Da Good, Da Bad, Da Vinci Code

* * *

Just because you kiss a toad doesn’t mean you’re going to get a prince. Likewise, just because you take one of the best selling books of all time, load it up with star-power and pitch-it on the Today Show doesn’t mean you’re going to get . . . a prince. Maybe all you’ll get is a scruffy guy who’s a bit of fun, but that’s better than a toad.

I read The Da Vinci Code a couple of years ago, while in Paris. At one point I stood in the courtyard at the Louvre and counted all the panes of glass in the I.M. Pae Pyramid (those of you who‘ve read the book will understand). There are not 666 panes of glass, but that incorrect fact didn’t ruin the spell of the book. Dan Brown’s fictional work is a fast and clearly compelling tale: published in 2003, it’s sold over 60 million copies.

Alas, a good book does not always a good movie make, and when National Treasure, with Nicholas Cage, was released in 2004 I became suspicious that there were certainly film movements that were not going to work well. Treasure was a fast, furious follow-the-clue’s mystery that whittled itself down to boring and forecast the possible fate of The Da Vinci Code. So, as I sat in the theater watching “Code” I looked around and noticed one thing- no boredom. There may have been scoffing from the religious right and nodding heads from feminist, but- critic’s be damned- this movie seems to have enough power to get people to remove their popcorn feedbags and pay attention.

When the curator of the Louvre Museum is found murdered, visiting professor of religious symbology Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), gets caught up in the investigation. The curator's granddaughter, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), joins Langdon and the two set off on an all-night race into the French countryside, where Langdon's friend and colleague, Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), helps solve the riddle of the murder and more.

The real controversy begins here with Teabing's theories about Da Vinci's portrait of "The Last Supper" and the Catholic Church's supposed smearing of Mary Magdalene. The film attempts to soften some of the books more radical approach to the subject, but the message is clear and can’t be avoided. A small chorus of jeers, and uncomfortable coughs took place during this particular scene. A little controversy is okay, but Sony Pictures isn't about to release a film that directly attacks the principles of Christianity. So, Langdon acts as the foil to cushion Teabing‘s assault on the church. This doesn’t work, however, since Teabing turns out to be a brighter screen personality than Langdon, the movie's voice of reason.

Pursued by a crazed albino monk, the police and a fanatic fringe of the church, Hanks and Tautou can do no more than run, grab a clue and run some more. This keeps the pace of the film rapid and sometimes unreasonably muddled, but that’s how the director, Ron Howard, packs as much of the novel's plotting into the screenplay as possible.

The primary problem stems from the fact that the book is filled with so much that it is difficult to transfer every important clue to the screen. Even with a lengthy run time and some of the most original and interesting flashbacks ever produced, the film is sometimes a difficult jumble of a story. The film has it’s obvious problems but it’s good enough to take in on a hot summer afternoon and feel like you haven’t been totally ripped off. That’s more than I can say for a lot of films these days.