NEW IN THEATERS: The Da Vinci Code

THE DA VINCI CODE (2006)

My Rating: * ½ (out of *****)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina
Director: Ron Howard

My Review:
So dark the con of man, indeed. This intriguing line from Dan Brown’s bestselling novel is transposed into Ron Howard’s incessantly hyped, critically lambasted, financially successful film adaptation with a piercing irony. The con, it turns out, is not the story’s proclaimed dupe of undiscerning Christian believers by murderous, power-hungry church officials, but rather, the insidious ruse of a clever, forked-tongued author and the filmmakers who have prepared his pseudo-historical fiction for millions of gullible viewers.

The Da Vinci Code’s plot is at once exceedingly complex and shockingly simplistic. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, pasty and laconic, but employing enough of his everyman charm to semi-successfully pull off the role) reveals – through a series of car chases, near escapes, and long-winded exposition – “the greatest cover-up in human history” when he and French cryptographer Sophie Neveu (Tautou, losing almost all of her Amelie winsomeness, but solid nonetheless) investigate the bizarre and grotesque murder of Sophie’s grandfather in the bowels of the Louvre museum.

Tracked by a relentless French policeman (Reno, bland) and a psychotic, homicidal, sadomasochistic albino monk of the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei (Bettany, sometimes overacting, mostly frightening), Robert and Sophie join with the eccentric recluse Sir Leigh Teabing (McKellan, always a feisty delight) to learn of the early Christian church’s suppression of the “sacred feminine” and of the “human invention” of Jesus Christ’s divinity, among other things. It all pans out to be a case of the old Gnostic heresies (raised and disproved centuries ago, being almost as ancient as Christianity itself), dressed up in simpering postmodernism that doesn’t say anything definitive about anything, and if it does, clearly highlights the allegedly divine nature of Mary Magdalene over that of Jesus.

So, let’s begin with the notoriously bad reviews received by The Da Vinci Code. Purely as motion picture entertainment, this movie is not nearly as awful as it has been made out to be. The pacing and direction are clunky, with way too much telling and not enough showing, but what is told is interesting. As a result, the film is not boring by any means. The talented cast is underused, but certainly not laughable or lifeless as described by many a critic. Other qualities such as cinematography and music are serviceable if not spectacular.

The real problem with The Da Vinci Code (and thus why it merits a one-and-a-half star rating from this reviewer) is the same as that of its source material: pure fantasy and bald-faced lies using real titles, events, and persons to give the impression – at least on the surface – of suppressed historical fact. Many will surely dismiss the controversy over film and novel with cries of “It’s only fiction.” True. Alas, Dan Brown, while calling his work a “novel,” also states that all of the architecture, rituals, organizations, artwork, and documents described within are “accurate.” Hmm. Sounds like a have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too politician to me. And to be sure, the discerning reader and moviegoer will not be influenced in any way by this preposterous baloney. However, and most unfortunately, the average entertainment consumer does not often question media presentations that appear to be true, especially when they convey such ear-tickling, middle-of-the-road nonsense statements as “Why couldn’t Jesus have been divine and married? Maybe human is divine.” (the aforementioned “simpering postmodernism”).

Hopefully, some moviegoers will be challenged and encouraged to look into the real Jesus as a result of seeing this film. Some will want to know more. But sadly, this movie will probably confirm more doubts and encourage more erroneous beliefs about Christ than it will direct people towards truth. For that reason, and for its wildly imbalanced portrayal of those who do believe in Christ’s divinity as perversely disturbed liars and killers, The Da Vinci Code – which (all other things remaining constant) would have garnered a much higher rating given a more honest approach to the subject matter – gets the dubious distinction of being the worst film I’ve seen so far this year.

PG-13 (a joke – the MPAA should be called to task for making this movie accessible to all ages), for scenes of graphic violence, including a lingering, explicit scene of nude self-flagellation with homoerotic, sadomasochistic overtones, as well as mature subject matter, brief sexuality including verbal references, some language, and a momentary drug reference