A foregone conclusion

Rating: 6/10 (22 May 2006)

One of the biggest hype of the summer - The biggest potential blockbuster - And maybe the biggest subject of Controversy. All in one - The Da Vinci Code.
However, I had my reservations from the day I heard the book was going to be made into a movie. The simple reason was the bad writing on part of the author. Mind you, I am not talking about the plot. I found the plot quite interesting to begin with, but all my interest was subdued by the monochromatic characters, boring dialouges and cheap thriller style plot development. No doubt any movie which had to follow the original storyline of the book, had to suffer from the same weaknesses.
Given all these disadvantages, the movie actually does surprisingly well, especially in the first half. The second half of the movie (and of the book as well) where the character development takes place becomes cheesy at times, to say the least.
Some Points : Paul Bettany is perfect as Silas. Strangely, Silas WAS one of the characters in the novel who did not sound boring. Bettany brings the same malice and pathos on screen as I had felt of the character while reading the book.
Ian Mckellen does what he does best. Makes his screen time a treat.
Monila's character shares too small a screen time for any interest. In the book he had much more to do and say. Also because of this, the kind of "Betrayal" he refers to will remain a bit unclear for the non-readers.
I always envisioned Langdon to be a bit tired sort of guy during the events of the novel. After all, he had had a very busy day before the events kicks in... Tom Hanks does exactly that. However, he is devoid of any "personality" in the movie, he is helplessly driven by events surrounding him. If his character lacks depth, that's NOT the fault of the script writer or him. It's Dan Brown's fault, who never took time in his novel to give depth to the hero.
All I can say of Tatou is that she looks beautiful. Unfortunately, like Hanks, given the amount of screen time she chewed up (it was a major portion of the movie), her performance falls flat, once again thanks to Dan Brown's writing. Totally cardboard.
And Jean Reno was totally wasted, as was his character in the novel.
The score of the movie is similar to "Epic" kind of movies - in particular to epic wars. Especially, the score and sequence at the very end of the movie, reminded me of the finale of "Last of the Mohicans". Done in similar style.
Also, Ron Howard uses the "Virtual Projection of the mind in 2D" (something he did in the melodramatic "A Beautiful Mind") technique, here to make the audience "see" what Langdon is "thinking" while he is solving the clues. Does not work that well. And here is the only thing where the book does better than the movie, which is expected since, in the book, all the clues were explained in great detail, pages after pages. I understand the movie is at a disadvantage regarding this, simply because such a detailed approach will make things more boring. However, he might have presented it in a bit more ingenious way, rather than repeating himself.
All in all, if you want to see a pop-corn movie, it's going to be a treat, and you might want to see it again to understand the events more (especially, non-readers). However, if you are looking for "thinking" movie, it is not one of them.
Once again, I say - it is not the movie's fault. The fault lies with the book.