The Da Vinci Code (2006) - An Unnecessary Fuss

I haven’t even read the book so cannot say that the book is better or the movie. But like every other movie fan who waits for a good anticipated movie, I too waited for the screen adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci code”.

The movie had already generated enough publicity and controversy and most of the crowd in the theatre were just to see what was it that people were afraid of? I have been to the theatre after a long time now and that too for the second day show was something out of the ordinary.

The story is something which was supposed to shake the very foundation of Christianity. The story starts with the murder of the elderly curator of the famous Paris Museum Louvre. While being injured with a bullet in the stomach, the curator in his dying moment uses his body to make leave some clues about is killer. The French police invites symbologist Robert Langdon to find the meaning of the symbols the curator leaves for them. What follows is the journey from Paris to Zurich to London to find the mystery behind the meaning. Assisting him is the French cryptologist Sophie Neveu.

Now the story is supposed to be thriller with a lot of history thrown in. The way the history is interpreted is convincing enough. The clues lies in the painting by Da Vinci paintings.

Reading a book and seeing a movie are two different things. A book holds a magic where the imagining is left to the reader. A reader can imagine a number of ways a situation can happen but when you try to squeeze a 300+ pages book into 150 minutes, the result can be a fast paced thriller. What happens here is nothing of that sort. The movie takes its own time to set things up. Although the action starts right after the opening credits, there is hardly any excitement.

The other problem was the use of French in the movie. As we sat in the Dutch theatre, the subtitles were in Dutch. So many things were lost to us. Another problem is for people who have very little or no idea about Christianity and its history. The story and the motive is completely lost to them. The conversation between the actors does not make it simpler.

Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon. He is good actor but aging and his age shows in the movie. He does not much scope for acting though. Audrey Tautou is a French actress and plays Sophie Neveu. She is a good actress and speaks with a French accent. For the first 10 minutes I thought she was speaking French.

In a thriller, when the lead actors are caught in a desperate situation, what matters is the chemistry between the two. Here there exist no chemistry between the Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou. They act through the movie like a pre-defined script with pre-defined conversation.

As for the supporting cast, they are ok. Jean Reno as Captain Fache of the French police. Paul Bettany as Silas who would do anything for the religion.

 

As for the controversy, there seems to be none. The writer suggest a theory based on history interpreting it as he wants to. Though doing a much convincing job, the climax falls short on expectation. When Christian organization threatened to protest against the movie, it would have been better if they would have just seen the movie. After seeing the movie, we wonder what was the whole fuss about.

It is worth seeing once but does not have repeat value. Not one scene which would remain etched in your mind.

Rating : 5/10