- Home
- Cinemascope News:
- This Week's Reviews:
- Cinemascope Five:
- Contact Cinemascope
Submitted by cinemascope on Fri, 2006-05-19 16:13. :: Contemporary
Movie title:
The Da Vinci Code
Starring:
Tom Hanks, Audrey Tatou, Sir Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno
Directed by:
Ron Howard
Written by:
Akiva Goldsman, from the novel by Dan Brown
Genre:
Mystery/Thriller
Year:
2006
Country:
USA
Language:
English
Runtime:
149 mins
Imdb:
Rating:
Synopsis
Robert Langdon, professor in 'symbology' is drawn into a mystery thousands of years old after a murder at The Louvre. Along with Sophie Neveu he must get to the bottom of the mystery of the location - and the composition - of the Holy Grail.
Robert Langdon, professor in 'symbology' is drawn into a mystery thousands of years old after a murder at The Louvre. Along with Sophie Neveu he must get to the bottom of the mystery of the location - and the composition - of the Holy Grail.
Review
Even detractors of Dan Brown's hugely succesful novel (and there were many) generally conceded that the narrative was compelling and that it would make a good movie. This isn't that movie though. Whether the fault is with Brown's source material (probably), Akiva Goldsman's script (certainly) or Ron Howard's direction (at least partly) is arguable, but what isn't is that this is a boring drudge of a movie, where the characters are wafer-thin (Hanks' characterisation of Langdon relies heavily on him having - gasp! - slightly longer than normal hair), the dialogue is mainly made up of explaining things in the most moronic way, the music is overbearing, and the entire movie plays out almost entirely in the dark. By the time the plot twist comes, you don't really care anymore. Performances are on the whole, OK, with only Ian McKellen rising above it all by treating the whole thing with an archness that is avoided by Howard who treats the script with a ponderous reverence it doesn't deserve. No doubt this will be a colossal hit anyway, but I'll be surprised if anyone who does go will be satisfied with this adaptation.
Even detractors of Dan Brown's hugely succesful novel (and there were many) generally conceded that the narrative was compelling and that it would make a good movie. This isn't that movie though. Whether the fault is with Brown's source material (probably), Akiva Goldsman's script (certainly) or Ron Howard's direction (at least partly) is arguable, but what isn't is that this is a boring drudge of a movie, where the characters are wafer-thin (Hanks' characterisation of Langdon relies heavily on him having - gasp! - slightly longer than normal hair), the dialogue is mainly made up of explaining things in the most moronic way, the music is overbearing, and the entire movie plays out almost entirely in the dark. By the time the plot twist comes, you don't really care anymore. Performances are on the whole, OK, with only Ian McKellen rising above it all by treating the whole thing with an archness that is avoided by Howard who treats the script with a ponderous reverence it doesn't deserve. No doubt this will be a colossal hit anyway, but I'll be surprised if anyone who does go will be satisfied with this adaptation.
