CANFIELD REVIEWS THE DA VINCI CODE

Reader Comments

1. karen 05/21/2006 @ 3:33pm

   How was Audrey Tautou in the movie?

2. Jim 05/24/2006 @ 8:05pm

   Unlike Dave, I DID NOT enjoy this film in any way, shape, or form. I don’t seem to have the big problem with Ron Howard’s work in general as he does, but then again, I tend to steer clear of the ones that look truly blah ("Grinch", Cinderella Man"). I haven’t read “The Da Vinci Code”, and never cared to. And yes, this is one of those movies that suffers from being too slavishly devoted to following the book (ala the first two “Harry Potter” flicks) - it’s very obvious, even if you you haven’t read it. (Maybe especially if you haven’t read it.)

   Yet, I don’t think this is the sort of project that is capable of threatening anyone’s beliefs. Interest is obviously high in this conspiracy-contrivance, so who knows, maybe it will send more people searching in the right direction? Da Vinci Code-debunking has become a cottage industry unto itself among Christians and historians. There’s plenty of material out there in the form of books and web sites that counter-argue the details put forth by Brown/Howard if folks are so inclined to check them out.

   So, what about this piece of crap movie, anyway? You’ve no doubt heard it all already, but here it is again - It’s duller than dirt, woefully short on action, and up to its eyeballs in psuedo-historical detailing and minutiae. Tom Hanks has not been this badly miscast since “Bonfire of the Vanities”. I can’t imagine what about the cardboard Langdon character drew him to play the role, outside of the surefire cash avalanche of his first weekend percentage.

   Regarding Langdon’s character… how many times have we seen an “expert” introed in a film by giving a lecture? This tired device obviously demonstrates this person’s expertise. In this case, his lecture is accompanied by a slide show (one of numerous slide shows in the film) in which he has the audience members shout out their first impressions of the images. Only, he has unfairly zoomed-in on the images, and after a few bold voices shout out things like “racism!” and “hatred!” at the sight of a white hooded figure, Langdon zooms out to reveal the full image, not a KKK guy at all, but a Spainish holy man of some sort. He then does the professorial “gotcha” line on the students, and we are all supposed to think this fella is smart and clever. The truth of it is, this sort of stuff is a huge cheat for filmmakers and storytellers, and one would think a 2.5 hour film would have the time to avoid having to resort to this in order to make us “get” Langdon. But the film is much like Langdon’s slide show, giving us only portions of information that are obviously much, much bigger than anyone involved here cares to really explore.

   Not soon after this, Langdon is at the Louvre, decoding blood-written anagrams being framed for a murder. The fact that Howard chose to use the same visual effect to display Langdon’s unquestionable expertise at decoding anagrams (glowing single letters in a long string of muted letters in the character’s POV) as he used to display that Russell Crowe was off his rocker in “A Beautiful Mind” gives one reason to question our hero’s greatness. We’re told Langdon is the world’s best symbol decoding son-of-a-gun. Bestr of the best! The guy sure likes to point out details of shapes and sysmbols to whoever is around, I’ll give him that. But through all the wooden, boring exposition and explanation, you can almost see Hanks cringing at having to play this straight, and wanting to do the exact same dialogue in his comically smug persona we’ve come to know him as. The only human trait Langdon displays is clausterphobia. Worst of all, and most baffling, Langdon has no noticable character arc whatsoever. His only real quality, his expertise, is never called into question, and he seems to end the film in same place he started.

   As for Audrey Tautou, she’s here, and that’s about it. Like Hanks, she’s simply along for the ride. It all takes place in one night (the leads never even change clothes during the main body of the movie), so no time for lovey-dovey or even believable interaction. Sophie’s interaction with Langdon is father-daughter (a little creepy, yes) at best. I will say that I figured out the significance of her character around the one hour mark. It’s not very difficult, really.

   Also unlike Dave, I did not care for Ian McKellan in this. Do we really need yet another jolly old English intellectual to chuckle at in movies like this? Granted, his slide show presentation and the debate that accompanies it is the high point of the movie, but stop to consider that - a friggin’ SLIDE SHOW is the high point?!? Three movie stars sitting around an eccentric’s living room nit-picking 600 year old paintings?? Is this really what audiences want in the summer time?? Oh, and about McKellan’s character (Teabing, is it?) - the device (cheat) the movie uses to display his expertise is a little more multi-layered, but not fair, nonetheless. How do we know Teabing knows of what he speaks? 1.) He’s eccentric. 2.) He’s English. 3.) He’s old 4.) He’s rich. He’s poured a lot of money into this grail search crap, man.

   This casting is pretty embarassing, too, in that sickening Hollywood kind of way. Who to get to play the aging French lawman? Look no further than Jean Reno! And who should be the cute Frech leading lady? How about that girl from “Amelie”? And the leading man in this adaptation of the biggest-selling book of our time? It’s gotta be the biggest makle star of our time! Just give him a blue suit and a mullet, and we’re set! (I did like the mullet, by the way.)

   The supposed action climax of the movie (when Tom Hanks throws the doohicky into the air) is wrought with bizarro unexplained visual effects that obviously cost a bundle, and look cool, but were 100% lost on me. Why were we shown a vision of the solar system in CGI? Because Langdon was supposedly considering every possible sphere in the known world, in the effort to determine to ONE that wasn’t represented? (excuse me...) BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH! Hah, hah, hah! Ha ha. That’s a good one.

   Thing is, when they finally do solve the puzzle, a surprising amount of the middle-ages cover-up clues were considerately left for us English, as opposed to Italian, French or Arabic, which would’ve made more sense.

   (SPOILERS FOLLOW)

   I appreciate that the movie always allows wiggle room for the whether the conspiracy is true or not. But in the end, I have to say that those Vatican assassins were doing a REALLY bad job of killing off Jesus’ bloodline. If we had known how many survivors were hanging around waiting for Sophie to show up, we wouldn’t have been as worried about that creepy Albino monk.

   (END SPOILERS)

   So, “Da Vinci Code” is a big, murky snooze. It may have the single worst first hour of any movie I’ve seen in recent memory. More boring than your average church service, that’s for sure. If you want to get to the bottom of self-proclaimed “experts” like the fictional Langdon or the real life Brown, check out Orson Welles “F for Fake”. Now THAT will get you reeling!

   Sorry to let my comments sort of turn into a review unto themselves there, Dave, but I obviously had a few nits to pick with this collosal clunker! If “Da Vinci” were a better movie, would it be any more of a threat to Christians (Catholics, in particular)? I don’t know, but maybe next time Hanks and Howard will do us all a favor, and do a “Splash” follow-up instead.

3. Tim McNabb 05/25/2006 @ 7:31am

   Many folks are crying “foul” when Christians get their panties in a bunch over TDVC. “It’s fiction, man, lighten up!”

   A fair enough point. AOL had pictures of the books in flames, as if Jesus Freaks all over the country were having good old-fashioned Nazi book burnings. No need to go that far.

   On the other hand, let’s remember that Protocools of the Elders of Zion is a work of fiction too. I’m not accusing Dan Brown of a crime of similar degree, but it is certainly in the same species. POTEOZ has been used as a club for years against Jews, an intellectual primer for anti-semitism.

   Artists are given a gift. If we use them wisely in service to revealing truth or shwoing beauty, we do a great service to our fellow man. Used thoughtlessly, great harm follows. Brown has thoughtlessly breathed life into a meme that has no truth in it.

4. Oldnik 05/30/2006 @ 4:25am

   I’m off to see it now, even with all the bad press its had, figure that out! the inescapable draw of blockbusters eh?!! (actually the wife wants to see it, and it means we can go see Xmen3 later this week!)

   Plus even as a lapsed catholic, I feel a pull to see what all the fuss is about, even tho I know I’ll get board!

5. Lara 10/02/2006 @ 4:33am

   well what a heresy… Dan Brown’s novel as shown in the movie is a bit obscure..well nothing so special about too fictional…
   -----

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry