A tremendous opportunity wasted

Rating: 5/10 (25 May 2006)

When reading Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code one could not wait to turn the page to see what would happen next. When watching Ron Howard's film adaptation you might very well feel that you can not wait for it to simply be over. The tremendous story of the novel was full of energy, zest and excitement. Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has taken that story and almost impossibly sucked all the life right out of it. Everyone knows that in any film adaptation of a novel things are going to be changed. It's the nature of the beast. Characters and plot points are going to be tweaked and changed somewhat. But Goldsman does not give us minor tweaks, he changes the very story itself. Why anyone would feel the need to so drastically change the most basic and important plot elements of one of the most popular stories of all time is beyond comprehension. With the absolutely engrossing story they had to work with from the novel this film should have been something truly special. It is not. Somehow Akiva Goldsman managed to make The Da Vinci Code downright boring. And for anyone who read the novel incredibly frustrating.
There are almost too many ridiculous changes from the novel to mention but the most obvious, and incredibly dumb, change is the fact that the central figure of the story, Harvard professor, symbologist and author Robert Langdon has been turned into a skeptic, someone who does not believe the very story on which the entire novel was based. The first time you hear Tom Hanks as Langdon describe the Holy Grail story as a "myth" you know this film is going to have problems. The only reason Langdon ever became involved in the story in the novel was BECAUSE he knew, certainly believed and even wrote about the Holy Grail story. That is why a dying Jacques Sauniere's last act was to ensure that Langdon would be involved in all the events that would follow. If Langdon did not believe in the Grail he would have never been involved in the story at all.
Turning Langdon into a skeptic makes absolutely no sense but that's only the start. Goldsman has changed the motivations behind many of the characters' actions and in doing so has changed the very essence of the characters themselves, and not for the better. Bishop Aringarosa who in the novel was horrified at the thought of any killing has now become almost downright sinister. Police Captain Bezu Fache certainly had his reasons to be adamant about Langdon's guilt in the novel. Here he has an entirely different reason to be sure of Langdon's guilt. An entirely ridiculous, implausible reason. The character of Jacques Sauniere is someone entirely different from who he was in the novel and the change in his character helps to destroy all the emotion the novel had, which came almost entirely from Sophie Neveu's quest to learn the truth about her family. Suffice to say Akiva Goldsman's truth does not match Dan Brown's. You'll much prefer Dan Brown's.
Somewhere in this film Dan Brown's terrific story is still there. Maybe it's only there as a rough outline for Akiva Goldsman to follow (and ruin) but what's left of that engrossing, fascinating story is pretty much all this film has going for it. The acting by the two leads, Hanks as Langdon and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu, is forced, wooden and completely devoid of any emotion. There is absolutely no spark between the two. Far better and far more convincing performances come from Ian McKellen as Grail scholar Leigh Teabing, Paul Bettany as murderous monk Silas and Jean Reno as Captain Fache. With what's left of Dan Brown's story and some quality performances there are a few good parts here. But it doesn't add up to anything. Nothing worthwhile at least.
Anyone who read the novel could have seen a film adaptation would be quite a challenge. There is a lot of historical information to get across and sure enough the film often gets bogged down explaining the background behind the central theme of the story, the Holy Grail. And the novel took so many sudden and unexpected twists and turns which would certainly be a challenge to portray. But the way many of the plot points are revealed in the film does not even begin to match the stunning revelations of the book. Most notably the novel had one great "A-Ha!" moment where everything gets turned on its head. It should have been the key moment, the most thrilling moment, in the film. It is not, as the big revelation comes across with a whimper not a bang. In another of the most misguided changes characters who were absolutely essential in paying off one of the novel's big themes do not even appear. All the wonderful emotion of the book's conclusion has been lost. Do not be fooled by the obligatory "based on the novel by Dan Brown" credit. This is not Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, it is Akiva Goldsman's. And we are all the worse for it.