Dylan's Movie Review: "The Da Vinci Code"

Drama works best when the audience knows as much or more than the characters involved. We don't like to be preached to or taught by the films we watch; this is exactly what happens throughout Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code.

The movie, adapted from Dan Brown's bestselling novel of the same name, begins with the murder of the curator of the Louvre, Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle), by a strange hooded man, Silas (Paul Bettany). Immediately after he is shot, the movie shifts to show the protagonist, Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), giving a speech on the role of symbols in our culture. Afterwards, Langdon is approached by Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), who solicits Langdon's help in deciphering the strange symbols left by Sauniere at the scene of his murder.

Dr. Langdon meets Sophie Neveu (famed Audrey Tautou, of Amelie) at the scene, where she reveals that Fache believes he is guilty of the murder. They quickly escape from his clutches and begin to decipher seemingly limitless clues left behind by the murdered Sauniere, always getting closer and closer to the "truth." This "truth" is dependent on a long string of rewritten history and debatable facts, stemming from the idea that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child by her.

This history is the chief hurdle that the film must face, and it does so awkwardly. By necessity, the characters become preachy. Half an hour into the film, we are already tired of Langon's constant exclamations of amazement at symbols only he knows the meaning of. Likewise, the interchanges that disclose the elaborate mythology of various historical groups important to Langdon and Neveu's search, such as the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion, are hindered by unnecessary, cumbersome dialogue.

The uncomfortable aspects of these scenes are slightly offset by lengthy flashback footage during long explanations of doctrine. Fortunately, these scenes allow the film to show us history, rather than tell us, alleviating the feeling of being in a classroom.

Once the background is explained and we understand the history of Dan Brown's world, the movie becomes a rather straightforward crossbreeding of mystery and thriller. We are able relate to Langdon as he comes down from his scholarly perch and allows us to solve the riddles and mysteries along with him, causing the movie to be more engaging.

These riddles lead us through a host of historical locales, from the Louvre in the beginning to Westminster Abbey to various Cathedrals throughout France and England. These help to lend a somewhat artificial importance to the film, drawing on the history of each individual place and piece of the plot.

The film could easily do without this somewhat pretentious connection to the past. While this may not have been true of the book, the movie works as a detective thriller, which saves it from the long, clumsy historical dissertations of the first section. This makes it, while not necessarily intriguing, a bearable way to spend two hours.