When Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” was first published it created an enormous controversy. Personally, I could not understand why, as the book is a novel, a fictional work. The author may have presented his characters so, and used factual references in such a convincing way to highlight the intricacies of his plot, such that many people viewed the novel as the gospel truth. When I read the book, I enjoyed it and then after a discussion with family and friends, I put it away. While he is no Tolstoy or Mann, Dan Brown is a consummate storyteller and he can weave a plot as the best of them.
When “The Da Vinci Code” film first came out (2006) it created a fresh wave of controversy. People loved it, people hated it with a passion, fundamentalists condemned it and burned copies of the book anew, protesting it was blasphemous. Some people had not read the book and saw the movie, others read the book and would not see the movie. As for me, having read the book and being aware of all the heated debate and the hullabaloo I finally decided to watch it as my local video shop had the DVD on sale for a paltry sum!
I was disappointed. If you think that Ron Howard had at his disposal a fascinating story with some fantastic locations to take advantage of, and his pick of lead actors, the resulting film is pedestrian and tiresome. The first 65 minutes of the film is dismally dark and annoyingly brown and black. You’d think if you have had a murder in one of the world’s biggest museums, the first thing you’d do is turn the lights on. No, it’s all meant to be “atmospheric”. Fair enough, but what about even the rooms that are lit? No, they have to be lit with a 25 watt globe, it all contributes to the atmosphere. I kept catching myself saying, “When is the bloody sun going to rise?” As a result, some of the wonderful shots inside the Louvre were completely wasted. Yes, the sun does rise, eventually, but we are soon cast into the gloom once again – more atmosphere…
Tom Hanks cast as Dr. Robert Langdon and Audrey Tautou as French Agent Sophie Neveu display as much chemistry as does a celery stick and a bat would if locked together in a room. They are so serious it’s funny. In fact, the whole movie is remarkable for its sparse humour and it’s almost “religious” intensity. Ian McKellen, playing the role of Sir Leigh Teabing, is the only enjoyable bit of casting and he has some of the best lines, too. Paul Bettany cast as Silas is also rather good and plays the masochistic monk with much gusto. Which brings me to the rather bad screenplay. Hanks and Tatou have some really dull lines to deliver and they deliver them with as much enthusiasm as a thirsty drover in a pub with no beer.
Much of the finer historical points of the book are lost in the film, the vignettes of historical flashback inserted rather gratuitously here and there. Direction is rather lame and unexciting, with some aerial shots trying to capture an “epic” feel, but looking more like something one may have seen out of a traffic reporter’s helicopter. The film is long (and tedious) at 149 minutes (theatre) and 179 minutes (DVD version). It was endless and the climax was very underwhelming. Ron Howard may have been the wrong choice for director. I think Steven Spielberg may have made a better, more exciting, more involving and engaging film.
I think you get my drift - I did not particularly like this film. I would be very interested to hear what other people who have seen it, thought of it…
No comments:
Post a Comment