Review: The Da Vinci Code

Boy, that con of man, could it be any darker? This film, sorry, this quote-unquote blockbuster, The Da Vinci Code, is poised to be the runaway hit of the summer, if it can stand up to X3 this weekend. I mean, look at what it has going for it. The last movie Ron Howard made about codes and intellectualism, A Beautiful Mind, won Oscars. Tom Hanks can play both sides, the big budget and the smart money. The book has been on the New York Times bestseller list for God knows how long, and it has been pored over by the airplane readers and the deep minded literati alike. It has spawned controversies, documentaries, tours and plenty of merchandise. It has religious zealots urging the public not to see it (like it worked so well for The Passion of the Christ). With all of this going for it, how could a film like this possibly fail? The good news is, it doesn't... not really. If you liked the book, you'll like the movie. If you thought, like I did, that the book was full of stilted dialogue and cheesy prose, then you'll find that hasn't changed. No doubt about it, Dan Brown wrote a well-researched and carefully crafted novel about the possibility of the continued bloodline of Christ (sorry if that spoiled anything, but really, who doesn't know what it's about, have you been in a cave, blindfolded, with your fingers in your ears? C'mon!), but some of the events come across as flimsy pretenses to move from location to location. The controversy that has met this story has come from the Catholic Church, other authors with similar theories and even albinos (who hardly ever get to protest things, so it's nice to hear they're getting their moment in the sun... oops, sorry). What everyone fails to accept is that this is a work of fiction, even if it is based on historical events. At best, this movie should be taken with a grain of salt, along the same vein as, say, National Treasure. Obviously there isn't a massive gold-filled chamber hidden under Philadelphia, just like there is no sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene hidden under yada yada (in case you haven't read that far yet). But somehow, religious types are denouncing the film as blasphemy and heresy, making outrageous accusations and wild hypotheses (wow, that was about 70 bucks worth of words there). So please, stop your picketing, as it is pointless. If anything, you will make more people see it, just to see what all the fuss is about. Save your outrage for a more appropriate target, like the next time some pop star feels she needs to be on the big screen.

Anyways, this is probably all just retread for most of you, and please don't write angry letters if I get some details wrong, I'm just a casual observer. Robert Langdon (Hanks), the eminent Harvard professor of symbology, or some such nonsense, is in Paris giving a lecture on the interpretation of symbols, when he is asked by a police officer to go to the Louvre, where a murder has been committed. The victim, Jacques Saunière, the curator of the museum, has been shot and displayed in a strange, ritualistic fashion. He has marked on himself and the floor around him. He has written an odd code in UV ink beside him, including the phrase, "O draconian devil! O lame saint." What Langdon doesn't know is that Capt. Fache (Jean Reno) already believes him to be the killer and is ready to force a confession from him, when a pretty young police cryptographer, Sophie Neveu (Amelie's Audrey Tautou), intervenes and explains the situation to him. She explains that she is Saunière's granddaughter, and tells Langdon there is more than meets the eye. They throw the police off the trail and begin solving Saunière's trail of riddles, which lead to a key that belongs to the Priory of Scion, a group dedicated to protecting the Holy Grail from the Church, who would have it destroyed rather than see it made public. To that end, an albino monk named Silas (a powdered and bleached Paul Bettany), does what he must to find the Grail for his Bishop (Alfred Molina), a member of the Opus Dei council, an ultraconservative sect of the Catholic Church. Confused yet? I don't even understand what I just wrote. The key brings them to a safety deposit box, which yields a cryptex, a simple, yet effective way to keep your secrets safe. To solve it, Robert and Sophie visit and old friend, Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian McKellen, so that's appropriate enough), an expert on all things Grailistic. Their quest, and their escape from the authorities, bring them to London, where everything is up for grabs. I'm not going to go into more detail about the "truth" that is discovered, since you should try to be familiar enough with the information in the book before you try to see the movie. Newcomers may find themselves lost in a sea of flashbacks and monologues about historical coverups and biblical injustices. But hey, if you thought seeing a car chase with Mini Coopers was good in The Bourne Identity, you'll enjoy seeing a SmartCar drive backwards through traffic. That was about the most action you can expect in this rather slow-paced adventure.

I have no problem with religious folks, as a whole. I was raised by a Christian family, but we were never really the God-fearing type. And nowadays, I find myself to be too rational to believe some all-encompassing being created and controls all aspects of life in the universe for the past six thousand years. There's too much scientific evidence to the contrary. But I'm not going to argue about it with someone. That's what you believe, fine, this is what I believe. I believe Jesus was a good man, who spoke of love and brotherhood, who was killed for being uppity. That doesn't mean he was sent here by God to cleanse us all of our sins. I have no idea what lies beyond my death. I'd like to believe that there will eternal happiness for good people, but rationally, I just can't. I'm getting off-topic here. The point is that whatever may or may not have happened between the years of 0 BC and 0 AD, shouldn't stop people today from enjoying a fictional account of the aftermath. I mean, in all seriousness, isn't it mostly fiction to begin with? Well, that's my piece, now bring on the death threats!

∆∆∆ of 5