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
-
- Andrew said...
-
The quick question I have is this: can a good film (and for what tickets cost these days, I expect VERY good for my money) ever be made of a novel as bad as Brown's?
There is not a puzzle that the reader with an 8th grade education cannot solve before Langdon gets his ostensible PhD out of the way, and anyone with the least familiarity with the wars fought between the houses of York and Lancaster can identify the villain by name before Brown ever places the character in the room with Langdon (41 chapters before the revelation of that fact to our doltish good guys).
The plot is transparent. The puzzles simple, and the characters flat. I will see the film because I promised my wife that I would. I can only hope it outshines the novel by many orders of magnitude. Posted on May 19 2006 00:24 - Report as inappropriate
-
- chris said...
- I thought Ron Howard was very good in 'Happy Days'. Cunning-ham! Posted on May 18 2006 12:47
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Jim said...
- This review was similar to several others I've read. No surprise. Maybe we should just chalk this one (and those others) up to the fact that there happen to be some discerning people out there with a background in history who happen to feel the movie exploits the ignorance of those without such backgrounds and want to go on the record as feeling that way. Who knows. Posted on May 18 2006 11:45
- Report as inappropriate
-
- JP said...
- I started reading the book, and I was not impressed. Imagine Tom Clancy taking a stab at re-writing "Foucault's Pendulum", and you'll get the idea. Then you throw a bland, mass-market director like Ron Howard into the mix, and it's pretty much guaranteed to suck. (Why yes, I am an elitist, thank you very much!) Posted on May 18 2006 11:36
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Yogasudha Veturi said...
- the reviever seems intent to further discourage non-believers from watching the film.. anyway, the book isnt exactly a work of art and should be perceived just as that.. but you cannot deny the fact that the storyline does make u sit up and consider the myriad possibilities which you wouldnt have dreamt of earlier.. still, the entire plot is pure fiction, based on what the author considers as facts.. anyway, i dont think anyone who's posted his viewpoints here is qualified enough to distinguish fact from fiction.. Posted on May 18 2006 11:20
- Report as inappropriate
-
- kris said...
- It's getting terrible reviews everywhere so I wouldn't bother berating this particular reviewer. Posted on May 18 2006 10:47
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Ralph Borysiak said...
- I'll be very pissed if I like the movie and the critics' views were products of their religious beliefs. I tend to trust certain critics, like Ebert, whose review is not out as I type this, but based on reviews so far I wouldn't pay to see it. Yet, there's so much hype, I know I'll go anyway. I hope it doesn't suck. And as to the religious implications ....jeez! It's just a movie for Christ's sake! ...Remember the Life of Brian? Posted on May 18 2006 10:20
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Paul Murphy said...
- Way to let your christian beliefs get in the way of you doing a good review. Maybe you should rant in another section of the site? Why can't you take it as a fictional film that has a pretty good driving storyline? I'd say this review was bad but there is no review here. Posted on May 18 2006 06:42
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Bart said...
- Another critic who finds it hard to distinguish between(perceived) fact and fiction. Biased, boring, one sided, remarkably subjective, a blatant display of preconceived ideas. In short a review which deserves a 3.5 out of 10. If I was the editor I'd send someone else to do it again. Posted on May 18 2006 05:22
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Grant Silverstone said...
- i wasted my money on the book. Thanks for your excellent review - I won't be going to the movie Posted on May 18 2006 02:53
- Report as inappropriate
-
- amio said...
-
Okay, the gist of the review might be sound; the movie doesn't seem worthy of praise. I haven't seen it but I sense that a lot of people commenting are reacting to Calhoun's style which does come across as screechy and a little smug as if curiously resentful of something. The book is not top tier literature, but neither is Brown's prose "awkward" or particularly "clunky," in comparison to what makes the blockbuster bestseller lists these days. I found the book well-paced and enjoyable, the situational aspects perhaps very far-fetched and the plot rife with potential pitfalls. But hey, chill, it's a work of fiction (this is not meant as a qualification, it can and should still be reviewed seriously, but not at the expense of insulting the intelligence of those who diasgree with the critic), and conspiracy theories exist because even an "idiot" knows that stranger things can happen, even the wildest cause and effect scenarios are not necessarily impossible. And if its at all possible, isn't it worth questioning, even if only for entertaiment purposes?
I do think that reviews can be written without a tone that condescends to people who might diasgree with the critic. And Calhoun's wit, at least in this piece, is too reliant on the putdowns and pat assessment of those who might aver to see things differently. That is what is always a little sad, because as a reader of the review, we are responding to the tone of the piece and less its content, which might be relevant. Posted on May 18 2006 01:22 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Henry said...
- I do not like the Da Vinci code, but I have ot admit that this is not journalism at all. In fact, it sounds like something I would write if I wanted to express my opinion without actually reviewing the movie. But, alas I am not being paid to write such drivel. Posted on May 17 2006 23:55
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Freethought said...
- I was raised catholic, so I do recognize the ire that was raised by this book/movie. Although I certainly do think some of the catholic dogma needed a good beating up! The Bible was taught by man, written by man, and most certainly edited by man, not by God himself. Is it so wrong to belive that Jesus may have had the normal life experience, with brothers and sisters, and yes, even a wife and kids? Does this make him something less? Even Jesus himself taught that HE was not important, just the message. Christ never said no meat on friday, priests cant't marry, and male/female are the only true couple, these were all rules brought on by preists and bishops, and Popes. The organized Catholic church, has, in my opinion changed over the ages to meet it's own needs, not the true teachings of Christ. Follow the true teachings, have faith, and this book/movie will be just what it was meant for....entertainment. Posted on May 17 2006 18:12
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Phil onochie said...
- Well done writing this piece. People are just too eager to see the sinking of the Catholic church and christians in general. It's a ridiculous story Brown tries to tell. He has almost all his historical facts wrong, except that Paris is in France. Why would I want to pay money to see a movie that tells me my beliefs are ridiculous and based on a 2000 year old lie? be sure that if Dan Brown wrote something like this that offended the Jews, he'd be labeled anti-sematic. This of course is blasphemy in my opininon and here, Dan is bing awarded with all sorts of fame and glory. Isn't this anti-Christian? And of course, what I'm being asked to swallow is, "a jolly good ol tale" People ask, "Why does this worry you? It's just a story" Would dan Brown write that Malcom X wasn't real, or that he was not a civil rights leader but some radical who wanted to make a name for himself. Would he wire about Martin Luther and say that he was part of a plot to cause a civil war? these are all ridiculous claims aren't they..and offensive too right? Well, It's exactly how I feel about such a movie Dan Brown and Ron Howard are promoting. We Christians take a beating if you ask me, all we do is take more and more. When is it going to stop. Perhaps here!! Posted on May 17 2006 17:25
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Kate said...
- I haven't read the book, haven't decided yet to see the movie, I just felt that this reviewer made up his mind to dislike this film before it even opened. I don't know if the film is good or bad, it could really stink, but there is an air of spitefullness to the reveiw that i felt when I read it Posted on May 17 2006 17:22
- 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