The Da Vinci Code: Not As Bad As They Say, Not As Good As You Hope

Unlike my last review JM's Poseidon Review, I'm not even going to attempt to encapsulate the plot of the new film The Da Vinci Code here. Poseidon had no plot, so giving a rundown of its events was relatively simple. No such luck with Da Vinci. If you've read the book, then you know how complex and convoluted the story line is. It would be impossible to try and give you a story outline without writing a novel myself. So what I'll do is give you a breakdown of the other aspects of the film, like directing, script, acting, etc.


"If you go see our movie, we'll throw in a free box."

Before doing that though, I should just say that I thought the movie was okay. I didn't expect a lot, so I wasn't disappointed, but I think the critics have been way too harsh on the film. For someone who has read Dan Brown's book, like me (and 3/4 of the free world), it is a pretty faithful re-creation of the story while streamlining it to 2 1/2 hours and keeping your interest enough to enjoy it. For those who haven't read the book, it will make a pretty good thriller and enjoyable filmgoing experience, but don't expect typical summer fare full of things blowing up.


Don't look so sad Mona, the film wasn't that bad.

So here's the breakdown:

Acting - The acting was adequate. To be honest, it didn't really require much real acting on the part of the film's stars other than being able to explain a lot of information to the audience without tripping over all the dialogue. Tom Hanks and French pixie, Audrey Tautou were fine, but nothing special. However, the 2 leads could have pretty much been replaced by Don Rickles and Britney Spears and it wouldn't have made much difference (although that would certainly make for a much campier film). I will say that I enjoyed Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany as the crippled Holy Grail expert and the albino monk, respectively. Ian almost always lights up the screen in every film he's in and Paul Bettany plays the pale creepy murderous Spanish monk very convincingly. Not Oscar winning stuff, but both were very effective in their roles. Everyone else was pretty forgettable.


Just think, this could've been Don Rickles and Britney Spears instead.

Script - This is probably the weakest part of the film. Akiva Goldsman's script is pretty much just a streamlined version of the book without adding anything interesting to the proceedings. It also had some pretty stilted dialogue for the actors to say. Maybe it was just bad acting in parts, but it really felt like more of a script problem than an acting issue. Goldsman did manage to eliminate some of the boring sideline aspects of the book(i.e. the London library excursion,etc.), but he never replaces it with anything other than 'they go here and then they go there and then they talk for a little while about religious stuff and then they go there' scenes. It also took out a few good things that I remember in the book, but nothing vitally important. Overall, the script needed a really good infusion of action or even dramatic tension, but it seems like Goldsman was more worried about creating a faithful adaptation of the book than adding more movie friendly scenes. A real missed opportunity, if you ask me.


"Goldsman did what to my book?"

Directing - Considering how difficult it must have been to give a faithful recreation of the book, I will have to say that the directing was pretty good. It flowed and made sense (for the most part). My biggest complaint would have to be the lack of action or any real thrills. I wish Ron Howard had decided to puch up the proceedings a bit. I did find myself yawning in a few places and probably looked at my watch a couple of times as well. It couldn't have hurt to throw a little more humor in the movie too. It was a pretty mirthless affair, but at least it looked pretty.


Opie waves off the critical backlash.

The last thing I have to mention is something that tends to drive me crazy in movies and I see all the time. It will seem a little strange to bring this up, but it was so irritating to me that I just have to mention it. I'm talking about the albino's junk. You know, his meat and 2 veg, his squirrel and sack of nuts, his sausage and beans, his mallet and croquet balls. You get the picture. Let me explain. Weird things take me out of movies sometimes and one of the most obvious ones is when a character or the director does something that distracts me in the middle of the film with something that is completely unneeded. In this case, it involved the albino's junk. There are scenes in the film where Paul Bettany's albino monk, Silas, strips naked and beats himself with a lash to make marks on his body. Ron Howard films the scenes where he shows as much nudity as he can get away with on a PG-13 rating, but it's all done with strategically placed items and camera angles to maximize the amount of skin shown while avoiding an actual view of genitalia.


Paul, I know the English hate the French, but this is ridiculous.

Now let me stop here for a moment and just say, I DO NOT have an albino junk fetish. I could care less if I saw Paul Bettany's full frontal nether regions. Really - he's one of those skinny pale British actors that does nothing for me. But what I hate is when a director films scenes like that and makes it so obvious what he's hiding that it makes you want to see it. There were multiple shots of Silas doing naked stuff and the camera lingers on him and just brushes the top of his pubic area repeatedly, but cuts away or moves quickly down when his package starts to turn towards the camera. Why do they do this? It drives me up a wall. Ron Howard has to know that the audience is watching someone nude onscreen and nudity is something that heightens a filmgoer's attention since they don't actually see it often onscreen and they're sharing a public experience with a theatre full of people while looking at someone buck naked. So by doing a little dance of, 'Here it is, but I'm gonna cut away just in time and now I'm gonna swing the camera back to give you a closer look, but only of the skin right beside the naughty stuff before I cut away again and I'll keep teasing you and teasing you and teasing you'. It's so distracting and uncalled for.


"Wanna see my albino junk? Too bad, Opie will tease you with it, but won't let you see it."

It's like a woman on a soap opera who wakes up in bed in the morning and she is naked, but she holds the sheet up to her chest and won't let it drop even though she is alone in the room or with her husband. You and I both know that people don't act this way, so it's very distracting to see tv shows and movies where people do this. It's understandable that you can't show naked people all the time, but to have characters do unrealistic things to hide their nudity when there is no reason to, is massively distracting in a film. I know this really seems like an odd thing to bring up about the movie, but it drove me batshit. If you can't show nudity, then don't tease the audience repeatedly by using partial nudity as some kind of dangling carrot in front of the donkey (ha ha, dangling carrot - I made an unintentional funny). Can't you just shoot the scene another way to avoid distracing the audience with this unnecessary stupidity? Alright, I'm over my 'pointless albino junk tease' rant now.


"I'll show you MY junk if you give me another drink."

Well, that's the important stuff. It's a decent movie, but is not great in any sense of the word. Considering all the talent involved, it should have been better, but it's still good enough to see in a theatre if you really want to go. Just go in with low expectations and you may really enjoy it. I do wish I hadn't read the book first though. Some of the thrill gets sucked out of the film because you already know everything that's going to happen.


"Hurry Audrey, the bad reviews are coming!"

I will also say that my weekend box office estimate for The Da Vinci Code is probably waaaay off. JM's Weekend Box Office Forecast - 5/19 The movie probably had 20 shows scheduled for today at the cinema I attended. At 2pm, the huge theatre I was in was sold out and all the evening shows were also sold out as well (by 2pm!). This movie is going to have a HUGE opening. Much bigger than my original 58 Million estimate. Probably closer to 80 Million or so. However, next week it will see a huge drop off because I don't think word of mouth is going to be great.


Don't let the critics get you down Ian, it's still gonna be a huge box office smash.


Technorati tags:
Da Vinci
Da Vinci Code
DaVinci
Tom Hanks
Audrey Tautou
Ian McKellen
Paul Bettany
Ron Howard
Dan Brown
Akiva Goldsman
Weekend Box Office