Film
What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases
Bookmark this page
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
-
- Rhonda said...
- Seen the movie and agree it doesn't touch the book in thrill factor but feel the critic of this review had made up his mind about the movie before he saw it - possibly a close minded Christian penned it. You obviously didn't appreciate the book why did you bother even seeing the movie? Posted on May 21 2006 06:11
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Adele said...
- Seen the movie last night - would describe it as an extremely condensed summary of the book - some excellent casting though not sure on the lead actors - both Hanks and Tauttou lacked any passion or excitement as they uncovered the great conspiracy. On the whole, I enjoyed the movie and would recommend to anyone who enjoyed the book, but to anyone who hasn't read the book I doubt you'd gain much from the movie. Posted on May 21 2006 06:08
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Richard Osband said...
- I saw the film yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved the book and the film followed the book accurately. Tom Hanks played Robert Langdon perfectly. All the characters were well cast and if some didn't sparkle, they weren't meant to. The story is important and the film let the story be told. The book and the film are modern myth making and myth does its job when it lets the individual reflect on the truth. The public got the book and will get the film. Your fatuous critic should look for a new job. Posted on May 21 2006 04:27
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Line said...
- I have no religion, so there´s no truth or false history to me. only what you believe. if people are going to criticize the film because of its religious side, they are not secure enough about their own religion. It doesn´t matter what critics say, if people like it, their opinion will be just forgotten. Many films show other religions as "the bad guys", so when it comes to cristianity, it should be accepted at the same way, but it doesn´t. Why? People have to learn that religion is religion, politics is politics and movies are movies. (I am brasilian, sorry about any gramatic mistakes) Posted on May 20 2006 10:48
- Report as inappropriate
-
- hienphuho said...
- looking forward to see a film. and what happen!? I saw alots of ads. Posted on May 20 2006 00:38
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mike said...
- Kooks! That's my conclusion from reading the responses to the quite mild disapproval of the TO reviewer. Get a life people. It's junk history, ie, poached conspiracy theory repackaged for the gullible and as sold to them as possible fact. Buying it once once as a novel (that's a novel) could be excused as unfortunate. To buy it again in movie form looks like a mental deficiency. It's pulp, people, it's pulp. But then, some people seem to prefer their food pre-masticated, just like they prefer their history that way. Go get 'em, Christian cowboys! Posted on May 20 2006 00:07
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Tim T said...
-
Wise up. This doesn't purport to be a dissertation on the morality or otherwise of any form of organised religion (although it would be interesting to see whether it would have gotten backing had it taken a thesis from an interpretation of the Koran).
It is a summer movie.
I haven't read the book but have seen the movie and enjoyed the chase, the locations and the performances. Not all the French smoked Gauloises and drank wine incessantly; neither did the British resort to the chip shop or Dick van Dyke accents.
I thought the T.O. reviewer's review was typical of the snide approach they too often take to populist movies, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion: see the film and make your own mind up. Posted on May 19 2006 14:44 - Report as inappropriate
-
- mike smales said...
- The book was a good readable yarn, no more,no less. Sure the film will be just the same. Posted on May 19 2006 08:47
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Sheezi said...
- I don't see why everyone's slammin' this critique since every dang critic in the world is also slamming this movie. Are all of these critics a bunch of right-wing stuff shirts? They went heads-over-heals about gay cowboys, but they are a bunch of hesterics for not liking this movie? Face it guys... this is just another example of a movie that is SO not as good as the book. Posted on May 19 2006 08:46
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Manel Mira Rodrigues said...
- It's important to shake society out of its cozy madness, regardless of the shape that takes. Christians have been sitting comfortably with so much social power for far too long! Even if the film is crap, it fulfils its goal in revealing the human shape of something thought mystical. Posted on May 19 2006 08:41
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Simone (registered user) said...
-
If the movie was good enough, the enormous holes in the 'history' would have been easy to digest. Seeing as the film has been generally panned, perhaps it's not very good? Just a thought...
Dave Calhoun's review was excellent. Shame the same can't be said of the hysterical "It's FICTION" postings. Posted on May 19 2006 08:16 - Report as inappropriate
-
- dianne. said...
-
first of all i'm not a fan of dan brown. but i've been told by numours people that they enjoyed the book. not my cup of tea but each to their own., but it realy get on my nurves when these so called critics slate books/films and the people who enjoy them.
i suspect that dans biggest critic is the church because what dan brown writes putts 2000 years of preaching (guff)
into questions and if people start questioning what they have been told all their lives how is that going to affect the church? MONEY! thats what it always comes down to. go see the movie and make your own mind up. you'll either love it or hate it abit like marmite.... Posted on May 19 2006 05:35 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Adam said...
- Its a film based on a FICTIONAL novel - why won't people get over that fact. Who cares whether the 'evidence' is dubious. Wonder what his review of the new X-Men film was like :-) Posted on May 19 2006 04:23
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Logan said...
- First off, this is a work of fiction. It is meant to ENTERTAIN. It is not meant to change your view on history and make you boycott the church. I have not personally seen the movie yet, it is just reviews (and people) like this that make me sick. This movie was not made to satisfy people who know a lot about history. How many people do you think now enough about the battles between the houses of York and Lancaster to even care what you are saying? The fact of the matter is every review out there at the moment is someone who knows a lot about this kind of thing and think it is their place to criticize somebody elses work because it isn't true to the facts. The whole point of fiction is it is not factual. It seems like everybody's review is based on the historical mistakes in the movie and they dont say one thing about the movie itself. I don't see a movie coming out tomorrow with you as the director, so what do you think makes you so special? It is not so much this movie that im defending, but reiews like this, in general, should be ignored until the movie has at least been out for a week or so. For all i know, this movie could suck, but no one is actually reviewing the movie here, they are just reviewing what it stands for and that is not how a film critic should write a review. Posted on May 19 2006 02:32
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Andrew said...
-
Yogasudha, I can deny that the story line did anything for me, including making me think about anything deep or meaningful. It was rather like a kiddie roller coaster at Disneyland: sprinkle some pretty things about the place to make it look good, but you always know where the ride is going.
JP has it right, the perhaps he gives Brown a little too much credit with the Tom Clancy nod. Had the only director Eco was prepared to let create a film version of Foucault's Pendulum not died (after Eyes Wide Shut, Eco may have reconsidered anyway), perhaps we would see an intelligent treatment of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail ideas. Posted on May 19 2006 00:33 - Report as inappropriate
Most popular on this site
Features
To the letter
Forty years later, Costa-Gavras's Z still brims with fury.
Mind over matter
David Cronenberg reflects on a most bizarre body: his own corpus of work.
Fool's gold
Can an Oscar win lead to a cursed career? Here are five stories of postaward professional meltdowns.
We are the championed
Terrorists and teens abound in this year's "Film Comment Selects."
A history of violence
Matteo Garrone's kaleidoscopic Gomorrah wallops you with Italy's crime crisis.
True romantic
James Gray exchanges urban amorality for amour in Two Lovers.
Playing in the dark
MoMA salutes pianist Stuart Oderman's 50 years as the one-man sound of silents.
Junk bonds
Cast and crew recall the making of the classic NYC drug drama The Panic in Needle Park.
What do you think?
Post your comment now