THE DAVINCI CODE
It took me a while to get out to the theaters to see this one because I wanted to be sure I'd finished reading the book first. From the very first previews for this film, I had faith it was going to be good. I'd yet to even read one page of the best-selling novel and yet Ron Howard's trailers had me enticed from day one. I was able to put aside my disappointment for Ron Howard's past film-work and believe he might have finally created a great film. And after reading the book, there was no doubt in my mind the source material was wonderful. Unfortunately, Ron Howard failed in all the same ways he has in the past... and his adaptation of THE DAVINCI CODE is one big, clunky disappointment.
Granted, to adapt a book with so many complications and so many different characters would have been a challenge for anyone... however, the results could have been much better. The film tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by a miscast Tom Hanks) and Sophie Neveu (played by a miscast Audrey Tatou) as they scramble to unearth the secret of the Holy Grail following the murder of Neveu's grandfather. In the moments before his death, Neveu's grandfather left numerous clues which would lead his granddaughter towards a family secret that would shock the world.
It's impossible to review THE DAVINCI CODE without comparing it to the superior book. Perhaps that's unfair, but if the book was such a daunting thing to be compared to... why did Howard stick so close to it? I felt throughout the entire film that Howard and the production team weren't quite sure what to do with the movie. Should they make a faithful adaptation even though it would be difficult, or should they re-arrange the story a bit to make it more cinematic...? It appears they never made a decision and just straddled that line throughout the entire development process.
Sadly, it appears things were off from the very start. Though Tom Hanks can usually handle any type of role, he is radically out of place in this film. He appears to be too old... and not so much in age, but in body. I never got the sense that finding the Holy Grail filled Langdon/Hanks with a wild curiosity and intense desire like it should have. Instead, Hanks just seemed to be going through the motions. And the same can be said for Tatou's performance as Sophie Neveu. Firstly, she is too young for the role. Secondly, Neveu needed to be the emotional centerpiece for the film when you consider how Howard chose to end things, and yet Tatou's performance didn't have a single extra layer to it. She seemed to be a beautiful shell of a Cryptologist who knows she must figure out the mystery... yet she appears to have no passionate need to know the truth. Without Langdon and Neveu's desperation, none of this mystery is exciting.
The other major casting mistake was Paul Bettany as Silas. While Silas does not necessarily need to look like a monstrosity, he definitely should not be attractive. Yet, nothing is done to downplay Bettany's natural good looks. Sure there are scratches all over his body and he's white as a sheet, but his body is sculpted beautifully and his face normal. And why may I ask did an Albino have blue eyes? All albinos have no pigmentation in their eyes leaving them a red-ish color... so why did Bettany keep blue eyes which only added to the physical attractiveness? Aside from the casting however, Howard's input does nothing to save the film. Instead, Ron Howard uses identical gimmicks as he has in the past (the code breaking in this film is stylized exactly the same as it was in A BEAUTIFUL MIND). In general the film just feels like its spread out too evenly without any significant dips or lulls in the action. In the book, the race between Langdon and the French Police seemed to be an ever shifting game of cat & mouse. In Dan Brown's novel, the police would get closer and closer only to fall back moments later... but in Howard's film, the police seem to be 10 minutes behind our heroes right up until the very end.
Finally, I don't think Ron Howard or Brian Grazer ever sat down at the very beginning of things and firmly decided exactly what perspective they were going to tell this story from. Is he simply telling the story of an interesting mystery? Is he offering an emotional tale of an abandoned child who yearns to know where they came from? Is he telling the story of man's obsession with knowing the truth? I think Howard tried to tell them all... and as a result he has an unfocused film on his hands.
It's hard to pin-point specific things that went wrong with the film... b/c in the end it isn't one specific element that ruined what could have been one of Cinema's most thrilling mysteries ever. It is the entire mixture. The casting is wrong, the direction poorly paced, the story too impersonal, and the mystery too unclear. While THE DAVINCI CODE has a few redeeming factors, such as Ian McKellen's engaging turn as Lee Teabing and some wonderful scenery, it is far too much of a disappointment when you consider the potential. In the end, although it's not the most boring 2 1/2 hours of my life by any means... I could never get past the fact that nothing in it is as good as it could have been. And when the most constant word in your head while watching a movie is "disappointment", then it's not a good sign.
... D ...
It took me a while to get out to the theaters to see this one because I wanted to be sure I'd finished reading the book first. From the very first previews for this film, I had faith it was going to be good. I'd yet to even read one page of the best-selling novel and yet Ron Howard's trailers had me enticed from day one. I was able to put aside my disappointment for Ron Howard's past film-work and believe he might have finally created a great film. And after reading the book, there was no doubt in my mind the source material was wonderful. Unfortunately, Ron Howard failed in all the same ways he has in the past... and his adaptation of THE DAVINCI CODE is one big, clunky disappointment.
Granted, to adapt a book with so many complications and so many different characters would have been a challenge for anyone... however, the results could have been much better. The film tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by a miscast Tom Hanks) and Sophie Neveu (played by a miscast Audrey Tatou) as they scramble to unearth the secret of the Holy Grail following the murder of Neveu's grandfather. In the moments before his death, Neveu's grandfather left numerous clues which would lead his granddaughter towards a family secret that would shock the world.
It's impossible to review THE DAVINCI CODE without comparing it to the superior book. Perhaps that's unfair, but if the book was such a daunting thing to be compared to... why did Howard stick so close to it? I felt throughout the entire film that Howard and the production team weren't quite sure what to do with the movie. Should they make a faithful adaptation even though it would be difficult, or should they re-arrange the story a bit to make it more cinematic...? It appears they never made a decision and just straddled that line throughout the entire development process.
Sadly, it appears things were off from the very start. Though Tom Hanks can usually handle any type of role, he is radically out of place in this film. He appears to be too old... and not so much in age, but in body. I never got the sense that finding the Holy Grail filled Langdon/Hanks with a wild curiosity and intense desire like it should have. Instead, Hanks just seemed to be going through the motions. And the same can be said for Tatou's performance as Sophie Neveu. Firstly, she is too young for the role. Secondly, Neveu needed to be the emotional centerpiece for the film when you consider how Howard chose to end things, and yet Tatou's performance didn't have a single extra layer to it. She seemed to be a beautiful shell of a Cryptologist who knows she must figure out the mystery... yet she appears to have no passionate need to know the truth. Without Langdon and Neveu's desperation, none of this mystery is exciting.
The other major casting mistake was Paul Bettany as Silas. While Silas does not necessarily need to look like a monstrosity, he definitely should not be attractive. Yet, nothing is done to downplay Bettany's natural good looks. Sure there are scratches all over his body and he's white as a sheet, but his body is sculpted beautifully and his face normal. And why may I ask did an Albino have blue eyes? All albinos have no pigmentation in their eyes leaving them a red-ish color... so why did Bettany keep blue eyes which only added to the physical attractiveness? Aside from the casting however, Howard's input does nothing to save the film. Instead, Ron Howard uses identical gimmicks as he has in the past (the code breaking in this film is stylized exactly the same as it was in A BEAUTIFUL MIND). In general the film just feels like its spread out too evenly without any significant dips or lulls in the action. In the book, the race between Langdon and the French Police seemed to be an ever shifting game of cat & mouse. In Dan Brown's novel, the police would get closer and closer only to fall back moments later... but in Howard's film, the police seem to be 10 minutes behind our heroes right up until the very end.
Finally, I don't think Ron Howard or Brian Grazer ever sat down at the very beginning of things and firmly decided exactly what perspective they were going to tell this story from. Is he simply telling the story of an interesting mystery? Is he offering an emotional tale of an abandoned child who yearns to know where they came from? Is he telling the story of man's obsession with knowing the truth? I think Howard tried to tell them all... and as a result he has an unfocused film on his hands.
It's hard to pin-point specific things that went wrong with the film... b/c in the end it isn't one specific element that ruined what could have been one of Cinema's most thrilling mysteries ever. It is the entire mixture. The casting is wrong, the direction poorly paced, the story too impersonal, and the mystery too unclear. While THE DAVINCI CODE has a few redeeming factors, such as Ian McKellen's engaging turn as Lee Teabing and some wonderful scenery, it is far too much of a disappointment when you consider the potential. In the end, although it's not the most boring 2 1/2 hours of my life by any means... I could never get past the fact that nothing in it is as good as it could have been. And when the most constant word in your head while watching a movie is "disappointment", then it's not a good sign.
... D ...