Boring, but much better than the book

Rating: 5/10 (13 June 2006)

Grade: C The best way to sum The DaVinci Code up is: boring. The movie plots along with our characters rushing from point to point, much like the book. The only difference is that director Ron Howard and his crew are much better filmmakers than Dan Brown is a writer. Unfortunately, the source material is so bland that the resulting film has a climax that is about as jarring as finding out whether a flipped coin landed heads or tails.
The plot of the movie stays relatively close to the book. Few changes are made, and none of them are significant enough to mention. Robert Langdon is invited to the Louvre by French Police Captain Fache to help solve the murder of the curator. He soon learns that he is the main suspect for the murder. French cryptographer Sophie Neveu rescues him and together they go on a long, long, long journey with many, many, many clues that leads to a discovery that contradicts major Christian beliefs.
As you may have already guessed, the movie was too long. The pacing for the 149 minutes is painfully slow. Even the beginning, which was the only reason I read the book in the first place, turns out to be passive. It's as if Howard wants to skip the initial event and jump right into the mystery. Not a bad idea, but it's not executed well.
Howard does a good job of translating the scholarly historical information (remember, it's fiction, a.k.a. fake, a.k.a. made up) into eye popping visuals. In the same manner Howard showed us the way Nash saw the world in A Beautiful Mind, he shows us how Robert Langdon solves puzzles by just looking at them. Sadly, Langdon isn't Nash. Langdon is a character without flaws, except maybe for sporting the always fashionable mullet. Once one of the great actors of his generation, Tom Hanks has apparently taken to the one-dimensional main characters (remember Viktor Navorski from The Terminal?). There is a ton of talent wasted here from the adorable Audrey Tautou to the always incredible Jean Reno. Why did all these famous and talented actors waste their time on a movie like this?
Luckily, Sir Ian McKellen saves the day as usual. His upbeat and complex portrayal of Sir Leigh Teabing gives the movie the swift kick in the ass it needs before falling flat on its face. Before Teabing, our characters plot along from location to location, clue to clue. A good mystery shows the audience the finish line so the audience can give a damn about what is going on. If it doesn't do that, it gives us characters we should care about along each step of the way. The DaVinci Code does neither. Teabing leads Robert and Sophie on a quest that has an end in sight, even if we don't know exactly what it is. He gives the movie a much needed structure and his short lecture really sets up the mystery (even if it is about half-way into the movie).
Now, what about the big controversy about what the movie is about? Quite frankly if you're somewhat educated and you think that this movie is anything but fiction, you're probably going to die tripping over your own feet sometime very soon. I understand the controversy because the controversial "facts" are presented as just that: facts. I don't want to spoil anything by getting too into the specifics, but it deals with Jesus and whether or not he had a wife. Those who are poorly educated (which is a large part of the worldwide movie going population) can mistake what the movie presents as actual fact. Thus the movie has been banned in countries like India and China and edited beyond recognition in others.
At the end of the day the movie will be successful because the book was successful. Millions of people gobbled it up because it was "entertaining." I ask for a little more from entertainment than a fake history lesson. Heck, it would have helped to at least be a good fake history lesson.