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
-
- Raymund Satina said...
- This is a movie that should be taken with an open mind. This is a movie for people with strong faith. Whether Jesus was a father, a rabbi or a prophet - it really doesn't matter, he is still a good person, rabbi or prophet that we should continue to look up to, emulate HIs teachings and pray for His divine blessings. Posted on May 17 2006 14:03
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Ed said...
-
History has proven that anyone suggesting a "new idea/concept" is ignorant and full of demons"! But, the truth is, why is everyone so convinced that they know? That what the've been told is true? That history, as it is recorded could possibly be recorded to further control the masses? Open your eyes people and stop being so certain that what you have been told for 2,000+ years is anything accept an attempt to "keep you and I in-line"!
Whats all the fear about? Opionions are just that! Everyone has one or a million. Posted on May 17 2006 13:34 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Jimmy Jones said...
- I think this is an excellent review, and am baffled by the hostility of the responses. It's completely true that "only an idiot would swallow any of Brown's hysterical, magpie approach to history" and furthermore, anyone who considers Ron Howard anything beyond merely competent doesn't have much business expressing opinions on any film. Posted on May 17 2006 13:09
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Alex said...
- I'll hold out for the inevitable passage to satellite, ITV1 and then ITV2 over and over and over. Ron Howard is "a pair of safe hands", anybody expecting anything other than crowd-pleasing pulp would be a fool. To the people who are crticising the article, read another publication, there are plenty for those who don't want to be challenged. Time Out is not one of those, and for that I am grateful. Posted on May 17 2006 12:14
- Report as inappropriate
-
- smcgiff said...
-
'It seems that the critic already knew what to say before he actually watched the movie.' '
I'm guessing he pretty knew what he was in for from reading the turgid book.
Are there ever bad movies, and if so, can they be criticised? Apparently not going by those sitting up on their high horses.
I was hoping that a dreadful book, but with an essentially interesting story, could be portrayed better on screen. From what I’ve heard I won’t be holding my breath – I will hold out for the DVD though. Posted on May 17 2006 11:52 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Open Christian said...
- It seems that the critic already knew what to say before he actually watched the movie. Posted on May 17 2006 11:09
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Jman said...
-
hey calhoun.. i'm amazed.. what are you doing to keep so healthy? i mean.. you're so sure of your version of history.. so.. you've been walking the earth for a few thousand years.. and witnessed jesus in all his glory.
you're a fool. Posted on May 17 2006 11:07 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Aminal said...
- Hell, at least you guys are reading books :) Posted on May 17 2006 10:49
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Aminal said...
-
"jack said...
sounds like a christian "
^^ sounds like a dan brown fanboi. Posted on May 17 2006 10:47 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Bill Keeler said...
-
Dave Calhoun is clearly just expressing his opinion, which I believe is his job as a film critic.
He's also seen the film, unlike, I'm assuming, the rest of you have.
Therefore, why don't you all just pipe down, then come back and make some constructive cricism when you've actually viewed it? Posted on May 17 2006 10:47 - Report as inappropriate
-
- David Lynch said...
- Another second rate journalist who is trying to get a decent job by criticising an eagerly anticipated film. I haven’t seen the film nor am I not an eager fan of the DaVinci code franchise so one can't dismiss me as a fan who takes this criticism personally. I would love to know what films the author of this trashy piece of alleged journalism thinks are the best pieces of artistic work. Maybe he hasn’t learned how to read what the genres of films are yet but it’s a work of fiction and should be reviewed as such. We don’t hear archaeologists organising protests because Indiana Jones finds a lost ark or a temple of doom. Hopefully this journalist has another profession because he should retire from journalism for inflicting this awful piece of writing on us. Posted on May 17 2006 10:27
- Report as inappropriate
-
- JERRY OUSLANDER said...
-
I AM MY OWN CRITIC.
YOUR REVIEW STUNK.
RON HOWARD IS AN EXCELLENT DIRECTOR AND TOM HANKS AND CREW ARE EXCELLENT ACTORS. GET WITH THE PROGRAM. YOU CRITICS
ONLY LIKE MOVIES THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN UNDERSTAND. Posted on May 17 2006 09:13 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Huge Jazz said...
- As a devoted Christian with a sense of humor and faith, which is not mutually exclusive, I see the book as great fiction. The movie should be viewed just as any such movie; the perfect place to check reality at the door and have a good time. Posted on May 17 2006 08:07
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Dr. E. Ruth Green said...
-
The movie gets to our town Friday. Can't wait to see it.
Loved the book. Ron Howard usually does a superb job. I plan to be first in line. Posted on May 17 2006 07:58 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Shannon Scott said...
- It's just a movie. Get off your pedestal sit down for 2 hours and just try to enjoy a story. Wait that's right you can't enjoy anything because your to busy picking everything and everybody apart because thats the only way you can feel good about yourself. Posted on May 17 2006 07:54
- 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