So-so thriller has gotten a free pass because of its outlandish ideas

Rating: 5/10 (4 June 2006)

To some people, no two films could be more different than "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Da Vinci Code." One affirms traditional Christianity, the other skewers it. But the two are similar in the sense that someone not raised in a Christian culture might be excused for wondering what the big deal is. Outside a Christian context, it is strange that conservative audiences were attracted to a film as violent as "The Passion," and it is equally perplexing that a relatively formulaic thriller like "The Da Vinci Code" would inspire so much emotion, for better or worse.
It is ironic that people defend the film from its alleged anti-Catholic bias by suggesting that it's merely a fantasy, not to be taken seriously. If most people saw it that way, I doubt the film would be so popular. The attention it has received, both positive and negative, is almost entirely rooted in its unique claims about Church history. When evaluated without paying attention to what it says about our world, the film is really nothing special.
The beginning of the movie shows some promise. I enjoyed the scene introducing Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) as he delivers a fascinating lecture about common symbols that throughout history have had very different meanings from what we're accustomed. But as soon as the movie's plot unfolds, numerous holes begin to appear. Langdon is sent to the Louvre to help solve the murder of a curator. We already know that the murder was committed by a crazed monk (Paul Bettany), but Langdon is unaware of this fact. As soon as he arrives, people attempt to tag him with the murder, and he must go on the run with a cop (Audrey Tautou) who's helping him for reasons I found unclear, and who's involved because the slain curator was her grandfather. The two must work to solve the series of puzzles the victim left in his dying moments, which hopefully will lead them to better understand the murder and also account for why everyone's after them. Why the curator had to communicate his secrets in code is, again, not clearly explained.
As an academic scholar going on adventures, Langdon's character has naturally been compared to Indiana Jones. But he has none of Indy's charm, bravery, or quick wits, and he never seems in control over what's happening. Most of the time, he's being led along by the story's events, often acting rather dopey and clueless. That would be okay, I suppose, if the movie established him as a Walter Mitty figure thrust by the circumstances into a heroic role. But he rarely does end up acting heroic. Even his intellect doesn't prove all that impressive, aside from his ability to solve anagrams in his head.
The plot gets particularly shaky when Langdon's old friend Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) lays out the conspiracy theory that is at the heart of the story. At first, Langdon is skeptical. Sir Teabing presents not a shred of concrete evidence to support the wild claims he's making about the Catholic Church. He does, however, point out some rather fascinating details about a particular Da Vinci painting. On the basis of this demonstration alone, Langdon becomes an instant convert to Sir Teabing's unorthodox theory! I was practically yelling at the screen at this point.
The Indiana Jones films may have featured some preposterous notions, but those movies were never about ideas. They were nail-biting adventures that worked because they focused on execution, such as mood and special effects. If the religious ideas weren't altogether accurate, the plots at least had internal consistency. Our enjoyment of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," for example, has very little to do with whether we think it plausible that an archeology professor would search for the Ark of the Covenant, much less find it.
"The Da Vinci Code," in contrast, depends greatly on its ideas, and its execution is poor. The acting is shaky, with the best performances coming from the supporting roles, and the worst coming from the main players. Hanks gives his weakest performance in a long time, creating a character with little color or vigor. Tautou is woefully miscast; although the IMDb claims that this French actress "speaks excellent English," that was not the impression I got from listening to her labored speech, and she lacks the sense of authority necessary to make her into a convincing police officer. Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen, though, are superb, and I also enjoyed seeing skilled veterans like Jean Reno and Alfred Molina doing what they could with their limited roles.
Adventure movies often gain their strength from colorful villains, but here there are simply too many villains for any one to dominate the story. The focus therefore falls on the two rather bland heroes, and the movie never pauses long enough to make their relationship either believable or interesting. I'm sort of glad the movie resisted the temptation to develop a romance between Hanks and Tautou, given their age difference. But the movie makes a point of showing that they both had traumatic experiences as children. There was potential to develop some kind of relationship between them here, as there was when they have a couple of brief conversations about their religious beliefs. But all of this stays on a superficial level, and I felt no connection with these characters. The villains, with the possible exception of Bettany's monk, are no better drawn, and their motives are poorly established. This causes the film to have a very mechanical, calculated feel. As the movie bounced from place to place, I felt like I was inside one of those old sleuth video games like "Carmen Sandiego." Maybe if it had been interactive, I would have enjoyed it more.