The Da Vinci Code

When I first saw a trailer for “Inferno”, the third chapter in Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon series, it sparked my interest. I hadn’t seen either of the previous films so it was time to do some homework. First up, “Angels & Demons”, a thriller so loony I thought it was “So Bad it’s Good”. I was bouncing with excitement for “The Da Vinci Code”. What would this film hold in store? Is the Mona Lisa going to end up being a portrait of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s daughter? Did Leonardo Da Vinci participate in super conspiracies to hide the truth about the Vatican? Is the Vetruvian man some kind of key to hidden destinies for mankind?! Eeeinh! None of the above. Instead, it’s a low-key, relatively uninteresting and not all that zany thriller hardly worth the controversy it raised.

American symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned to the Louvre where he is confronted with the body of his dead colleague. Joined by the victim’s granddaughter, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), they discover a hidden message that may reveal the location of the Holy Grail. They attempt to find the Grail while dodging the police (who believe that Langdon is the murderer) and a mysterious, murderous albino monk (Paul Bettany)

There are certainly some provocative allegations in the film, enough to make people upset. Don’t avoid the film because it accuses the Catholic Church of taking part in a massive cover-up or for the inflammatory allegations about religious figures; avoid it because it’s not really worth paying attention to. I was coming into the film excited. I wanted it to be a hodgepodge of nonsensical developments so admittedly, I wasn’t expecting it to be GOOD, but the last thing I expected was to be underwhelmed or even bored. Firstly, the plot is contrived and doesn’t make that much sense. As Langdon and Neveu start chasing down the Holy Grail, they encounter a slew of overly cryptic clues that no human could solve while on the run. I know it’s a mystery plot and that our characters are smarter than the average bears, but it gets to be downright ridiculous. I expected a phone call, maybe a letter mailed to Langdon, not a coded clue written in blood leading to another clue, leading to a puzzle, leading to another enigma. It feels like a plot that the Riddler would’ve cooked up. I know that sounds exciting, but it isn’t. Which leads me to my second major criticism….

The grand orchestration that is being unraveled, it doesn’t hold up. A big plot point involves our heroes looking for ancient remains, bones that would blow the lid off a massive cover-up. Answer me this. A) Even if they found the bones, what would they REALLY prove? Whose DNA would they compare it to in order to reveal anything? B) Even if they could prove that the remains discovered belongs to who they say it does… wouldn’t that HELP evil albino Silas and his employers? I don’t know about you, but if someone came up to me and said “Hey! I found Merlin’s Tomb! And I can prove it’s him! ” I’d believe in King Arthur. I wouldn’t dismiss the whole thing as fantasy.

In truth, all this is nitpicking. Those issues pale in comparison to the biggest problem in “The Da Vinci Code”. What should feel like high stakes, don’t. There’s not a lot of energy present on-screen. When you learn about the different pieces leading to the big puzzle at the end of the rainbow, most of the time you’ll meet them with a raised eyebrow, an incredulous look and a “Really? That’s the best you’ve got? ” I can see how this story might’ve worked as a novel. There you’d get inside people’s heads and follow the trains of thought as they figure out devastating revelations. On film, it simply doesn’t work. Multiple times throughout, the picture relies on cheap tactics to keep you interested. I couldn’t believe it when the camera moved away from a key conversation just as a name was about to be revealed. That’s hackneyed writing at it’s finest, the equivalent of having a loud train pass just as a password is being whispered from one person to another! Even the ending is a big letdown. I know they probably didn’t want to stray from the book, but once again, it’s so low-key that it made me wonder why I bothered with it in the first place. Then there’s the fact that it leaves a bunch of loose ends untied. What about Alfred Molina’s character, Bishop Aringarosa or the blatant abuse of the justice system by Jean Reno’s character? Is that not going to be addressed? I’m sorry, make way for more flashbacks and visual representations of what we already know!

If, like me, you’re intrigued by the franchise due to a new chapter being released this year, “The Da Vinci Code” will be a letdown. Those curious about the big controversies that were raised by its theatrical release will recognize why people were lighting torches and brandishing pitchforks, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t pay off to peek at this “forbidden” thriller. After “Angels & Demons”, I was extremely excited for “The Da Vinci Code” and unfortunately, it left me cold and unimpressed. (On DVD, October 2, 2016)