Dire

Rating: Null/10 (25 May 2006)

This is a very revealing film. It doesn't have anything new, original or particularly interesting about the Catholic church, Christianity or the nature of belief, but it speaks volumes about the source novel. I didn't like 'The DaVinci Code' as a piece of prose: I think Dan Brown is a lazy, derivative, plodder of a writer. I did think, however, that it might make a decent film  a medium where cliché, preposterous serendipitous co-incidence and an emphasis on spectacle rather than substance is often an advantage.
It isn't. This doggedly loyal adaptation simply highlights the writer's creative deficiencies. The dialogue is leaden, loaded with unnecessarily heavy-handed hints at profundity and significance  ironing the much touted plot twists and revelations flat. The nature of Audrey Tautou's character (of which more later) is so lumpenly telegraphed that even those who had not read the book (lucky them) would guess at it after the first half hour. There is no real attempt at characterisation, as dialogue is so heavy in exposition that personality and psychology don't get a look-in. Hanks and Tautou stagger through the film looking as though they've been stunned  reading the novel had the same effect on my mind, though in my case I was near-insensible at the thought that this drivel is currently the best-selling novel in the English language. Ian McKellern fares a little better, enjoying the few comic lines the wearily dry script is graced with, but even he is lumbered with a tired archetype. The normally excellent Bettany and Molina are just plain awful.
These faults are, essentially, those of the source text. Director Ron Howard must share some blame, however, for allowing the pace of what is essentially a chase-movie to sag so often, and using the wide variety of artworks and historic buildings featured so poorly. This could  for all it's lack of narrative drive  have been a beautiful film. It isn't. At best, visually, it's unremarkable. It's a controversial book, undeservedly so, as it has nothing new to say and what it does have to say is put poorly, so it is possible that Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsmith  both capable of excellent work - have chosen to stuck so closely to Brown's book in order to deflect criticism as to it's content. If this is the case, then they are cowards. If it is not, then there is little excuse for this being such a poor film.