Page 1 of 1

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:10 pm
by hengcs


Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany

The official website
see
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/thedavincicode/

My thoughts ...

-- Well, i guess i may be one of the rare few who choose to watch the film before reading the book (ALTHOUGH i have bought the book when it was first launched in US, and way before all the media hype and controversy) ... The reason is: Initially, I was so busy that I had no time to read it ... and finally, when I had the time, I heard that it was going to be made into a film ... because I wish to evaluate the film as it is and not try to compare the two media, I procrastinated reading till after watching the film ...

-- And guess what's my verdict ...

(i) I feel that the film is watchable as a commercial film (i.e., not as horrible as some critics pen it), BUT I have to qualify that I am NOT blown away by it at all ... it is just another typical (to slightly above average) COMMERICAL film ... the film has some moments/cinematography/choreography/art direction that really look like "A Beautiful Mind" (what to do: the same director) ... it also has some scenes that may need inferences or prior knowledge from reading the book (e.g., in the flashback, how Silas escaped is unclear) ...

(ii) When I read the book immediately after the film, I have to admit that the book is really a PAGE TURNER ... wow ... a lot of humor and interesting discussion have been lost in the film ... (unfortunately, in the film, only Leigh came across as humorous) ... also, a lot of thoughts/motivation have been lost in the film (but that is understandable because thoughts/motivation are hard to capture)

(iii) While I do not mind 2.5 hrs of screen time (cos I am used to it), I thought the screenplay could be vastly improved ... although it was kind of faithful to the "overall" plot, there are some scenes that are kind of slow/draggy (could be edited out); instead, the script writer could have added in some portions of the book which have been omitted, to make it more compelling ...

-- In terms of casting ... wow ... Ian McKellen (Leigh) and Paul Bettany (Silas) stole the show ... the two leads (while being credible actors in OTHER films) did not actually shine nor have much chemistry ... sigh ... in fact, when I first heard that Tom Hanks was cast as Robert, I did tell some of my US friends that I would rather have "unknowns" (even though Tom Hanks is well liked by many, cf. Julia Roberts). I told them that a less known actor might make it easier for him to "jump out" of any preconceived mindset ... in sum, just go watch for the performance of Leigh and Silas ...

Conclusion
-- Can watch (as a commercial film), but could be much better ... the performance by Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany is great ... if you think you like the film, I have to admit that the book is MUCH better ...

Re: The Da Vinci Code (2006)

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:06 am
by Anasazie
Uh oh..... here we go!

Why fuel the money making machine further?

Re: The Da Vinci Code (2006)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:16 pm
by howardschumann(d)
THE DA VINCI CODE

Directed by Ron Howard (2006)

Ron Howards The Da Vinci Code postulates that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife and that Mary gave birth to a daughter named Sara who married into the bloodline of the Merovingian kings in early France. Based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Dan Brown, the film tackles a great theme, the early history of Christianity, but does not rise to the occasion. The direction is flat and the story is complicated rather than complex. Yet, notwithstanding the knee-jerk reaction of some critics who become apoplectic at the introduction of any ideas outside of their orthodox straitjackets, it is an entertaining and stimulating film that may cause people to think about the role of women in the Church or ponder the veracity of 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy.

The Da Vinci Code starts with a murder and a mystery. A curator of the Louvre, Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle), is found murdered and Police investigator Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) thinks that Symbology Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is the killer since he was mentioned by Saueniere in a dying message. Langdon is summoned to the crime scene to aid in analyzing symbols painted in blood on the deceased along with cryptic codes left near the body but soon discovers that he is the main suspect in the murder. Together with Saunieres granddaughter, cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou), he tries to decipher the clues and solve the crime while on the run from the police. She thinks that her grandfather asked for Langdon in order to protect a secret that threatens the entire raison d'tre of the Catholic Church.

The two suspect that Sauniere was killed because he was a member of The Priory of Sion, a super secret society which is sworn to protect the knowledge of the Holy Grail. The Priory naturally is opposed not only by the Church but by an extremist sect called Opus Dei, personified in the film by Silas (Paul Bettany), a self-flagellating albino monk who together with the French police, hunts the fleeing couple. The skeptical Langdon and Neveu enlist the aid of eccentric Grail researcher Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) to help in their quest. He tells them of his belief that Leonardo Da Vinci hid clues and codes in his artwork describing how to find the Sangreal, the Priorys documented record of their history, and, ultimately, the Grail itself.

The true Holy Grail, according to Teabing, is not the chalice shared at the Last Supper but the missing sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene who fostered the royal bloodline. After many chases and power plays, the two escape to London where they visit the Temple church, founded by the Knights templar in 1185, and Westminster Abbey where they explore the tomb of Priory member, Sir Isaac Newton. Tom Hanks does his usual fine if not spectacular job as the thoughtful private investigator and Audrey Tatou is a pleasant presence throughout. While neither role offers the actors many opportunities to showcase their dramatic talent, the performances are neither dull nor lacking in energy as some have claimed.

I particularly welcome the exposure the film gives to the denigration of women by the Catholic Church and the role of Mary Magdalene in church history. While The Da Vinci Code never reaches its full potential as a compelling work of art, it is solid entertainment that creates awareness of the differences within the early church and may spur people to read apocryphal writings such as the Gnostic Gospels and The Gospel of Thomas. Of course, the theory, first expounded in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, is out of the mainstream, yet, it is not as preposterous as Roger Ebert has claimed. Given the paucity of historical records referring to a historical Jesus and the passing of two thousand years, it is no more implausible than many other theological notions, widely accepted as the unvarnished truth.

GRADE: B

Re: The Da Vinci Code (2006)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:39 am
by A
Interesting to read a cautiously positive view of the film. As this was such a big-budget extravaganza, and unarguably a planned blockbuster, there weren't many voices not complaining about its shallowness. And having Ron Howard helm a picture isn't always a good idea.
But you and hengcs seem to think it's good entertainment and that it even raises some interesting questions - which is actually quite something for a mainstream studio product