The DaVinci Code

The DaVinci Code

I've seen a bunch of movies lately that I just haven't been in the mood to review (X-Men 3, The Proposition, The Break-Up), but since I saw The Da Vinci Code again yesterday, I might as well post something about it.

Alright, so I've read about a bajillion reviews for The Da Vinci Code, none of them being particularly kind. Some critics lauded it as the "thinking man's action movie" before it was actually screened for the media. Frankly, the hype killed this movie. Everyone was wetting themselves in anticipation for it, and when it finally hit theatres, the press just went "meh". Well you know what, movie critics? You can suck it. I liked it. Everyone I know who went to see it didn't think it was the piece of crap that you thought it was. So just suck it. I didn't like you before, and now I know that you're all just a bunch of prissy know-it-alls who think they have their fingers on the pulse of today's movie-going population. Clearly you don't, considering every reviewer of The Break-Up said it was a piece of shit, but it's still raking in the dough at the box office.

Uh, anyhoo...Firstly, the translation of the book into movie wasn't really all that successful, so I'm going to blame that on Ron Howard, simply because he deserves a kick in the groin every so often just for being him. And also because he has millions of dollars. But I digress... They skipped some integral scenes from the book that I thought deserved to be in the film, such as the fact that there was another cryptex inside the first one... although I doubt they would have had time to add those extra clues, especially with all the damn flashbacks they decided to put it. The entire movie was flashbacks that weren't necessarily needed. And frankly, the filmmakers should have either elaborated on Silas' background (which explained nothing in the flashback to those who hadn't read the book) or they should have left that scene for the editing room floor. Other than that, the movie lacked the fun and mystery of Dan Brown's book, which is odd, considering it practically read as a script. All it needed was the sound effects in italics, which you can usually find in Matt Reilly's books (which, incidentally, would be awesome movies). But, given all that, it was still an entertaining movie. And not in the way that Mission: Impossible 3 was (ie "this is entertaining because I'm laughing at how STUPID Tom Cruise is and how this movie has no plot *bizarre insane laughter*"). It may not be "the thinking man's action movie" but it's intelligent, and it's got action. I've heard people complain that they thought it was too slow-moving, but to be fair, the movie wouldn't make any sense if it wasn't for the scene where Langdon and Sophie are in Teabing's study (which I'm sure is what people are complaining about).

Anyway, on to the actors. As soon as I heard that Tom Hanks was cast as Robert Langdon, I cringed. Why? I asked myself, Why would they choose someone who clearly doesn't fit the "Harrison Ford in Harrison Tweed" image that Dan Brown uses within the first 30 pages of the novel. I'm not a huge fan of Tom Hanks. Mainly because I feel like he doesn't play anyone other than himself in any movie he's in. He never plays a bad guy... at least in any film I've seen. And those who know me well know that I love actors who can play a wide range of roles (take David Wenham in The Proposition and compare it to his role in Dust or The Bank; Colin Firth in Shakespeare in Love or Circle of Friends compared to his roles in Pride & Prejudice or Love Actually). Tom Hanks always plays Tom Hanks... he may pretend to be a bad guy, but by the middle of the movie, it's always revealed that he has a heart behind that annoying receding hairline face of his (read: You've Got Mail). I hated Forrest Gump. So consider my SHOCK when I didn't mind him as the film's main character. He wasn't that bad. Hell, even his "serial killer hairstyle" didn't bother me.

The film really belonged to the secondary characters though. Ian McKellen steals the show in every movie he's been in lately. Jean Reno was excellent. But the real stand-out was Paul Bettany as Silas. Not only was he dressed the part, he was creepy as hell. Even his fake Italian accent won me over. Critics were so-so about Audrey Tautou as Sophie, but I really can't see anyone else doing as good a job as she did.The music was great, though I won't be rushing out to buy the soundtrack anytime soon. I just mean that it added to the movie, which is what a great soundtrack does (not just annoying the HELL out of audiences because it's 8 notes over and over in stupid breaks in the plot... UGH fucking Brokeshit Mountain). The locations they shot at were, obviously, amazing... actually, the best part about seeing this movie the first time was the fact that I had been to Westminister Abbey that day, although we couldn't go right up to Sir Isaac Newton's tomb, like they do in the movie.

As for how pissed off people are getting at the book, leave it alone. I mean, honestly, it's FICTION. That's why it's in the FICTION section in bookstores. No one got pissed when he wrote Angels & Demons. Or when Christopher Moore wrote Lamb, which takes the Christ story and puts sex, demons and kung-fu into it, along with the stupidest angel God could find.The bottom line is that the movie is good. It's entertaining, it's actually worth the 10 bucks, in my opinion, and you won't be sorry if you skip The Break-Up to go see The Da Vinci Code instead, because at least Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou don't scream at each other for 2 straight hours.