The movie adaptation of Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” proves that hype and controversy are not enough to make a film.
It would seem that the movie’s promoters made the mistake of showing the majority of the story’s action in the previews – turning the actual movie into two hours of cryptic codes, puzzles and, worst of all, dull explanatory dialogue. While the film’s story treads controversial territory, in the end, the scenic European backdrop is the only aspect of “The Da Vinci Code” worth seeing.
This is not to say there is something wrong Brown’s novel, but it’s brazenly clear that the story is out of place on screen. Subjecting its viewers to a barrage of slow explanations, “The Da Vinci Code” is verbose and flat and I spent much of the film pondering the last time I saw Tom Hanks in such a boring role – until I decided the answer is never.
Hanks stars as Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of religious symbology who is called on to aid French authorities after the mysterious death of Louvre curator Jacques Sauniere. Langdon quickly discovers that he is caught up in a war about secrets that threaten long-accepted Christian ideals.
Audrey Tatou co-stars as Sauniere’s granddaughter, Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen (“X3”), who displays his prowess as an actor by appearing in two of the summer’s most anticipated films, delivers the film’s only interesting performance in his portrayal of historian Sir Leigh Teabing. The always-villainous Paul Bettany plays Silas, a ghastly monk of the Opus Dei, a passionately devout Catholic sect.
With such a talented cast, “The Da Vinci Code” is almost shocking in its blandness. Though the film maintains fidelity to the novel, the absence of narration leads to awkward on-screen dialogue. There are many moments when the movie overdoes itself, wanting to be more grand than it is – like the overly dramatic music which plays while Langdon and Sophie trot through the Louvre.
When not being unnecessarily over-the-top, “The Da Vinci Code” is simply inactive. The controversy the story presents in its suggestion that Jesus Christ was a mortal man who had children by Mary Magdalene, among other historical theories, is thought-provoking but hardly enough to keep the film afloat.
Directed by Ron Howard, this film adaptation provides nothing that the novel did not already deliver. It only adds drab, lengthy descriptions, making “The Da Vinci Code” bland at best. Howard should take a moment to apologize to Brown for taking his best-selling novel and turning it into a box-office sleeper smothered in undeserved hype.
