Much ado about blah

Rating: 5/10 (20 May 2006)

I won't get much into the theological and historical aspects of either the novel or the film "The Da Vinci Code" because basically, I'd just ramble and would end nowhere. But one thing's clear: the tremendous calls for boycott and banning of the film in our country, the Philippines, isn't really necessary as the film version barely makes the claims of the book any more credible.
With Dan Brown's best-selling novel becoming a worldwide phenomenon, tremendous expectations abound, so it seems natural for director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman to feel a great pressure to transfer a faithful adaptation to the big screen. They did remain faithful, but as with other book-to-film adaptations, you can only include so much and still leave a lot lying on the cutting room floor. This film is essentially a crash course of the novel where everything feels so rushed and we don't really care about the characters. I have read the novel almost two years ago (and subsequently, I've read two books that try to refute the "lies" fabricated by Dan Brown). I found the book pedestrian at best, nonetheless a real page-turner. The movie is a three-hour dull exposition that not even the chase scenes can't manage to save.
You probably know the plot as much as anyone else, but here goes: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a Harvard Religious Symbology professor who is called upon by the French police after the curator of the Louvre has been murdered, leaving with him clues to centuries-old secrets supposedly hidden by Leonardo Da Vinci in some of his works. These messages are said to be so powerful it can shake the foundations of Christianity. Together with a French cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou), they try to figure out the clues while running from the French police across the streets of France to the Rosslyn Chapel to the Westminster Abbey.
The film certainly tantalizes us with an intriguing beginning and an engaging final act, however. We first see the murder at the Louvre. Soon after we meet Langdon and he's called while signing books (in the novel, he was called in his hotel in the dead of the night). He's then thrust into a labyrinthine of puzzles and clues, into Goldsman's soggy exposition that never really trying to flesh out any of the characters for the sake of fitting as much subplots of the book as possible. It might have worked as a miniseries or, heck, even as a two-part movie. But here, the pacing of the story is very uneven.
After their pairing for the Academy Award-winning film "A Beautiful Mind," many were waiting for Howard and Goldsman to bring a sense of thrill to the story. "The Da Vinci Code" contains flat, yet likable characters and a rich palette of lush, inventive puzzles. Unfortunately, the film lacks that edge. It's missing the thrilling elements of Brown's novel. Howard does weave some memorable scenes, but the sum is much less than each individual part.
The film does end by asking one important question about faith that somehow was never addressed in the book. Unfortunately the film overall lacks depth to fully substantiate its thesis. There isn't really an emotional thrust to the mystery because we don't know enough about the leads. It lacks a solid foundation altogether. The screenplay spends so much time in placing the characters from one puzzle to puzzle with not much excitement and too much arbitrary exposition to say (though it does seem fun to see Ian McKellen do that lecture). The chase scenes aren't adrenaline-pumping either. And then we're given with grainy flashbacks of the early Christians, the Knights Templar, etc. The novel has all the pages to expound on that; the movie has just two and a half hours.
Despite that, I don't think it would diminish the anticipation for the film. I saw this film a couple of nights ago in Thailand and the theater was fully-packed (most of them were Europeans). "The Da Vinci Code" is sure to be an altogether different experience, especially if one has read the book. And those who are not willing to "compromise" their faith for the movie's worth may not be enticed the same way as those who are. Then again, in the greater scheme of things, there's no need for a boycott. Whatever controversial message the film tries to say, it does so unconvincingly.