Bad DaVinci!

Rating: 3/10 (19 May 2006)

A year ago, when I found out that "The DaVinci Code" was in the production stages, I was excited. I found out that the movie was being made, and immediately images of how this story would look on film entered my mind by the hundreds--thousands even--especially after hearing that Ron Howard would be directing. Granted, not my first choice of director, but his style and vision would contribute greatly to the storytelling effort. Nevertheless, it made me thrilled.
Then I heard that Tom Hanks had been chosen to play Robert Langdon. All I could say was,"Oh-oh".That's where doubt began to seep in. Tom Hanks is a phenomenal actor.But he is NO Robert Langdon.
Set in magnificent locations such as the beautiful Louvre Museum in Paris, The DaVinci Code starts with the murder of a prominent curator near DaVinci's Mona Lisa and subsequently glides through the plot with the meticulous detail of, well, a curator. The story continues for two-and-a-half hours at an inconsistent speed, with dialog that could have just as easily been (and more often than not was) pulled directly out of the book, and even worse, mediocre acting that, at times, was indeed laughable.
The script was, at best, safe. There was no real tension, I didn't feel the excitement that I felt reading the book. At times it felt as though the screen writing was lazy and not entirely thought out. Sort of surprising considering that the screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman, wrote some of the most brilliant scripts in Hollywood, in my opinion (see "Practical Magic" and "A Beautiful Mind"). And quite frankly, coming from the guy who wrote "I, Robot" and "A Time To Kill", I expected much, much better, something much more energetic. The adaptation disappointed me.
Most disappointing of all,however, was Tom Hanks's take on Robert Langdon. His acting was forced and unnatural, the performance of someone who is not comfortable in the character's skin, or who maybe doesn't know the character well enough to be the character. I am not discrediting Hanks' talent; after all, with superb cinematic gems like Forrest Gump, Philadelphia, and Apollo 13 under his belt, this guy is one of the last great actors left in a cesspool of Farrells, Pitts, and Travoltas (yeah, I said it--TRAVOLTAS!). His acting usually comes from the heart--you know he loves the roles he plays because he brings them down to a human level. Unfortunately, as Langdon, he was placed in the unfamiliar territory of action films, and sadly, that is just not his forte. Luckily for him, he was not the worst actor in the movie.
As Sophie Neveu, Audrey Tautou was bland and simply boring. Considering that she is in 90% of the scenes, it becomes a bit tedious and annoying to watch her. Ian McKellen was decent and entertaining as Sir Leigh Teabing, and Alfred Molina's performance as Bishop Aringarosa, while exceptionally strong and well-adapted, was unfortunately limited.Jean Reno was perfectly fine as Captain Fache.
The surprise stellar performance in DVC, however, comes in the form of Paul Bettany, highly underrated actor best known for his role as Charles in "A Beautiful Mind". As the self-punishing, sacrificially loyal monk Silas, Bettany captures the true essence and the deep internal conflict of his character with multi-dimensional precision and unbelievable heart. He understood his character most, and it truly showed. I found myself a little mesmerized every time he was on screen, even when his character was behaving like a "monster",which really was most of the time. I found myself most sympathetic to Silas, and the only reason for that was because of Bettany's sublime performance. Kudos to him for making my movie-going experience today bearable.
That's not to say that it wasn't a noble effort. I truly believe that Ron Howard felt strongly that this is one of the best films he has ever made and I have to give him credit for that. Aesthetically, the movie is pleasant, the sights majestic and the special effects, while minimal, were respectable. The scenes that went back in time were well-shot and stylistically, the film is indeed beautiful. But it falls short of the Howard magic that us film buffs have come to expect from him. My guess is that he thought that because it was The DaVinci Code, the film would speak for itself and his work was essentially minimal.
This is probably also the reason why he thought that it would be perfectly acceptable for him to submit it to the Cannes Film Festival. WRONG. Wrong on BOTH accounts. In fact, like the Cannes critics, I found myself giggling inadvertently at parts in the film that were not supposed to be funny and I realized why they laughed.
The truth is that lazy efforts by talented people are not well-received by anyone who truly knows and loves cinema, and they shouldn't be; the cast was talented, the story was compelling, the director gifted, the screenwriter, brilliant. There was no reason why this film should have been anything short of amazing. Instead, I was left with the sad and irritating realization that the Cannes critics were right, and that my money would have been better spent on "Just My Luck" with Lindsay Lohan. But, to be honest, I kind of saw that coming. And I really,really hated that.