Flawed but Not Boring At All

Rating: 7/10 (19 May 2006)

After having read some of the early publicity on this film, I headed out to a screening of the film with a bit of hesitation since I expected a big, boring, convoluted mess. Add to that, the unexciting and hesitant direction of Howard in both "Cinderella Man" and "The Missing", I was ready for the worst possible experience. I was surprised when I became engrossed by a film that moved very nicely and was very faithful to its written source.
Most of the film is in fact, very entertaining, and it is enough of a minefield to make a few people quite nervous along the road. It keeps its central premise, which will keep people arguing over the possibilities of historical cover-up for quite a while. In fact, seeing some of the arguments, presented visually will probably have a much stronger impact than some of the prose in Brown's novel. There are some handsome flashbacks depicting some of the elements of the cover-up, and the fact that now we see the road to discovery that our leading couple must take to "uncover" the truth makes the experience more believable; the power of cinema is indeed great.
So, why does the entire experience feels a bit like we've been cheated? It's not Hanks (or his hairdo's) fault. He plays his role very well, and his co-stars are delightful because their characters are for a change well developed. Another positive aspect of the film is the fact that Howard's direction is this time more on target, allowing us to relish the moments where witty, intellectual exchanges are happening. Academics can be proud that their depiction in the film makes them look like real people who seem to know their subject matter. McKellen's character is memorable because there he is fully dimensional, not the collaboration of a research group who is trying to appeal to as many possible teenagers in an opening night. It was truly refreshing to see a film where scenes were framed and the camera-work wasn't the result of an appeal to an ADD-afflicted audience or filmmaker. Watching a thriller where we see what is "happening" on the screen is more effective that quick cuts that are trying to give us an illusion of action and poorly executed attempts at being clever.
There are some problems in the last third of the film, where we are witnesses to some rather upsetting liberties taken by Mr. Goldman who couldn't leave its good source material alone. It is distressing to see how some of the ends were "quickly" tied at the end, an some of the resolution has taken a turn that was apparently tacked on to push more buttons but look more superfluous than anything else. Goldman was either experiencing a lack of confidence in the strength of Brown's subtle ending, or maybe he was looking to showcase his talents as an adapter who can't leave the integrity of the source alone. Do we really need to see more of "followers" there at the Chapel? Wasn't her performance strong enough? Also, what in the world is going with the dynamics of the relationship of the members of the radical order? It is especially in this section where we question the integrity of a filmmaker who can't handle controversy...
The film works mostly because it does serve an intelligent thriller with a premise that might open up interest in looking back at history and ourselves for sign of sorely missed intelligence in contemporary films that ironically seem of to be of anything else but intellligence. "The Da Vinci Code" gives us proof that there is still some true talent in Hollywood, that it believes good acting can still make a film a success. It is time we go back and revisit good, old fashioned screen writing, competent use of technical effects in both visual and computerized craftmanship to serve the whole, instead of just overpadding the film with flashy visual and sound effects, that end up becoming the center of attention. Here technology serves a purpose, other than numbing our common sense, our brains, and our abilities to enjoy intellectual questions.
The film has a tough road because it needs to appeal to those who read the novel, and those didn't but wonder what the hoopla is all about. Maybe there will be a succession of related theme projects, and let's welcome them if they induce a little thinking from our side, and hopefully it prods the so called Hollywood crowd to move away from pure marketing to what is required from those who want to be recognized as true artists in the medium.