A definite puzzle that takes some working out but is this a puzzle you'll want to revisit again and again?

Rating: 6/10 (16 April 2008)

I can understand the upset and the controversy this film dug up and still does now. The ideas behind Da Vinci and his hidden codes were first introduced to us a few years previous to this film, by novelist Dan Brown and whilst I have not read that book, it seems this film is less an exciting and intelligent piece of medium to sit through and more so a slap in the face to those who have spent countless hours, days, weeks and months actually reading the bible. The Dan Vinci code does, I suppose, feel like a big budget Easter egg hunt  ironic then how something like an Easter egg hunt (something linked to but not directly involved with Jesus Christ) should be used to compare to a film about the supposed myth that Jesus Christ actually was.
I think it's quite sad when a film takes on a difficult and challenging subject matter but invokes mocking and ridicule more so than discussion on a constructive nature. But then again, it's not like I immediately took to this film because I felt under-whelmed. Instead of being presented with an argument, having the argument developed and then being given an oppositional reading, I got a blockbuster inspired film with chase scenes, characters with guns, espionage and criminal underworld activity - I'm not sure how honest to the book the film is but if Brown has written all of this also, then it makes me think he's trying to do a Bond or a Bourne but uses religion as a front for the story instead of The Cold War or amnesia.
The critical analysis begins as soon as the film begins; Robert Langdon (Hanks), who it would seem is the reoccurring hero of Brown's books, gives a lecture to an audience of multi-ethnical students about symbols and how they can mean different things: the Nazi symbol with Far East religion and the peace symbol muddled in with something else. "Tonight, this will be our quest"  that is he will investigate these codes and clues and get to the bottom of it all, but is he speaking to us the audience? The students are all of different ethnical groups and nationalities; maybe we, the watching audience, are the hall of students being told what to expect from the very off. The theme here being 'all is not what it first seems.....' (cue eerie yet tacky music).
And so Langdon goes on a journey. He is ripped from his world of lectures, students and book signings and thrust into a world of criminals, police and espionage when I was really expecting a world of intrigue, argument and debate. The one scene that demonstrates this is when Sir Leigh Teabing (McKellen) goes off on a rant at his mansion presenting us with The Last Supper drawing and gives us his little insight into phallic challis meanings. Hanks plays Langdon with a stern face and a downbeat voice, he is a rabbit in the headlights but it is not Hanks' fault  he has nothing to work with; in fact I preferred his performance of the exact same nature in exactly the same situation in Saving Private Ryan (a man torn from his world and placed amongst war and everything that comes with it).
The major problem with The Da Vinci Code is that it just does not inform, nor does it really entertain. The film might be quite fun, if you can understand the language of Latin; it might work, if you are lightening quick with anagrams; you might be engaged, if you know your ancient history and your facts and figures. The film might even work if you've either read or have a general knowledge of the bible, but toward the end and especially after Teabing's little rant you'll just feel insulted. Thus, it's a case of insult the one demographic that may be intrigued by your film: not a good idea. In fact for most of the film, we needn't even look at the screen but just listen to the apparent argument as well as facts and figures that are apparently being presented to us.
It is a shame that the best parts of the film must lie within the opening and closing twenty minutes with most of the in-between stuff just filling in. There is a scene when Langdon and his female sidekick Sophie Neveu (Tautou) are about to be executed in the back of a lorry; it works and is suspenseful but these should not be the best bits of the film. Similarly, the same situation occurs in a church; the camera cuts to 'on high' as some pigeons flutter and disturb the gunman  the chance to escape presents itself. Another good scene, as is the exchange between three people over an enclosed coded map. One question, were those pigeons from 'on high' an act of divine intervention? All seemed lost but a coincidence saves the day; perhaps this little inclusion of a composition and an idea isn't actually there, maybe it is  but that's the theme: all is not what it first seems.
There are other flaws that double up as interesting ideas. Silas is brilliantly played Paul Bettany, a religious freak who must inflict pain on himself but I doubt God will approve of the nun killing. The film unravels its plot points and twists in a fashion that forces you to merely accept them and move on than really give you a chance to appreciate and acknowledge them. By the time the denouement involving a certain character has arrived, The Da Vinci Code has used up all of its best scenes and put to bed most of its best characters. Still, at least it was better than Dogma.