Vastly Underrated

Rating: 7/10 (25 July 2006)

I'm a writer; I spend most of my leisure time either reading or writing. Frequently when I compare an original literary work with a successive motion picture, I often fall into the purist view that the book is better. There have been some exceptions to this rule: Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" direction is better than Tolkien's writing skills (and I'm a Tolkien fan, if you can believe that) and Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" is somewhat better than Reverte's The Club Dumas.
In my opinion, Dan Brown is a mediocre writer who discovered pay-dirt with an innovative, controversial story. His writing skills are not literary, but close to dime store level. He's passable, yes, but definitely not in the league of moving and profound writers as Norman Mailer, K Vonnegut, or Thomas Mann. The novel, The Da Vinci Code, and it's prequel, Angels and Demons, are fast reads and fun. They deliver an escape while you are sitting on a subway on rush hour.
With the over-hype of the novel, we suddenly have the inevitable attempt at a motion picture. Usually these revisions are mediocre (at best) or fall by the wayside. Yet, in the motion picture "The DA Vinci Code", we have a visual depth that the literary relative of it falls completely short of.
I watched the motion picture, enthralled by the visual artwork and the intricacies of plot. It was soberly done, even with the controversial casting of Tom Hanks in the lead role. Hanks is usually (to me) overbearing and self-important in his later roles, and he doesn't stop here, however, he is believable - more believable than the Robert Langdon from the books. Tom Hank's Langdon is smart, reserved, and appears to be exactly an intellectual in reality; the Langdon in the novels comes off more as a McGuffin to move the story along, rather than experience it.
I'm a big Gandalf fan, but I'm not a Mysterio fan, so my reception of Ian McKellen's performance in this movie is neutral. I think he's interesting here, but somehow more aloof and somewhat more of the X-Man villain than the wise wizard type. Therefore, his performance at least comes off somewhat wooden.
The cinematography is enough to enhance the shots, but are somewhat lacking (in a minor consideration). The exotic locales are hard not to keep a deep aesthetic luster, even if they'd been shot with a VHS camcorder and sent in to "America's Funniest Home Videos". But I think you get my point.
The movie is cerebral and smart, the book a puzzle with gimmicks. Don't go into the theater as the novel fan, but as someone who enjoys a movie to stand on it's own. You'll find this motion picture stronger and more satisfying.