"What Really Matters Is What You Believe." Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks)

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2007)

"The Da Vinci Code" (2006)
Directed By: Ron Howard
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, & Alfred Molina
MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content)
When I first read "The Da Vinci Code", I was completely enthralled with every page. Its rapid pace, intriguing and colorful characters, and controversial subject matter made it one of the best novels I had read in a long time. Naturally, as the book made heaps of money and garnered a massive fan base (as well as many, many enemies), a movie was announced. What could possibly go wrong? The novel, itself, played out like a movie. Surely, any writer and director could put it on the big screen successfully. When Ron Howard was announced as the director, I was even more optimistic. Again, what could possibly go wrong? The casting seemed rightexcept for Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, but this argument has been made countless times before so I will merely ignore itand Akiva Goldsman, the screenwriter, had written some very powerful stuff in his lifetime (a side note: "Batman & Robin" was not one of them). So, I say again: what could go wrong? This movie seemed like a sure success--one of the year's best movies. But, suddenly, critics walked away from the movie, shrugging their shoulders and exclaiming, "So what?" Most critics panned it completely, wasting very little time when it came to trashing it in newspapers and internet. The word "boring" was uttered in nearly every review. "Dull" often followed it. But, were critics correct?
You probably know this plot right now. In fact, you have probably already read the book or watched the movieor, at least, heard the plot outline on the evening news. There is hardly a person in this modern world that hasn't heard about "The Da Vinci Code". But, for you people who have been living under a rock or off in a cave somewhere, I'll go over the plot. Museum curator of the Louvre, Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle), is killed and Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon (Hanks), is summoned to the scene. Sauniere, after being shot in the chest, decorated himself with numerous symbols with his own blood and the police need Langdon to interpret them. On top of that, Langdon was supposed to be having dinner with Sauniere the night he was killed and Sauniere left a cryptic message on the floor beside his body referring to Langdon. And what would a dying man do before he finally is killed, Captain Bezu Fache (Reno) asks. Obviously, he would want to identify his own killer. Langdon knows this and knows that something just isn't right about the entire scene. Alas, cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Tautou), comes to his rescue and the two uncover some very strange coincidences about the markings on Sauniere's body--coincidences that were not merely slapped together by a dying old man. Soon, the two realize that they are on the edge of a religious mystery that could shake the very foundations of Christianity.
While many people used the line, "So dark the con of man" to begin their review, I decided against it. I chose the quote I did because it sums up how I feel about the views expressed in "The Da Vinci Code". Do I believe that Jesus Christ was really married to Mary Magdalene and that the Church has been covering it for thousands of years? Um, nonot that I really think it would matter. Who says that a married man couldn't be divine simply because he took a wife? I don't believe anything that is proposed in "The Da Vinci Code" and you shouldn't either. This movie is a "What if?" kind of film. What if this happened? You know the drill. Chances are, if you are a normal person, the first time you heard about "The Da Vinci Code" was when there was some riot or petition occurring to ban it. Yes, the Christians who worked so diligently to boycott this movie actually only made more people see it. How is that for irony? Now, I am a Christian and have been for my entire life, but I must admit that many of these ultra-conservative Christian groups freak me out a little. So, like I said, don't listen to them. See the movie and judge it for yourself. I did that with the book and enjoyed it very much.
So, back to my original question, were critics right when they slammed "The Da Vinci Code"? Well, yes and no. On one hand, this movie ruined the pace of the novel, slowing everything down and cutting out some of the more intriguing parts in favor of scenes of slow, piddling dialog. Gone is the novel's brisk, pulse-pounding pacing and lightening-quick action. The film is also far too long for its own good, making it seem more pretentious and self-loving than the book did. The novel was a fun readintelligent and complex, but fun. The movie is far more about telling a complicated story without much of an entertainment factor. On the other hand, Ron Howard's direction is amazing and the movie manages to retain just enough of the book's entertainment factor to keep the audience entertained. On top of that, the performances, for the most part, are nicely-done with the highlights being Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu. Overall, "The Da Vinci Code" falls victim to the age-old "The Movie Is Never As Good As The Book" formula, but critics greeted it with a much colder reception than they should have.
Final Thought: Though probably disappointing to fans of the novel, "The Da Vinci Code" retains just enough of its spirit and intrigue.
Overall Rating: 7/10 (B+)