The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Directed by Ron Howard (Angels & Demons, Ransom, Apollo 13), The Da Vinci Code is based on the popular novel written by Dan Brown. It stars Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, a symbologist who is sent on a wild religious goose chase when an elderly man is found dead at the Louvre in a very unique way. Due to the clues left by the man, Langdon and a cryptographer, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), are not only out to figure out the clues, but on the run from the police who think Langdon is the killer. They travel to see an old friend of Langdon’s, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), who enlightens Sophie on the true nature of some “wrong” misconceptions in the Christian religion, starting with Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper painting.
The Da Vinci Code is just like the movie Dogma, just without all the comedy and charming moment… oh and Jay and Silent Bob. The movie is pretty spot on with the book except in the book there are 2 cryptex used rather than the 1 that is shown in the movie. I actually prefered the movie over the book because Ron Howard took some particular things from the book and made them more concrete rather than open-ended and left to speculation as in the book. I thought the “other” ideas to the Christian Religion were intriguing and interesting, as usually that kind of stuff you can see on the History Channel regarding secret organizations and cover up conspiracies. As a major blockbuster, the Da Vinci Code could have been more dramatic and dolled-up, but since it is based off a book, I firmly believe that the book should be the script, and Ron Howard did it justice. Co-starring Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina and Jean Reno.
8/10 Stars – Interesting and enlightening, better than the book!
The following is from a review I wrote back in 2006 the day after I saw the movie for the first time:
(In regards to the critics) My theory is that everyone who read the book was so sucked in by the controversial topics that no one realized just how talkative and unaction-packed this book really is. Critics are also saying how Ron Howard is going soft and is skipping around the topic, but all I saw him do was recreate the book. If anyone should be criticized, it should be Dan Brown (and he was). He is the one that wrote the book that Howard is using to make the movie. However, now that people are actually “seeing” the story (and a story they already know the ending to) they are now seeing just how dull it actually is. When I read the book, all I kept saying the whole time was “when is this going to pick up because all they are doing is TALKING!?!?”
Well now that the movie is out and I’ve seen it, I came to the conclusion that Ron Howard got the story more correct than Dan Brown did! I mean in the book, Brown leaves a lot of the topics open-ended and makes us assume a lot towards the end. In the book, Brown doesn’t come out and tell us about the true blood line but in movie they sure make it clear. Also at the very end, Brown leads us to believe that Langdon has found the tomb just before leaving us hanging as to whether or not the double pyramid is actually the site of the tomb or just the symbol that it once existed. In the movie, however, Howard sure helps us see what its all about and I enjoyed that greatly.
All in all, the movie did more for me then the book did. The only negative I have for the movie is that only one of the cryptex devices are used instead of two like in the book, but I guess they had to shorten it somehow. If you are one of those many out there saying that the movie is to talkative and boring, I suggest you reread the book and discover that the movie is based on a book that is talkative and boring.
Click below for links to IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes