The Da Vinci Code

A lot of ink has been spilled over Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code and Ron Howard’s movie version of the same. Since 'brevity is the soul of wit' here’s my review in a mere five words:

Tularemia Roll Fry Of Voodoo.

That’s not a Creole dish made with a summer rabbit, it's an anagram, which are to great effect in the movie. See if you can figure it out before you come to the end of the review.

The Da Vinci Code is a big movie, shot in France and the UK, and filled with stars from two continents.

It’s also a sprawling movie. In the movie exhibition business they have an expression called ‘popcorn movies’ that refers to movies like, say, National Treasure wherein patrons buy a lot of concessions to go with the movie. I don’t know if The Da Vinci Code is a popcorn movie or not, but be smart and don’t try to make it a ‘large Coke movie’ unless you have a particularly patient bladder.

That said, the filmmakers didn’t have much of a choice. The book is plot thick. So hats off to both Howard and the screenwriter for finding middle ground.

The plot of The Da Vinci Code is well known. An American symbologist (don’t ask) played by Tom Hanks, is implicated in the death of a French professor in the Louvre. But with the help of a cute French police officer (Audrey Tautou), he cleverly avoids arrest for a crime he didn’t commit.

While in the Louvre, Hanks and Tautou are drawn into a kind of treasure hunt for the Holy Grail. Hot on their tracks are a police detective played with Inspecter Javier-like determination by French actor Jean Reno, and a fanatic albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany). All three parties converge at the countryside villa of Sir Leigh Teabing, a lifelong Grail-hound played by Ian McKellen, who apparently gets to be in every blockbuster movie.

Hanks, Tautou, McKellen and Bettany escape to London where they pick up the trail of the Grail in the cathedral where Sir Isaac Newton is interred. But is the Grail something that can be held in the hand?

Howard does a fair job directing the movie and the performances are uniformly good, albeit Bettany's accent is a little too Inigo Montoya-ish to be taken entirely seriously. But I have two objections to Howard’s direction. If you read the book, you know it’s almost impossible to put down. And while the pace of the film is steady as a heartbeat, it never made my pulse race.

Howard also chooses to depict Bettany’s fanaticism several times by showing him flagellate himself while naked. Everyone who read the book (and everyone else, for that matter) knows what's coming for Bettany's character, so to keep depicting his fanaticism that way was gratuitous.

There’s a lot I’ve glossed over and plenty to anger Christians, especially Catholics.

Nonetheless, I took The Da Vinci Code, (book and movie) to be a yarn, and a good one at that, but not an actual conspiracy, or history, or truth.

Decoded my anagrammatic review of The Da Vinci Code is; “a lot of movie for your dollar.”

The Da Vinci Code is rated PG-13 for “disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content.”

I grade The Da Vinci Code as a C.

The Dollar Movie Review Grading System: The Dollar Movie Review grades on a curve. Movies that make choices to be course or vulgar are downgraded a full to a half grade or more. Likewise, movies that don’t gross out or offend too much can be upgraded as ‘a thanks for trying’ attaboy. Without the excessive self-flagellation I would have graded it a B+. My grading relies on the fact that I was able to separate the central premise of The Da Vinci Code… which pointedly undermines one of the great religions… from the movie itself. If you can’t do the same, you probably won’t like The Da Vinci Code.