Just a lot of nothing

Rating: 3/10 (25 May 2006)

There's nothing wrong with the Da Vinci Code that a new director, screenwriter, cinematographer and editor wouldn't have cured. Fundamentally, it's OK, but the problem is the amateurish feel from beginning to end. It's much like a Movie of the Week on network TV. It's just...lackluster. And I didn't read the book. And I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religion one way or the other.
Ron Howard's direction on the past has ranged from workmanlike (Apollo 13), to good (A Beautiful Mind), to truly awful (Backdraft), and this is well down on the scale. He seems in part to be hamstrung by his devotion to particular actors; Paul Bettany has yet to turn in a bad performance, but here takes attention away from the main plot line. Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon is fine, but the character has nothing to do, leaving Hanks holding an empty bag with his huge burden of acting history...and perm. It's weight without substance, and more, is poorly paced and just badly shot by Salvatore Totino whose credits include, well, nothing of note, and are unlikely to get any more illustrious from here on out.
The screenplay, by "Daniel P. Hanley" and Akiva Goldsman is just lousy. Both are longtime Howard collaborators, and rumours are rife that Hanlet is a pseudonym for Howard. I don't know if the book was this jerky, but the film is a bumper car of stops and starts.
But the worst offenses are from editor Mike Hill, another longtime Howard crony. At 149 minutes, there's at least 45 minutes of total fluff he should have cut. Length is not a substitute for content. It just makes it feel longer than it is.