Decrypting Da Vinci Code Pointless
Disclaimer: The following is a personal experiment.
I have one question for Ron Howard....what's the big hurry?
How often does it happen that directors get to work with such rich material that you don't even have to come up with yourself? Someone else (Mr. Brown) has done the hard work already. All you had to do was make a good visual representation of the book and your life was golden. Instead the whole movie feels like you were about to sneeze, but you blocked your nose at the last minute to keep from making a noise. Perhaps a PowerPoint presentation about the highlights of the book or a talking head doing an on-screen read-along or both would have been better.
I went to watch The Da Vinci Code with my sister and her husband this evening. Of the three of us, my brother-in-law is the only one who has not read the book yet. And his confusion during the drive back home as my sister and I re-explained most of the movie said everything about it. Too much information crammed in less than 2.5 hours. For as easy as the book is to read, it is still very much like an onion (forgive the cliche), where the historical details (let's not touch the fact/fiction ball of wax), descriptions, backstories and plot twists are peeled out before reader consumption. Instead, this movie takes a whole different approach; it tries to eat the onion like an apple...except in this case, you're left with no more than the bitter aftertaste, because the movie is only able to grab at a handful of facts from the book, but isn't able to formalate anything sensible out of it.
Thanks to a crash-landing screenplay and lifeless direction, the movie reads like a historical log, listing one fact after another, minus the significance or background. Although I wouldn't usually say this about most movies, this one could have used another hour....or perhaps complete the movie as a two-parter to flesh out the details (though the fact that it's based on a recent book would have worked against this idea). Mr. Howard should perhaps stick to his brand of "man-conquers-odds" drama. The story screams desperately as much for action and suspense as it does for drama, but sadly the latter is all we get.
On the technical side, the camerawork and editing were average and uninspired. The most annoying part was the flashbacks which were agonizing to the eyes as they almost always come after something dark. This is in addition to the annoying video noise filter used. The special effects were nothing spectacular either, except for the outdoor scene in London where the new world is imposed on the old as Langdon and Neveu enter Isaac Newton's tomb. The superimposition of the two was magnificent, though somewhat reminiscent of many a commercial.
As for the performances, Mr. Cryptologist Hanks (??!!) couldn't care less if Da Vinci appeared one day and spelled out the code in noodles, while Audrey Tautou handles her role well, though she acts very much "by the book". Unfortunately, there is zero chemistry between the two, because of which I am somewhat grateful to the studio for not including a romantic angle between the two. Alfred Molina is completely wasted as Aringarosa (sp?), which really surprises me considering the bishop plays a MUCH more consequential role in the book. The two real stars of the movie were Paul Bettany who plays the very-believable disciple of Christ, Silas, and the witty, eccentric Leigh Teabing personified by Ian McKellan, who evokes the most laughs in the theater. But again, thanks to screenplay shortcomings, Teabing's intentions and place in this plot are never entirely clear, nor is his alter-ego terrifying enough.
Hesitation is all I will remember this movie for, because it tries to make a point about religion and symbolism at so many stages, but always stops short of making any categorical statements about anything. The closest it came to saying something was in the sequence in Teabing's study in France, where they argued about the significance of Jesus' bloodline. This was also a good opportunity for a Hanks-McKellan face-off, but alas, audiences must be whisked off to the next half-baked scene. Why, Mr. Howard? The book already made the bold move of presenting fiction like fact. ALL you had to do was make it come alive.
In short, the movie promises us a treasure hunt and delivers nothing more than a roadmap. I wish the states in India that banned the movie would revoke it, so that others might ask the same question I did: "What was the big deal all about?"
I have one question for Ron Howard....what's the big hurry?
How often does it happen that directors get to work with such rich material that you don't even have to come up with yourself? Someone else (Mr. Brown) has done the hard work already. All you had to do was make a good visual representation of the book and your life was golden. Instead the whole movie feels like you were about to sneeze, but you blocked your nose at the last minute to keep from making a noise. Perhaps a PowerPoint presentation about the highlights of the book or a talking head doing an on-screen read-along or both would have been better.
I went to watch The Da Vinci Code with my sister and her husband this evening. Of the three of us, my brother-in-law is the only one who has not read the book yet. And his confusion during the drive back home as my sister and I re-explained most of the movie said everything about it. Too much information crammed in less than 2.5 hours. For as easy as the book is to read, it is still very much like an onion (forgive the cliche), where the historical details (let's not touch the fact/fiction ball of wax), descriptions, backstories and plot twists are peeled out before reader consumption. Instead, this movie takes a whole different approach; it tries to eat the onion like an apple...except in this case, you're left with no more than the bitter aftertaste, because the movie is only able to grab at a handful of facts from the book, but isn't able to formalate anything sensible out of it.
Thanks to a crash-landing screenplay and lifeless direction, the movie reads like a historical log, listing one fact after another, minus the significance or background. Although I wouldn't usually say this about most movies, this one could have used another hour....or perhaps complete the movie as a two-parter to flesh out the details (though the fact that it's based on a recent book would have worked against this idea). Mr. Howard should perhaps stick to his brand of "man-conquers-odds" drama. The story screams desperately as much for action and suspense as it does for drama, but sadly the latter is all we get.
On the technical side, the camerawork and editing were average and uninspired. The most annoying part was the flashbacks which were agonizing to the eyes as they almost always come after something dark. This is in addition to the annoying video noise filter used. The special effects were nothing spectacular either, except for the outdoor scene in London where the new world is imposed on the old as Langdon and Neveu enter Isaac Newton's tomb. The superimposition of the two was magnificent, though somewhat reminiscent of many a commercial.
As for the performances, Mr. Cryptologist Hanks (??!!) couldn't care less if Da Vinci appeared one day and spelled out the code in noodles, while Audrey Tautou handles her role well, though she acts very much "by the book". Unfortunately, there is zero chemistry between the two, because of which I am somewhat grateful to the studio for not including a romantic angle between the two. Alfred Molina is completely wasted as Aringarosa (sp?), which really surprises me considering the bishop plays a MUCH more consequential role in the book. The two real stars of the movie were Paul Bettany who plays the very-believable disciple of Christ, Silas, and the witty, eccentric Leigh Teabing personified by Ian McKellan, who evokes the most laughs in the theater. But again, thanks to screenplay shortcomings, Teabing's intentions and place in this plot are never entirely clear, nor is his alter-ego terrifying enough.
Hesitation is all I will remember this movie for, because it tries to make a point about religion and symbolism at so many stages, but always stops short of making any categorical statements about anything. The closest it came to saying something was in the sequence in Teabing's study in France, where they argued about the significance of Jesus' bloodline. This was also a good opportunity for a Hanks-McKellan face-off, but alas, audiences must be whisked off to the next half-baked scene. Why, Mr. Howard? The book already made the bold move of presenting fiction like fact. ALL you had to do was make it come alive.
In short, the movie promises us a treasure hunt and delivers nothing more than a roadmap. I wish the states in India that banned the movie would revoke it, so that others might ask the same question I did: "What was the big deal all about?"
