books charisma in the film. Some will enjoy thefeature nonetheless and slap down their entry fee multiple times. But, as inmost cases, the book is better than the film and I recommend a review of thenovel first. Don’t ruin the surprises by watching the movie.

-Wesley Lovell (July 20, 2006)