The Da Vinci Catastrophe.

Rating: 3/10 (22 May 2006)

Films rarely fit the viewers' expectations of the books, and then there are films like The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown's novel should never have been made into a film. First of all, in the novel, the story paces itself well, keeps up the suspense for the reader, and explains its theories in detail and clearly. When converted into a film, the story dilutes itself and the pacing falls short of anything remotely exciting or suspenseful due to the interlacing explanations. Secondly, Brown's novel is plot-driven, not character-driven, so when transferred on to the big screen, Tom Hanks and Company have little to do but recount theories, stories, and throw out clues for the viewers. While the film does stick to the novel (for the most part), it cuts out quite a bit of details that may confuse someone who has never read the book before (I went with someone who hadn't). The script should have included more suspenseful and thrilling scenes, but it ends up taking itself way too seriously and kills any potential thrills. For example, even the potentially awesome scene of Sophie driving backwards through the streets of Paris was ridiculously botched by shaky camera work and lack of focus.
As for the actors' performances... The people who really walked away winning from this film were definitely Paul Bettany and Sir Ian McKellan. Bettany is absolutely brilliant in his supporting role as the albino Silas. His performance really outshines everyone else in the film, including the King of Kings in Hollywood - Tom Hanks. McKellan was blessed with the few funnier lines in the script, which is mostly why his character really shines through. However, much credit must be given to his impeccable timing in dialogue. Tom Hanks, though a brilliant actor, falls short of anything incredible in this film. He goes through the entire film (the whole whopping 2.5 hrs) with a constipated look on his face and very little creativity. However, I think that is largely due to the fact that Brown's novel lacked greatly in character development to begin with, so it's not really Hanks' fault. Audrey Tautou -- looking absolutely sexy in this film -- has her moments of high-level performances (i.e. the scene where she confronts Silas in Teabing's jet), but overall, like Hanks, has little room for character development. Fortunately, being the eye-candy of the film, she generally alleviated much of the intense and overly serious atmosphere. Tautou and Hanks did all they could with what they had, so I don't blame them for their lackluster performances. After all, both are obviously highly qualified actors. The end product of the Hanks-Tautou partnership becomes two people running around on screen recounting the legend of the Holy Grail and shooting at or being shot by people. Even more unfortunate is the fact that they have zero chemistry.
Finally, I also want to make a note that the last 10 minutes of the film was completely unnecessary and over-the-top C-O-R-N-Y. Overall, I was quite disappointed and bored with this film. The pacing was horrible, the acting was stiff, and basically, it was a poorly-presented story. However, I will admit that Ron Howard did all he could with it because frankly, I don't think this novel should have been adapted into a film in the first place.