LONDON CONNECT:

Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Cannes diary part one: 'The Da Vinci Code' review

Related films

Related people

Cannes diary part one: 'The Da Vinci Code' review

Dave Calhoun offers his early reaction to one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year.

May 17 2006

Film critics curious as to the current whereabouts of the Holy Grail were given a helping-hand by Ron Howard last night as his 'Da Vinci Code' screened to the press at the Cannes Film Festival on the eve of today's world premiere of the film on the Croisette.

Here's a clue: security guards at one of Paris' main art galleries should be on the look-out for any crazed critics being trailed by freaky scions of the Catholic church who wear traditional garb while dashing around France in Renault Clios and whispering murderous orders into mobile phones.

If ever there was a movie marriage made in hell it was that between novelist Dan Brown and film director Ron Howard. Brown's clunky, awkward prose is well matched to Howard's frighteningly earnest, spoon-feeding approach to cinema.

To his credit, Howard keeps his movie ticking along at a much more acceptable pace than he ever achieved in 'Cinderella Man' and if - and it's quite a big if - you're willing to ignore the monstrous perversion of the garbled historicism at its core, then you might even enjoy some of its wild fancy as it sweeps through a host of grand French and British locations - Saint Sulpice, the Louvre, Lincoln Cathedral, the Rosslyn Chapel, various chateaus - and tries to convince its audience that Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a well-natured Harvard professor of 'religious symbology' and Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a code-breaking policewoman can, over the course of about twenty-hours, uncover one of the greatest conspiracies at the heart of the Catholic church: a cover-up of the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, who, the film argues, together bore a child whose blood-line still survives in modern France.

It's all complete guff, of course, however compelling you may find 'The Da Vinci Code' as a middle-of-the-road film thriller. Hanks and Tautou sprint their way through two-and-a-half hours of relentless, ridiculous exposition and condescending explanations of the past 2,000 years of ecclesiastical history that would make a GCSE history teacher blush with embarrassment.

The script leaves nothing to the imagination as it attempts to make clear a plot that forever chews on its own tail and devises cunning get-out-clauses. It's buoyed along, though, by some fine character turns from Paul Bettany as the monk Silus, a ghostly and slavish follower of Opus Dei who favours a good bout of flagellation in the morning over a frothy coffee, and from Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, a wealthy, crippled dandy and an expert in the holy grail and the facts of Jesus' secret sex-life who always has a plane ready if Brown's plot needs to make a quick escape across the Channel.

Of course, only an idiot would swallow any of Brown's hysterical, magpie approach to history. This is historical fiction that fully indulges our appetite for conspiracy and willingness to feel disempowered at the hands of the past. The only good idea in the film is that historical orthodoxies come and go, shaped and altered by the ideas and the power structures of a particular time.

Of course, the film itself is just such a product of our own age, a time when we feel confident enough in Europe to stick two fingers up at some of the hokum pocum of the Catholic Church without really understanding or even really caring where it's coming from.

Is it a radical film then? No, of course not, and these ideas only float loosely around its pulpy edge. Most annoyingly, Howard utterly cops out from following through on his film's innate wildness when, at the end, it segues into sappy, comfortable territory and Hanks' character concludes, horribly, that if we can learn anything from his crazy adventure it's that Jesus was probably still a nice man. Thanks Ron. Thanks a lot.

Click here for more Cannes stories.

User comments on this story

DADDY'S LITTLE GIRL said...

My dad made a comment on this movie. This movie had a bad set up, all the actiony parts were so scary!!!! They thought that the movie would be excellent, but instead it uckedsay!!!!! Posted on Jan 27 2008 00:35

Report as inappropriate
chankaya said...

Sweetheart reviewer, you are reviewing a mass entertainer not an archival piece of history. No comment about acting, framing, shot division, music, editing – are you reviewing the work of Ron Howard or of Dan Brown? It may be a trashy piece of history for you, fair enough, but when does it claim to be history? It is a thriller – did it thrill you – if it did not, say that. That’s review. Not finding fault at the level of History. Posted on Jul 18 2006 18:17

Report as inappropriate
Mari said...

Thanks, Dave, for a review that had me splitting my sides laughing, while being right on the money about the quality of the movie. I saw the movie BEFORE reading your review and find it hard to point to anything in your review which unfairly exaggerated the poor quality of this movie. Entertainment and information in the one article--just what journalism ought to be about :-) Posted on Jun 23 2006 03:11

Report as inappropriate
kc lyn said...

for me, da vinci code is not an interesting story.. though i hav'nt seen it yet... but if i can watch it...My faith in jesus christ will never change...How about you? Posted on Jun 12 2006 05:54

Report as inappropriate
deborah stent said...

Thanks to all of you i still do not know if it was a good or bad film call this a review more like a playground. I will go an see for myself. Posted on Jun 03 2006 12:43

Report as inappropriate
Ferang Fat Bastard said...

ha ha ho ho ferang fat bastard small dig big kok bum oil ha ha ho ho Posted on May 28 2006 02:58

Report as inappropriate
papillon said...

History is what you make of it and as for the film, it was a disappointment. Posted on May 26 2006 12:19

Report as inappropriate
alan said...

Hi,
I saw the movie and I can tell this: it was GREAT. All those rumours from Cannes are bullsh*t. Whoever read the book will definitely ENJOY the film, trust me.
Of course it was not complete (comparing with the book), but hey it's nearly three hours already ;) it would take twice longer to mention everything from the book.
More here: http://www.finetalking.com/auditoria/philosophy-religion/1494/da-vinci-code.html Posted on May 24 2006 09:09

Report as inappropriate
Chris said...

If you have to read a book for a movie to be 'enjoyable', then it's not a good movie.
That said, having read the book... the movie was absolutely rotten.
Unfortunately, no matter how much bad press it received, it was going to be a hit, because people all too often don't trust reviews/opinions of friends.
It was a 2.5 hour trainwreck of a story. It reminded me of National Treasure (if you removed the entertaining, over the top action sequences).
It was bland.
For those that watched Arrested Development... This movie was Ann "Egg" Veal. Posted on May 24 2006 05:40

Report as inappropriate
And the Lord said...

Stop fighting citizens or I shall be forced to consider some heavy smiting. Posted on May 22 2006 16:20

Report as inappropriate
Lorena said...

Am definitely going to see the film now after this review. I read the book in one day as you would with a script. Not a great narrative pieace of work, admittingly, but certain historical facts that Brown suggets to be incorrect are are well documented and backed by academia (Umberto Eco). It is more than worth thinking about these issues. I certainly wouldn't call anyone an "idiot for swallowing it", that easily. Take a walk down London's stock exchange district and have a look at the architecture. Even though not my type of film I am now curious to watch it too see if the critics are 'into' something themselves! Ahh, so dark the con of man!
Thanks Father Dave. Thanks a lot. Posted on May 22 2006 14:48

Report as inappropriate
Jesus said...

Given the fact that I am Jesus Christ, the son of God, and quite a lot of this discussion concerns me, I feel it my duty to point out that Dave Calhoun has a very valid point. Dan Brown's account of my life is rather far from what actually happened. I never married Mary, but was, in fact, childless. I was crucified, then resurrected, before returning to heaven to sit by my father, the almighty one, the Lord himself (hello dad by the way! I'm on the Time Out website!), where I shall remain forever more.
(my point being: Dan Brown or the Bible: take whichever fiction suits your fancy.) Posted on May 22 2006 12:49

Report as inappropriate
DGSTF said...

i would say the big problem is not with the book itself. more with the idiotic people who turn around and start quoting dan brown and the gnostic gospels as a case against christ. also for those talking about how the history of jesus is not set in stone i would like to point out that there is more historical evidence pointing to his life, teachings, miracles and circumstances of his death than there is of the life of Julius Caesar. Posted on May 22 2006 10:16

Report as inappropriate
Albert said...

This movie is a good hoot!
I can't imagine why the left footers are getting so pissed about it. Posted on May 22 2006 06:46

Report as inappropriate
jane said...

stop being so critical towards this film critic.. he is doing his job.. its opinion just like all of yours.. but dont take it so personally! Posted on May 21 2006 22:41

Report as inappropriate