The Da Vinci Code
THE DA VINCI CODE:
Like many critics have already stated, this was one movie that seemed like a no-brainer. You've got THE fiction book of the decade, popularity-wise, a usually reliable director in Ron Howard, and an A-list cast, with Tom Hanks in the lead surrounded by pretty much the best in the biz: Audrey Tatou, the amazing French talent from Amelie, Ian McKellan, able to bring the gravitas to any role, Jean Reno, a great actor as well, Alfred Molina, another accomplished thespian, and Paul Bettany, who is usually great and makes the most of any role he is given. So yeah, what could go wrong?
Apparently, a lot. I mean look, this is definitely not a BAD movie. It has many moments of fun, of intriguing plot turns, and of inspired acting (mostly from McKellan). But it never comes together as a film for a variety of reasons. Let's run them down:
- Waaay too much exposition: It feels like half of this movie is people telling us the backstory of the grail, the knights templar, the opus dei, etc, in long, boring stretches of narration overlayed with odd-looking flashback scenes that look like outtakes from some early 90's CD-ROM computer game. Ian McKellan's voice is such that he makes much of this exposition more interesting than it would be otherwise, but for the most part the pacing of this movie is way off.
- Tom Hanks is sleepwalking: Well that, or else he was just really miscast. I kept wishing that Jack Bauer or Fox Mulder was on the case and not this guy, who seemed to just be along for the ride. The professor had little to no defining characteristics, except for the left-field and random point that he is claustrophobic. In a novel this may work as a nice little character trait, but in a movie, what's the point? It's not like Indiana Jones being afraid of snakes or Marty McFly hating to be called "yellow," which are key to the story arcs of those movies. I mean, Tom Hanks is just useless in this whole movie. He never does what David Duchovny did as Mulder and totally draw you into his particular obsessions. He's not an action hero, or even particularly charismatic, like say Sam Neill as the lead in Jurassic Park - another expert in his field. And there never even seems a real reason for Langdon to be involved in the case -- what exactly is compelling him to get caught up in this life or death situation when he could easily get out of it if he wanted to? Hanks is probably miscast here, as his usual everyman vibe just comes off as blandness in this case, but the blame also goes to the script for never giving him an active or interesting role in the story, even though he's the lead character.
- Akiva Goldsman: Three words: He wrote BATMAN AND ROBIN. And BATMAN FOREVER. And LOST IN SPACE. Oh, and I, ROBOT. Yikes. Sure, his collaberations with Ron Howard are usually solid. A Beautiful Mind was excellent as was Cinderella Man. But clearly, this guy can be hit and miss. And as I alluded to when talking about how exposition-heavy the movie is, this script is not hit out of the ballpark by any means. It rides a fine line between overly serious to a fault, unintentionally campy, and just plain ludicrous at times. Many lines got unintentional laughs, and some of the flashbacks were just plain confusing (why was Paul Bettany's albino monk shown killing Alfred Molina in some kind of random flashback?). Seemingly major characters got sudden sendoffs (Bettany and Molina's quick and pointless deaths). And the "twists" were often foreshadowed to death and way too heavyhanded.
- Poor Pacing: Again, the pacing was just off. Long stretches of boring exposition, climactic action in the middle, not the end, of the movie. Car chases that never popped. Showdowns that had no drama, no pulse. Characters introduced but never given their dramatic due. And no real sense of closure. Basically this movie seems to be about throwing all these "shocking" ideas at us and succeeding on that alone. But despite the supposed controversy that this movie has caused i nsome circles, these ideas are not all that shocking. We've seen movies where dinosaurs live again, where men can fly, where aliens walk among us - what is so startling about telling us that Jesus had a family? The movie can't work on its ideas alone, yet that's what it tries to do.
- No Intelligence: This movie tries to be a smart, serious, intelligent look at some high-concept ideas. The seriousness with which it takes itself and the pedigree of actors suggests that this is an "adult" movie. And yet the movie consistently insults the audience with the aforementioned lame twists and moments of pure campiness, and scenes like the opening where Tom Hanks teaches a class (and in turn, us, the audience) a rudimentary lesson on symbiology. Gee, thanks for informing us that a three-pronged rod can be BOTH the devil's pitchfork AND the trident of Poseidon. Anyone who's ever seen the Little Mermaid knows as much, yet hear it's treated like a shocking revelation. Give the audience some credit - we can watch a movie like Lord of the Rings, with all its arcane mythology, and follow along just fine, we don't need a relatively simple plot spelled out like its, well, the bible.
Okay, so that pretty much sums up why this movie isn't all it's cracked up to be. But still, it has its moments. As I said, Ian McKellan gives a sprited performance that pretty much SAVES this movie, literally, it comes alive when he enters the picture after about the first third of the film. And most of the performances are good, what you'd expect of these actors. Paul Bettany LOOKS and ACTS like a great villain - he just has nothing very interesting to do. And Tatou is talented, no doubt, but her lack of English proficiency and somewhat boring character here hurts her performance.
So it was a decent movie, but a lot worse than it could have been if it had a tighter script, more interesting direction, and more inspired casting in some cases. Not worth much hype though, either as a movie or as a political statement.
My grade: C+
Like many critics have already stated, this was one movie that seemed like a no-brainer. You've got THE fiction book of the decade, popularity-wise, a usually reliable director in Ron Howard, and an A-list cast, with Tom Hanks in the lead surrounded by pretty much the best in the biz: Audrey Tatou, the amazing French talent from Amelie, Ian McKellan, able to bring the gravitas to any role, Jean Reno, a great actor as well, Alfred Molina, another accomplished thespian, and Paul Bettany, who is usually great and makes the most of any role he is given. So yeah, what could go wrong?
Apparently, a lot. I mean look, this is definitely not a BAD movie. It has many moments of fun, of intriguing plot turns, and of inspired acting (mostly from McKellan). But it never comes together as a film for a variety of reasons. Let's run them down:
- Waaay too much exposition: It feels like half of this movie is people telling us the backstory of the grail, the knights templar, the opus dei, etc, in long, boring stretches of narration overlayed with odd-looking flashback scenes that look like outtakes from some early 90's CD-ROM computer game. Ian McKellan's voice is such that he makes much of this exposition more interesting than it would be otherwise, but for the most part the pacing of this movie is way off.
- Tom Hanks is sleepwalking: Well that, or else he was just really miscast. I kept wishing that Jack Bauer or Fox Mulder was on the case and not this guy, who seemed to just be along for the ride. The professor had little to no defining characteristics, except for the left-field and random point that he is claustrophobic. In a novel this may work as a nice little character trait, but in a movie, what's the point? It's not like Indiana Jones being afraid of snakes or Marty McFly hating to be called "yellow," which are key to the story arcs of those movies. I mean, Tom Hanks is just useless in this whole movie. He never does what David Duchovny did as Mulder and totally draw you into his particular obsessions. He's not an action hero, or even particularly charismatic, like say Sam Neill as the lead in Jurassic Park - another expert in his field. And there never even seems a real reason for Langdon to be involved in the case -- what exactly is compelling him to get caught up in this life or death situation when he could easily get out of it if he wanted to? Hanks is probably miscast here, as his usual everyman vibe just comes off as blandness in this case, but the blame also goes to the script for never giving him an active or interesting role in the story, even though he's the lead character.
- Akiva Goldsman: Three words: He wrote BATMAN AND ROBIN. And BATMAN FOREVER. And LOST IN SPACE. Oh, and I, ROBOT. Yikes. Sure, his collaberations with Ron Howard are usually solid. A Beautiful Mind was excellent as was Cinderella Man. But clearly, this guy can be hit and miss. And as I alluded to when talking about how exposition-heavy the movie is, this script is not hit out of the ballpark by any means. It rides a fine line between overly serious to a fault, unintentionally campy, and just plain ludicrous at times. Many lines got unintentional laughs, and some of the flashbacks were just plain confusing (why was Paul Bettany's albino monk shown killing Alfred Molina in some kind of random flashback?). Seemingly major characters got sudden sendoffs (Bettany and Molina's quick and pointless deaths). And the "twists" were often foreshadowed to death and way too heavyhanded.
- Poor Pacing: Again, the pacing was just off. Long stretches of boring exposition, climactic action in the middle, not the end, of the movie. Car chases that never popped. Showdowns that had no drama, no pulse. Characters introduced but never given their dramatic due. And no real sense of closure. Basically this movie seems to be about throwing all these "shocking" ideas at us and succeeding on that alone. But despite the supposed controversy that this movie has caused i nsome circles, these ideas are not all that shocking. We've seen movies where dinosaurs live again, where men can fly, where aliens walk among us - what is so startling about telling us that Jesus had a family? The movie can't work on its ideas alone, yet that's what it tries to do.
- No Intelligence: This movie tries to be a smart, serious, intelligent look at some high-concept ideas. The seriousness with which it takes itself and the pedigree of actors suggests that this is an "adult" movie. And yet the movie consistently insults the audience with the aforementioned lame twists and moments of pure campiness, and scenes like the opening where Tom Hanks teaches a class (and in turn, us, the audience) a rudimentary lesson on symbiology. Gee, thanks for informing us that a three-pronged rod can be BOTH the devil's pitchfork AND the trident of Poseidon. Anyone who's ever seen the Little Mermaid knows as much, yet hear it's treated like a shocking revelation. Give the audience some credit - we can watch a movie like Lord of the Rings, with all its arcane mythology, and follow along just fine, we don't need a relatively simple plot spelled out like its, well, the bible.
Okay, so that pretty much sums up why this movie isn't all it's cracked up to be. But still, it has its moments. As I said, Ian McKellan gives a sprited performance that pretty much SAVES this movie, literally, it comes alive when he enters the picture after about the first third of the film. And most of the performances are good, what you'd expect of these actors. Paul Bettany LOOKS and ACTS like a great villain - he just has nothing very interesting to do. And Tatou is talented, no doubt, but her lack of English proficiency and somewhat boring character here hurts her performance.
So it was a decent movie, but a lot worse than it could have been if it had a tighter script, more interesting direction, and more inspired casting in some cases. Not worth much hype though, either as a movie or as a political statement.
My grade: C+
posted by Danny B at 11:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home