Controversy, shmontroversy, when you get right down to it, “The Da Vinci Code” is a mediocre movie that wastes a boatload of talent and a solid story from an enjoyable book.

As you can see, it didn’t matter to anyone in the paying public as it had a huge opening weekend worldwide and will make a ton of cash. I’ll bet word of mouth won’t help it remain in theaters too long though or inspire too many repeat viewings.

Now, for people living in a cave for the last several years, here’s the gist of the story. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a professor of symbology at Harvard University. A curator of the Louvre has arranged a meeting with Langdon but he doesn’t show up - because he’s dead. He has left clues behind though - puzzles actually - and Langdon and a French crypto-something or other Sophie Neuveu, the dead man’s granddaughter, solve the puzzles while evading the French police who think Langdon is the man’s killer.

Sound exciting? Well it was - in the book. In the film, there is little to no suspense and it is nearly impossible for the audience to care about Robert or Sophie. In the book, Langdon was excited to be seeing these historical places and solving cool puzzles and riddles. In the film, he is a claustrophobic skeptic who looks like he would rather be in bed.

The whole mystery - and controversy - is about what they find about the Holy Grail, which ends up having to do with Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the foundation of Christianity. Director Ron Howard does a good job painting the historical picture and gets a great performance from the man who tells this story to our heroes, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen). However, Howard should have had some buddies from Imagine’s television smash “24” help ratchet up the suspense. I mean, we know Jack Bauer is going to survive each week, yet “24” is the most intense show on television. How come he couldn’t eke out some thrills in this film?

I don’t blame Howard (entirely) and I can’t blame the all-star cast. I put the blame on screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who stayed close to the book plot wise but forgot to transfer over what made Langdon an appealing hero. Yes, he is an unlikely hero caught up in a murder mystery that he wishes he weren’t a suspect in, but he is also finding out practical uses for the incredible historical knowledge that he has amassed. He is a bookish Indiana Jones. In the film, he is boring, boring, boring.

And there is zero chemistry between Langdon and Neuveu, which was a part, albeit a small one, of the book. There is nothing here and it really hurts the film as Langdon and Neuveu are together for the whole movie.

If you haven’t already, read the book. It will take you only a little longer than watching the film and you’ll enjoy it a lot more. Also, read the prequel - “Angels and Demons,” which is an even better read.

**

login to post comments