# Film: The Da Vinci Code (2006)



## Anthony G Williams (Feb 26, 2012)

Dan Brown's *The Da Vinci Code* (TDVC) is probably one of the most famous and also the most notorious novels of the last decade. The former for its huge international sales success, the latter for the clunky writing style and the fact that the author pretended that some long-discredited theories about the basis of the Catholic religion were true. As I posted in my review of his 2009 book *The Lost Symbol*, _"I read TDVC when it first came out, before all of the public furore, and while I didn't think much of the author's writing style I was intrigued by the plot. This was obviously a mixture of fact and fiction and had me guessing as to which was which. It seems it had the author guessing as well, since he took literally a fictional source, but that didn't hurt sales."_

I watched, with rather mixed feelings, the film of TDVC shortly after its release. When it came up on TV recently I decided to give it another look. I won't comment on the religious and other controversies which accompanied both the book and the film, except to note that the principal character, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), displays a rather more sceptical attitude to the main plot elements than he does in the book. I also won't describe the plot - it's very well known, and anyone who doesn't know it can easily find a summary on the internet. Instead, I'll just concentrate on it as a piece of film-making.

It starts off rather badly in the Louvre, with a man receiving an eventually fatal gunshot wound. He survives for long enough to write a series of coded messages in various places (using an ink only visible in the ultraviolet), then undresses and decorates his body with symbols before finally expiring. I couldn't help wondering why, if he had so much time, he didn't just call an ambulance. That rather set the scene for the rest of the film, a series of more or less improbable set-pieces flying past with such speed that there was scarcely time for more of a response than an occasional "But…" or "Hang on a minute…".

To be fair, the film makers had a problem in that the book is just the same. Furthermore, they couldn't really miss much out without making the story even more confusing. They set themselves the impossible task of covering a long and action-packed novel within the time limitations of a single feature film. Even with a bladder-testing running length of 2.5 hours, this was nowhere near enough - they should have split it into at least two films (or a TV mini-series) which would have given them enough room to improve on the book by developing the characters beyond two dimensions.

Despite all of this, it is a just about watchable if decidedly frantic film (provided you keep hitting your "yes, but…" alter ego on the head) and I found the penultimate scene, in which the heroine (Audrey Tautou) discovers her origin, surprisingly moving. 

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## CyBeR (Feb 26, 2012)

I remember watching this in the cinema with a friend. The room was remarkable in how empty it was, aside from me and her there being about 3 or 4 other people, one of them leaving halfway through. 

It's remarkable how little I remember from the film. To be fair it's from a period where my memory is a bit cluttered with a lot of adjacent stuff. 
I was bored most of the film and we both considered our chips to be far more interesting than the film itself. I think that because of the great hype surrounding the whole thing I was expecting a bit too much. 

Otherwise, spot on review.


----------



## williamjm (Feb 26, 2012)

CyBeR said:


> I was bored most of the film and we both considered our chips to be far more interesting than the film itself. I think that because of the great hype surrounding the whole thing I was expecting a bit too much.



I agree it was a dull film. The book is ludicrously plotted and in many ways poorly written but at least it was fast-paced and reasonably entertaining to read. The film managed to preserve the book's weaknesses but managed to make the story more tedious, it's probably one of Hanks' dullest performances although Ian McKellan was more entertaining.


----------



## steve12553 (Feb 26, 2012)

The reviews of both the book and the film always amaze me. I found his style a little simple and the stories a little far fetched but easy to read (or watch) and with a little suspension of disbelief they were OK. Maybe I'm just being a little simple-minded and taking them only for what they are (works of fiction) rather than assuming they are either legitimate attacks on the Catholic Church or proof God exists. This book (and film) always seems to evoke so much passion for a work that essensially starts out with "What if?"
And to honest this discussion probably belongs on a different forum. It's really a mystery rather than Science Fiction or Fantasy. It's not a bad mystery but it does require that you not analyze it too much to be appreceated.


----------



## Wish (Feb 26, 2012)

I've found all of the books and movies outrageously silly, but enjoyable. The Angels and Demons novel had one particularly egregious scene, that was fortunately omitted from the movie. 

I still think they're fun, and I'll get the Lost Symbol movie on netflix someday down the road.


----------



## Rodders (Feb 27, 2012)

I've no interest in these movies at all. The books were fun, but i can't believe that people were so taken in by them.


----------

