Quite good, somewhat disappointing

Rating: 10/10 (23 May 2006)

Being quite intrigued by colliding reviews I got about the Da Vinci code, I went to see it last night. It was a full house at the cinema but I got the better of it taking a seat on the floor on the walkway between the main seat rows.
I followed the movie's action thoroughly and I must say I was rather disappointed. It's true that this movie isn't supposed to be a work of art and its main goal isn't character development. But that's the thing: it reaches for that direction. Why do we get flashbacks of Silas? Why do we get those images of him flagellating himself? It doesn't help the story at all, wastes some good time that might've been put to better use in the story. Those flashbacks don't reveal anything useful. Sure, we get to know how Silas got to be with the archbishop, but that's not interesting at all, nor important. When it comes to the main characters, the situation is slightly better, since our finding from flashbacks do contribute to the story ... but ... What makes the movie really dull is the director's never to try and explain everything the characters do. Why on Earth does he spend a minute to show us how they got out of the plane and into the car? No matter how half-witted the audience might be, they could figure that out by themselves, there's plenty of time with the plane turning and all. Why on Earth are we shown Teabing killing his butler? Again, anyone could've figure it out, but showing this makes the pathetic attempt at suspense (with the butler bragging around) useless and another waste of time. The movie is plot driven, not character driven and that's understandable so if you like character development and all, you're better off without spending your money here. Speaking of the plot, it's pretty solid (given the book anyway). Still since the movie misses on a lot of book material, it gave me the feeling that Langdon himself is not so bright (a protector of Christianty's roots raises a girl and tries to train her mind and he doesn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). The movie gives a half excuse as it conveys the feeling he doesn't have the time to look at his partner's past. That's a half excuse because they do spend some time talking but he never asks the right questions. The cast's weakest point is Tom Hanks. He acts completely without involvement and is hardly believable as Rober Langdon. Hell, Nick Cage was much better at this in 'National Treasure', no matter how ridiculous he looked there. Unfortunately this casts a shadow on his closet peer, Audrey Tatou who does a slightly better job. Alfred Molina is OK, he doesn't have too much space to do his thing but spends his time acting. Paul Bettany looks OK, he has no room to really act but does his moves with some style. Jean Reno is OK too, not great though but provides the movie with some much needed humour from time to time. Ian McKellen however couldn't do a bad job if he tried. He actually saves the movie's cast and his character seems the most plausible and 'in-character'. Overall not bad, I liked the scene where Teabing and Langdon argue over the 'last supper'. It's not too much of a foot up Church a*se but it takes a lot of spirit and attention to identify some interesting and valid points of view and questions to be asked.