Le code Da Vinci

People seem to hate this movie for some reason, and I remember when it came out, it was really controversial in that it got many bad reviews.

However, years later around three years ago I caught it for the first time on basic cable, and I honestly didn't see what all the criticism was for. Not only was it immersive and intriguing, for the most part, but it had a pretty powerful ending and reveal at the end. It isn't great, so maybe the hype was what triggered so many negative reviews, but it also isn't bad.

I never read the whole book, but understood the premise. If you really want to enjoy this film, you probably should set the book aside and set beside any offense you may take as to the religious conjecture, and just view it as a mystery movie in and of itself. I really enjoyed the ending- the whole final fifteen minutes or so.

7.8/10

Screened overnight for Australian media.

Four words - wrong star, wrong director.

Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.

What is conspicuously absent from either man's resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.

The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of "what ifs" and "oh my god" moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.

What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard's film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.

Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany's evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.

Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would've made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag "Years Most-Anticipated", its a boring dud.

I've read the book, and the movie's not so bad. Obviously there are many things I'd do different, but in the end it's 2,5 hours of good entertainment, and isn't that what the ratings are all about? Personally I think Tom Hanks wasn't passionate enough for Robert Langdon. That's why it's not a 9 for me.

A lot of people are too harsh on this one. Mostly because they know the book and have very high expectations. I have to see my first book-to-film where the film is better.

Also, you're not going to hell for watching this movie or reading the book. It's based on a novel, which is based on a few loose theories, but in the end all it wants to do is to entertain. And that is exactly what both the book and the movie did for me.

Last Tuesday, when The Da Vinci Code premiered at the Cannes Film festival, it was met with a chilly reception from the reviewing elite. It has been called "plodding," "stale," and "uninspired," thus, dashing the hopes of many movie goers who were hoping to see one of their favorite novels brought to life by one of their favorite directors, and starring one of their favorite actors. Since I'm not a slave to snobby film reviewers, I went to go see it for myself despite the negative hype. And as the credits rolled at the end of the movie, I felt increasingly unsettled; not because of the quality of the movie, but because one question lingered in my head: What's not to like? Am I crazy for actually being entertained by what I just saw? How could the critics pan what I, and those around me, seemed to enjoy? Okay, so that's more than one question....

First, I have to qualify myself. I read the book and I LOVED it; couldn't put it down. I loved the history, the speculation, the riddles and puzzles, and the masterful blend of fact and fiction. Additionally, I'm not religious, although I was definitely familiar with Christian historical icons such as Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary Magdelene before I read the book. I also happen to be a big fan of Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Ian McKellan.

Having said that, I went in prepared to like this movie, even though I had somewhat lowered my expectations based on the barrage of bad reviews. All of this proved to be a winning formula for me, apparently.

If you're like me and you loved the book and you like the artistic team that pursued making it into a movie, then you'll most likely come out satisfied. You won't mind what many critics have called "overly-long exposition" and historical flashbacks, because that's pretty much what the book consisted of. And in the book, it was absolutely engrossing! So, I personally didn't mind all of the explanation of history, symbols, etc.

Critics have also found fault with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou's portrayals of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu (respectively), saying that they delivered flat performances. But once again, whoever read the book will remember that both of these characters weren't that dynamic on the written page, either. Of course, Sir Ian McKellan, with the juiciest role of Holy Grail scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, chews up the scenery every time he's shown on screen. Sir Leigh Teabing was also one of the richest characters in the book.

I think that the people who won't like this movie are people who didn't read the book, and are going into the theater expecting a regular movie, which it's not. It's an adaptation of a very wordy, detailed, twisting, speculative novel that blends fact and fiction in a devastatingly effective way, and it's easy to get lost while watching the movie if you don't already know where the story is going. Sure, Ron Howard uses digitized, grainy flashbacks of ancient pagan rituals and societies to move the narrative along and to keep the audience on point, but I can see how it could be overwhelming to those who only know the bare bones of the plot. However, those who found it fascinating in the book will find pleasure in seeing the visual accompaniment to what they've already read.

In short, you go see this movie (or read the book) for how it challenges popularly-held beliefs; not for its rich, engaging character development. It's a quest for the "truth", and in terms of the IDEAS expressed, they did a dag-blasted good job of translating those ideas onto the screen. Those who often complain that movies don't stay true to the books that they're based on will find comfort in the fact that Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard have stayed incredibly close to the original text when translating it onto the screen. However, this will be to the dismay of those movie-goers who haven't read the book, and are therefore expecting a traditional action thriller with traditional action thriller dialogue.

If you go to RottenTomatoes.com, you'll see the huge disparity between what the critics have said, and what the users have said regarding this film. While the cumulative critics rating is a dismal 22%, the combined user rating is a 74%, which is way above average for the site. That should speak volumes to whoever is skeptical about seeing the movie because of the bad reviews.

The bottom line is that it's definitely a movie worth watching if only to see how the creative team behind it went about turning the best-selling novel into celluloid. It's also a treat to see something in popular culture challenge popular religious ideals so skillfully, even if only in the form of fiction.

My advice: go see for yourself.

The controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code hardly needs to be introduced. It seemed that very few people were actually going to give the film the benefit of the doubt, while most would criticize it before seeing it. Of course, many more of these critics had not read the book either, and so were pleasantly ignored by the 60 million and more people who went out and bought the book.

When I read the book, I accepted it for what it was – a pulp novel. The kind of book you take on holiday to read while you're at the airport. It wasn't wholly convincing, but I thought it was great fun to read, and very cinematic in style. The writing wasn't classic, but the pace of the novel was such that these points could be overlooked. It wasn't surprising that a film would be made given the book's success and despite initial critical reaction what we are given is, while not perfect, a solid adaptation of the book that will at least give the audience plenty of food for thought.

This is no National Treasure though. If you're looking for adventure and daring action then look to that film. This is a different beast, instead preferring the slow build up approach to story-telling - it is to the mystery/thriller genre what V for Vendetta is to the action genre. Most of the important parts of the book are when the characters are sat around a table talking. This immediately doesn't sound like it could translate to the screen that effectively, but there are enough nice touches to keep the audience interested.

First of all, the story itself, whilst not necessarily historically accurate, it is still absorbing and it genuinely makes you wonder about the truth behind the religion. There are also some nice visual flairs, including some well shot flashbacks, and the way Robert Langdon (Hanks) visualises the unscrambling of the codes is a great way to show the inner workings of is mind. At first it may seem silly but there is very little choice as to how to portray someone thinking. Hanks himself is passable in the role, but is not really given anything meaty to do. However, the same can be said of a lot of the cast, and this is purely down to the fact that the plot is moving too fast, and giving out too much information, to be able to dive into character exposition. Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing is wonderful as a slightly eccentric English Grail expert, and gives a lively performance, which helps considerably given that most of his role is to explain everything to Langdon and Sophie Neveu (Tautou). Paul Bettany plays against type to play the murderous monk Silas, and he will make you wince with his self-flagellation scenes. The other cast members are all satisfactory but nothing special, again because of the speed of the story.

There are a couple of chase scenes which are supposed to be tense, but they turn out rather lacklustre, and one scene near the end comes off as daft (no spoilers, but people get saved by a pigeon, of all things!). The plot may be hard to follow at times, especially if you haven't read the book, so full attention will be needed; however, if you have read the book, the film sticks very closely to the story, omitting some parts for timing reasons, and it is now that we realise why the Da Vinci Code is how it is – the film-makers couldn't do much else with it, as the tone and content of the book has to be retained for it to be a faithful translation: what suffers in the book suffers in the film.

Overall, The Da Vinci Code is worth seeing, if only to see what all the fuss was about. If I was the Catholic Church, though, I would be more concerned with the religious violence portrayed in the film than with the outcome of the plot, which can try all it likes to challenge established dogma but most likely won't succeed because people know the book and film are fiction. Keep that it mind when you see it – don't take it literally and chances are you will enjoy it that much more. At two and a half hours it is a tad too long, and can be confusing to first time viewers, but it is definitely thought provoking, and a mostly worthy adaptation of the book.

Rated: 7/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net