Partly so I can give people the choice whether to read it or not but mostly so I can piss about with java script I've added the option to hide or show my opening rant on Mr Brown.
Ah I’ve been waiting for this film, not for the normal reasons but mainly because I have developed a pathological hatred for Dan Brown's work. Ironically it wasn’t Da Vinci Code that caused this more his other works. I regarded Da Vinci code as pulp novel sort of thing you pick up at airport if you are stuck for something to read and not something that requires you to engage your brain to any degree. The whole grail is actually a bloodline thing is not exactly a new idea I’d heard it before told with more panache in Gabriel Knight 3 which used this idea as its basis for its story written by Jane Jensen but it had Vampires, wove in Renne Le Chateau, and had Tim Curry (which gains automatic badger points ;) ).
Anyway I didn’t hate Mr Browns work till I read some of his other books and it became apparent how his process of writing seemed to work. Take an idea go to Google search for it take the gist of the first paragraph it comes up with and add a manly if flawed hero a sexy female protagonist who is one of cryptologist/biologist/some other scientist add elements of conspiracy plus some historical location paris/London/rome and some conspiracy or other rinse and repeat. That may not exactly be how Mr Brown writes but that is my impression from reading his books. I found it hard to suspend my disbelief when he was talking about subjects I knew something about and it became apparent he hadn’t done anything but the most basic research, his 3 million processor machine that can crack encrypted files in seconds in digital fortress (look at the rc5 distributed computing project vastly more power and they are not even close to cracking a mere 72 bit key yet) at least he could have made something plausible up in a sneakers magic box style rather than try and base something in reality without running the numbers.
Formulaic writing is not in and of itself bad take Dean Koontz for instance a lot of his books have shall we say a template about them (manly if flawed hero often recovering from some personal tragedy, strong female character often shy inside, a dog usually a Labrador, and some element of supernatural or scientific influence to change things for good or bad) but where Mr Koontz and Mr Brown differ is how they weave a story round the template. Mr Koontz's work tends to be well thought out and compelling. Mr Brown's stuff is more cheap trashy novel. The other aspect of the Da Vinci code as to how accurate an idea it is is largely irrelevant to me. It’s a story based on historical characters and settings whether it is true takes a back seat to how good a story it is, in my opinion not very.
Anyway now I’ve got my rant out of the way onto the film itself.
We start the film with an older French man running through a gallery (the Lourve) being pursued by a figure in a hooded robe.
Interspersed with this is clips of Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) giving a lecture on symboligy. The French man, who we later find is Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) pulls a painting off the wall to trigger an alarm to get help, but the robed figure an albino monk called Silas (played by Paul Bettany) draws a gun on him from the other side of the security barrier that came down as a result of the alarm.
Silas interrogates the prone man then shoots him in such a way that he does not immediately die giving Sauniere time to do obscure stuff to point out his killer. We then see Langdon doing some book signing when a French FBI agent equivalent turns up with a fairly gruesome picture of Sauniere dead naked on the floor marked in blood. The police want Langdon’s help ostensibly due to the symbols.
At the Louvre We meet Captain Fache played by Jean Reno and we see the body again arranged in the style of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian man. It soon becomes apparent that Sauniere left more messages in invisible ink, a series of nonsensical statements and numbers.
Captain Fache is getting increasingly pointed in his questioning of Langdon when Sophie Neveu French police cryptographer (played by Audrey Tautou) turns up claiming to have cracked the code and tells Langdon he has an urgent message for him. The number she gives him gives him a recorded message from her that the police are set to finger him for the killing and this getting him here to look at the symbols was merely a pretext to interrogate and bully a confession out of him. Langdon and Sophie then do a runner.
There then follows lots of sleuthing, running about, and chases in smart cars visiting lots of nice historic locations such as the Louvre, Temple church, Westminster Abbey, with Silas the Albino Monk assassin jumping out from the shadows or from behind conveniently placed book cases anytime things start going well.
The film has the mysterious priory of scion pitted against some equally mysterious church organization with Silas a follower of the Opus Dei catholic sect and has some association with a Bishop Aringarosa of the same sect (played by Alfred Molina) and is given instructions by the mysterious teacher.
Later in the film Langdon calls in the help of a friend and grail hunter Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian McKellen) who helps them with their quest, details of which I won’t go into so as not to spoil anything.
The film is reasonably faithful recreation of the book there were some tweaks in there but not too many the book was simple enough that direct conversion is a possibility. The acting is not too bad I thought Jean Reno wasn’t quite ruthless enough to be the character in the book but other than that he was good. Paul Bettany as a bad guy again, he is very good at bad guy one could almost say type cast, he gives a good performance as the tortured ruthlessly committed self flagellating religious nut job Silas. Hanks is passable as Langdon he does a reasonably good pro lecturer at the beginning and most of the rest is ok. Audrey Tautou is fairly good, I think in the book she was portrayed as more overtly clever (she is supposed to be a cryptologist) which I’m not sure came across in the film, there was an element of her being sexy French woman window dressing not all the time but definitely to a degree. Sir Ian McKellen is good as Sir Leigh Teabing an eccentric somewhat stereotypical English gent.
Alfred Molina as the bishop was good if a little under used it was a bit part so not that surprising.
One thing that I think could have been handled better is the fact that all the main characters appear to be on drugs, suffering from constant hallucinations and flashbacks. Hanks character seem to get this more than most with the simplest scene becoming like something out of fear and loathing in las vegas but then I guess he’s supposed to be some sort of hippy professor type. It did seem to be just showing off most of the time they could have gone for more traditional flashbacks or some such rather than all the dancey cgi superimposed over reality stuff that can be more annoying than impressive.
The film definitely drags towards the end the concluding half an hour could have done with trimming.
As an aside watching this after Xmen: Last stand made me think of it as a what happened next in the life of magneto driven mad due to the circumstances at the end of xmen 3 he becomes a grail hunter. Not sure that’s what ron howard was going for ;)
Anyway basically this is not a bad film if you squelch the hype and see it as just a film its reasonable it converts the book fairly well has some reasonable action sequences. It’s just not a particularly good film either it’s in no way exceptional and the constant drug hallucinations can be annoying. It doesn't require much in the way of thought most of the twists are highlighted with big coming soon signs well before they turn up.
Due to considerable interest from people we know, I'm going to skip working on my review backlog (yes, its my fault :P Evilmatt's done his work...) and write this review now
I hadn't heard much about the Da Vinci Code before the trailers started appearing. I think Matt might have mentioned it prior to that, but it didn't sink in much.
Naturally, as soon as the trailers hit I was subjected to a torrent of bilious rant (see sample above) on the subject of Dan Brown and his writing methods. I'm not disagreeing, I mean, I haven't read any of his books (do you really blame me after Matt's reaction?) and there seems to be a popular feeling of distain for the film overall.
Anyway, on to reviewing the film or some such. The pacing is generally good, although the bit at the end felt tacked on (Although I might have been more patient if it wasn't quite so early in the morning by then). Tom Hanks does well in his role, with a good portrayal of his (unfortunately not very relevant) claustrophobia, and an overtone of playful comedy that reminds me of Bill Murray. Paul Bettany carries off the psycho bad guy very well... he has a wild eyed look about him and body language that is just subtly wrong, out of place, and hence ideal. The albino make up helps too.
On Audrey Tautou I agree with Matt... the character she plays doesn't come across as a crypology expert, especially given that the story is ripe with oppotunities for that to kick in, its never (IIRC) her that makes the breakthrough. Jean Reno does a good job of being the policeman with a conflict of interest, and Sir Ian McKellan does a very good job playing the well-to-do English gentleman with an eccentric intrest in his own bizarre corner of history.
Now, the plot. It does bear a similarity to the sort of book you'd read on the beach, and it does require a quite generous portion of suspension of disbelief, but its no more absurd than National Treasure (disappointingly bland) or Sahara (the plot may be silly, but the style is good). A couple of bits made me cringe a little.. I'm pretty much sure Smart cars can't do that, and if I had a bank account with that security system I'd be suing them for abject crapness the first time I forget my password.
The whole CGI overlay sequences are a bit odd... I'm not sure what they add exactly, especially given the cost. One near the end shows what a character is thinking, but that much should be obvious really. Some of them are good for atmosphere, but others seem... unneccesary.
The twists, as Matt comments, are pretty well signposted and obvious enough even the first time though. Luckily the explanation of them is short for those who twigged early, and they aren't too ridiculous or irritatingly closely spaced. Some of them are, in fact, quite good.
Overall, I quite enjoyed it (ducks). Not exactly astounding, but not atrocious. If it finished half an hour earlier it'd be a bit better, but even as it is I think it deserves this rating