Film Review: The Da Vinci Code (2006) C-

Date Viewed: 5/31/06
Venue: DGA

The Da Vinci Code is easily the most talked about book of the last three years. So of course it’s a no-brainer that it be made into a major Ron Howard-helmed Hollywood production. The questions are: can a very talky, semi-clunky page-turner be turned into summer movie-going fare? Can the script make sense of the immense amount art history present in the book and make it entertaining to watch on screen? Can Ron Howard make the cardboard cutout characters three-dimensional? The answer to all of these is: not really.

The plot concerns symbologist professor Langdon (Tom Hanks) and policewoman Sophie’s (Audrey Tautou) as they unravel the mystery behind the murder of her estranged grandfather, who happens to be the Louvre’s senior curator. The pair discovers granpapa left behind a series of riddles, clues, and anagrams as a means to protect a dangerous secret. Meanwhile Langdon and Sophie are being hunted by not only a relentless French detective (Jean Reno), but also granpapa’s killer (poor Paul Bettany in albino make-up).

That’s about all I can go into without thoroughly ruining the plot. Well, eventually, Langdon and Sophie meet up with Sir Teabing (Ian McKellen), a historian who clues us all in on just what this powerful secret is. But beyond that, I’m going spoiler free.

When I read the book I knew it would be a challenge to bring to the screen. There’s a lot of expository dialog and backstory. The film tries to make all this interesting with flashbacks. The character driven flashbacks seem to work better (despite being visually unoriginal) and less jarring than the ‘historical’ ones (flashing back to medieval London to explain some historical fact, for example), but they’re all problematic.

The characters in the book are very two-dimensional as they are just facilitators for the plot. The film at least attempts to give them some additional motivation. However, this is actually counterproductive as it simply makes matters more convoluted than they already are.

Speaking of altering the characters, Langdon is presented as more of a skeptic here in the film than he is in the book. It’s an obvious ploy to placate those who have rallied and protested against the book, and it feels forced and not consistent with his background.

To me, the heart of the story is the secret itself. It’s an explosive piece of information. The secret sets the stakes and sparks our imagination. A problem in both film and book is that the secret is revealed smack dab in the middle of the story. We blow our load halfway through, and everything afterwards pales in comparison. If the reveal was later, suspense could be held up until that point, building as the answer draws near. You could even reveal it sooner, say the end of the first act. Then, at least, you’d know what was at stake the rest of the way.

It’s funny but I keep harkening back to the Nic Cage flick, National Treasure, another treasure-hunting secret conspiracy caper. It’s silly, but it was entertaining and fun. That’s what The Da Vinci Code should’ve tried to emulate. Sure the stakes are higher, but in essence, they’re telling the same story. But instead we’re treated to a talk-fest that’s so unsure of it’s talking it feels the need to flashback indiscriminately. And where's Clint Howard (Ron's actor brother) in all this? Isn't he in all of Ron's films? Outrage!

Hollywood likes to rush these bestseller adaptations out the door to cash in. The Da Vinci Code simply follows the book too closely, and could’ve really used a few years in development hell to iron out the kinks and find an entertaining way to divulge it’s secrets.