The Da Vinci Code (B or 3/4 stars)
Based on one of the most popular novels of our time, 'The DaVinci Code' is a mystery/thriller directed by Ron Howard. I haven't read the book, and therefore, knew very little of this film before entering the theater. And I know even less about Catholicism. I'm not proud of either fact, but I digress. I'll actually quote Star Jones (yes, the lawyer from The View) as saying, 'If you loved National Treasure, you'll love The DaVinci Code'. I think that's a pretty pedestrian way of comparing the 2 films, but, on a different scholarly level, I kind of agree with her. 'DaVinci' IS a much more sophisticated National Treasure, so to speak. So, I took the film for what it was and I was entertained & schooled, at the same time.
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is giving a speech as a religious symbologist when he's called to the world famous Louvre in Paris to help the police with their unique investigation into the grotesque murder of Jacques Sauniere. Thanks to Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou, loved as Amelie), Langdon discovers that he's a prime suspect in this murder! The plot involves the quest to find the Holy Grail (the only Grail I'd ever knew of is the Cup that Indiana Jones & his dad must drink from). With the help of Leigh (Ian KcKellen), a British scholar who resides in France, the twosome realize the history of the Knights Templar & why the Holy Grail is hidden. What unfolds for the next 2 hours is a race - escape from the police - find more clues about the Grail - type of action. Discovering the mystery surrounding the 2,000 yr. old Grail is so great that Langdon & Neveu defy danger at all costs.
The wordy dialogue, subtitles, action, & intentions of each character are clear, & perhaps, 'dumbed' down for the audience so that viewers, such as myself, can understand what is going on at all times. I say this because even Hanks, himself, said that wading through the novel to understand what HE was even talking about became tedious, at times. The acting is stellar. However, many people had reservations in Hanks playing Langdon. He didn't seem to be his usual brilliant-self. It's almost as if he resigned himself to letting the story, or even Audrey Tautou to be the star. I love Hanks, but this is highly unlike himself. Ron Howard & Hanks have a special relationship. And Howard seems to have given Hanks this opportunity to be a part of what was expected to be a HUGE blockbuster. It certainly brought the masses to the theaters.
But the jury is out. Not everyone loved for it (especially if they read the book). Bettany (the creepy Silas), & the French police (led by Jean Reno) all act well. But Ian McKellen & Audrey Tautou really drew me in. They were the only ones who truly breathed life into their roles. They had a 'bite' to their portrayals (well, how could Sir Ian McKellen not have a bite?). McKellen has a way of massaging a line & delivering it with utmost interest & intensity. One portrayal I'm disappointed in is Alfred Molina's Bishop Aringarosa. He slowed down the pace of the film & didn't lend much energy to the role or the ultimate purpose of the storyline. Molina usually hits it out of the park, for me.
Hans Zimmer delivers with the musical score. Zimmer never lets the music dictate what was going on in any particular scene, but he does highlight them with great nuance & intensity when called for. One thing I wasn't overly thrilled about was the lack of wow-factor in the climax. I was interested, but then slightly cocked my head sideways when I realized that 'that' was it. Howard attempts to do something great; it's a tall order when you think of the novel's success. He does a fine job, but I think it could have been amazing had the cast been fine-tuned & the script stretched to full potential. While the movie is decent, I suspect the book is highly superior, hence, drawing negative conclusions for the film; and I totally get that. But I had a good time & my afternoon was put to good use.
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is giving a speech as a religious symbologist when he's called to the world famous Louvre in Paris to help the police with their unique investigation into the grotesque murder of Jacques Sauniere. Thanks to Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou, loved as Amelie), Langdon discovers that he's a prime suspect in this murder! The plot involves the quest to find the Holy Grail (the only Grail I'd ever knew of is the Cup that Indiana Jones & his dad must drink from). With the help of Leigh (Ian KcKellen), a British scholar who resides in France, the twosome realize the history of the Knights Templar & why the Holy Grail is hidden. What unfolds for the next 2 hours is a race - escape from the police - find more clues about the Grail - type of action. Discovering the mystery surrounding the 2,000 yr. old Grail is so great that Langdon & Neveu defy danger at all costs.
The wordy dialogue, subtitles, action, & intentions of each character are clear, & perhaps, 'dumbed' down for the audience so that viewers, such as myself, can understand what is going on at all times. I say this because even Hanks, himself, said that wading through the novel to understand what HE was even talking about became tedious, at times. The acting is stellar. However, many people had reservations in Hanks playing Langdon. He didn't seem to be his usual brilliant-self. It's almost as if he resigned himself to letting the story, or even Audrey Tautou to be the star. I love Hanks, but this is highly unlike himself. Ron Howard & Hanks have a special relationship. And Howard seems to have given Hanks this opportunity to be a part of what was expected to be a HUGE blockbuster. It certainly brought the masses to the theaters.
But the jury is out. Not everyone loved for it (especially if they read the book). Bettany (the creepy Silas), & the French police (led by Jean Reno) all act well. But Ian McKellen & Audrey Tautou really drew me in. They were the only ones who truly breathed life into their roles. They had a 'bite' to their portrayals (well, how could Sir Ian McKellen not have a bite?). McKellen has a way of massaging a line & delivering it with utmost interest & intensity. One portrayal I'm disappointed in is Alfred Molina's Bishop Aringarosa. He slowed down the pace of the film & didn't lend much energy to the role or the ultimate purpose of the storyline. Molina usually hits it out of the park, for me.
Hans Zimmer delivers with the musical score. Zimmer never lets the music dictate what was going on in any particular scene, but he does highlight them with great nuance & intensity when called for. One thing I wasn't overly thrilled about was the lack of wow-factor in the climax. I was interested, but then slightly cocked my head sideways when I realized that 'that' was it. Howard attempts to do something great; it's a tall order when you think of the novel's success. He does a fine job, but I think it could have been amazing had the cast been fine-tuned & the script stretched to full potential. While the movie is decent, I suspect the book is highly superior, hence, drawing negative conclusions for the film; and I totally get that. But I had a good time & my afternoon was put to good use.