Dan Brown's Bestselling Dreck Gets the Half-Assed Treatment It Deserves
The Da Vinci Code / Jeremy C. Fox
For once in their charmed lives, it’s possible to pity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. After all the media hype and Christian vitriol, how could their adaptation of Dan Brown’s 40-bazillion-selling thriller The Da Vinci Code be anything but a disappointment? Though the book has apparently entertained about a quarter of the world’s population, it’s nothing more than a slim, overcomplicated premise supported by characters that are about as three-dimensional as the guests at Charles Grodin’s “party” in The Lonely Guy and dressed up in overheated prose that makes Dean Koontz look like Gore Vidal.
I spent the past couple of years inwardly mocking Da Vinci Code readers and loathing Brown for his ignorance — anyone who knows a thing about art history knows that the man’s name was Leonardo, fer Chrissakes; he had no surname; “da Vinci” just tells you that he was from a little town in Tuscany — that is, until I drew the short straw and agreed to review the movie version, and my sense of responsibility required that I at least find out what all the hubbub was about. So I finally read the damn thing — as surreptitiously as possible — thinking that it couldn’t be that bad. Well, it is and it isn’t. From the outset, it’s clear that Brown is a prose stylist like I’m an ice dancer. Here’s the very first paragraph of the prologue:
Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.
The thing is, while you’re reading the book, it seems very cinematic. Brown builds suspense by constantly cutting back and forth between a variety of situations, building to a series of mini-climaxes that keep you wondering just what bizarre twist he’ll come up with next; it’s a crude technique, but it’s effective at drawing you in. Yet the book is far too talky to be easily adapted for film; it’s all plot and exposition. If you were to take just the speeches that explain its mythology and read them aloud straight through, it would more than fill the movie’s two-and-a-half-hour running time.
The only way to make the movie work would be to somehow stay true enough to the source material to please its millions of fans while rejiggering it sufficiently that the characters had some depth, the dialogue resembled human speech, and the exhausting, headlong rush through two millennia of pseudohistory actually seemed to make sense; if there’s a way to go about that, I’ll be damned if I know what it is. Certainly, I wouldn’t begin by hiring Akiva Goldsman to write the screenplay. Here, in full, are Goldsman’s screenwriting credits to date: The Client; Silent Fall; Batman Forever; A Time to Kill; Batman & Robin; Lost in Space; Practical Magic; A Beautiful Mind; I, Robot; Cinderella Man; The Da Vinci Code. Anyone sensing a trend here? Like maybe a tendency to take existing material that’s already shallow, bland, and conventional and find a way to somehow make it shallower, blander, and so predictable you can guess the ending before the opening titles are over? (I’m willing to exempt parts of The Client, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man from my excoriation, but only because Susan Sarandon and Russell Crowe can pull off almost anything.) It’s worth noting that there is but one title on the list (Silent Fall) that isn’t an adaptation, and that, on five of the 11, Goldsman had a credited co-writer and — WGA-arbitrated credits being what they are — God knows how many uncredited ones. With a track record like that, an uncharitable person might be tempted to guess that the other writers contributed any parts of those scripts that worked; a more generous soul might just say that Goldsman is an enormous hack. At any rate, it’s safe to assume that it’s been a long time since he’s had a normal, non-Hollywood conversation; his tin ear for dialogue is metallurgically surpassed only by the lead pipe with which he drives home a point, any point.
Then there’s The Ron Howard Problem. Howard has never been a particularly distinctive director — name me a signature Howard touch, I dare you, and excessive schmaltz doesn’t count. Like Robert Zemeckis, he’s strictly Spielberg-lite: all of the boys-with-toys flash and the reactionary fantasies (Why can’t it be the ’50s again, Mommy?) with none of the master’s flair. Howard has some talent, but he relies too much on cheap audience manipulation; indeed he’s at his best when, like a sleight-of-hand artist, he keeps us too distracted by what’s going on up front for us to notice how willfully he’s gouging at our emotions. Which is not to say that he can’t occasionally deliver a worthwhile film, particularly when he has the right leading man; Crowe was able to offset Cinderella Man’s Horatio Alger corn with enough genuine feeling that it slipped right through my cynicism bubble, and Apollo 13, despite its grueling length, managed to keep me involved in the astronauts’ plight, largely due to Hanks’ engaging Everyman quality. What’s disappointing is that, while Howard was able to maintain suspense in both those films despite our foreknowledge of how everything would come out, in The Da Vinci Code — whose central themes, if not all aspects of its resolution, are almost universally known by now — everything feels slack and uninvolving almost from the get-go. The characters are too blandly inhuman for us to really care about their fates; even the considerable charms of Hanks and Audrey Tautou aren’t enough to compensate for their characters’ limp conceptions. (Though Ian McKellen is just grand, delivering each hambone line with relish — what is it about classically trained British actors that they always have such infectious fun with over-the-top characters?) The endless convolutions of the plot, which were often genuinely thrilling on the page despite Brown’s inept writing, just seem like one damn thing after another, with no real purpose except that Scene H makes no sense without Scene G, which must follow Scenes E and F. Ironically, the film serves as a useful critique of the book: It inadvertently points out weaknesses in the text that I overlooked while reading it because I was actually being entertained.
As for Hanks, well, playing the tiresome pedant Robert Langdon represents perhaps the final step in the Costnerization of his career. You know the story: Likable young actor with a puckish quality charms the public, wins some respect with a few impressive performances in offbeat roles, takes advantage of his newfound clout to play auteur for a little while, then coasts into middle age with a series of truly dull parts in middle-of-the road movies, eroding whatever affection we once had for them. In the book, Langdon is famously described as “Harrison Ford in Harris tweed,” and in fact it’s a perfect Ford role: underwritten and purely functional, more an aspect of the plot than an individual person. It’s a waste of that particular Hanks spark that won us over 20 years ago and a completely unnecessary miscasting — why throw away money on the one superstar-Tom the public actually still likes when the film’s real star is ultimately Brown’s damn novel? Howard could easily have hired a relative unknown — perhaps someone a few years younger who would have matched up better with the gorgeous 29-year-old Tautou — and used the millions he saved to hire a better writer than Goldsman. It’s sad to see Hanks, who usually tackles any role with such earnest enthusiasm, phoning it in, though I suppose it’s to his credit that he can’t quite seem to take Langdon seriously. But his inability to do anything with the role further hobbles the movie; a younger, hungrier actor might have been desperate enough to find a way to energize the flat character; as it is, he’s nothing more than a walking encyclopedia of arcana that occasionally — and all too briefly — exhibits a Hanksian sense of irony.
The film follows the novel pretty closely, even including some of the most godawful passages of dialogue, but, fortunately for the audience, time constraints have led Goldsman to chip away at many of Brown’s longueurs. The protagonists no longer take forever to figure out the simplest clues but, on the other hand, a lot less emphasis is placed on cracking the codes, downplaying the most interesting part of the book, and they sometimes make more exaggerated claims for the secrets that they do suss out. “So dark the con of man” is a silly enough phrase when Brown introduces it as an expedient anagram; when the movie’s Langdon explains that it’s a sort of in-house catch-phrase for the Priory of Sion — a French secret society that, naturally, conducts all formal correspondence and sloganeering in stilted English — it makes my skin crawl. By trying to give meaning and context to Brown’s hokum, Goldsman just makes it all seem that much more ridiculous.
For all the outraged Christians, the good news is that — if they don’t simply find the movie far too bland to get worked up over — Goldsman and Howard have made some changes to the story that allow for a little more doubt about its biblical-historical assertions. They aren’t interested in making the movie a referendum on Christianity; as much as they can, they give it a standard thriller treatment, taking on the religious issues only when Brown’s plot forces their hand, and their attitude toward the book’s blasphemies is straight out of Inherit the Wind, trying to work out how Christianity and apostasy can meet up for a nice cup of tea. The film exonerates the Vatican of any part in the conspiracy plot, showing the conspirators’ fears that they’d be excommunicated if their dirty deeds were ever found out. It also makes it clear early on that the heroes are skeptical about Brown’s premises and that the true believers are, well, less than heroic. When Langdon and Teabing lay out the story of the Holy Grail conspiracy for Sophie, Langdon challenges Teabing’s claims about the Priory of Sion and the Council of Nicaea, noting (accurately) that the P of S myth was discredited decades ago and that the C of N’s affirmation of Christ’s divinity was only an acquiescence to what was already widely believed.
What may be more interesting — and troubling — than the changes to the story’s religious aspects is what Goldsman and Howard do with Tautou’s character. They reduce Sophie to nothing more than the audience’s proxy — not only ignorant of the details of the Grail legend but essentially a spectator through much of the film. Far from being the brilliant cryptographer of the novel, she’s just along for the ride, there only to look pretty and occasionally beat someone over the head. Goldman takes away her intellectual gifts but then tries to beef the part back up by making her short-tempered and violent — more beat cop than codebreaker — while he makes Langdon more superhuman, giving him a near-eidetic memory that allows him to swiftly solve riddles without needing to rely on some silly girl. It’s an unfortunate irony that, in a movie about a 2,000-year conspiracy to repress the power of the “sacred feminine,” the female lead is there merely to be acted upon, never to act. But then, when you think about it, Brown’s supposedly feminist idea of the Magdalene’s specialness is pretty sexist itself, deriving solely from the notion that her womb was the repository for the holy jizz.
Jeremy C. Fox is a founding critic of Pajiba and a member of the Online Film Critics Society.You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.
Over the Hedge | | The Network Upfronts - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Comments
"holy jizz" hehehehehe
Posted by: maxpurr9 at May 20, 2006 1:38 AM
The one thing I disliked about the book was the lecture-style dialogue between the characters. I am disappointed to see it carried over into the film.
The audience in my theater was laughing due to the stilted dialogues.
Posted by: Sharon at May 20, 2006 5:24 AM
There were shots that, if you thought about it enough, looked like Hanks was so bored with his role as Langdon. When they were down in the crypt of Rossyln Chapel, and he was explaining everything to Sophie (total contrivance the way it was set up in the movie as opposed to the book), there was a scene where he had a "Ho-hum give me a break" look.
Ian McKellen made this movie as Teabing, I think, until he was revealed to be the Teacher. And what was with all the blood? Damn.
Posted by: duckandcover at May 20, 2006 5:31 AM
Great review as ever Jeremy! I haven't read the book and now I think i'll be avoiding the whole thing as much as possible
Posted by: Kat at May 20, 2006 8:56 AM
Well, then. That's $10.50 saved.
Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at May 20, 2006 9:07 AM
Personally, i was rooting for Silus throughout the movie. anything to break Hanks' deflated monotony
Posted by: Lj at May 20, 2006 9:18 AM
whenever I see someone who would NEVER ever read a book under normal circumstances absorbing the latest flavor of the month, I take it as a good sign not to jump on the bandwagon. I think I'll sit this one out and let the wagon pass. Thanks for saving my time and $$.
Posted by: Karenann at May 20, 2006 9:25 AM
I haven't read the book, have no desire to, and didn't really want to see the movie. Thanks for affirming my stance on this one.
Posted by: Alexandra Wojciechowska at May 20, 2006 9:37 AM
Did anyone else misread Teabing and think the character was named Teabag? I want to follow the adventures of Teabag. And I need glasses.
Posted by: ormond at May 20, 2006 9:41 AM
I think that Dan Brown goes to bed at night and dreams that he is Robert Langdon in all of his derring do -- a suave, chic, fancy-black-sweater-wearing, Ritz-staying god to pretty, young, French girls with an intellectual, literary bent. (Do I really see in the movie stills Langdon holding Sophie's hand as they RUN HEADLONG to wherever they are running?) Evidence? Brown's description of Langdon in the first part of the book matches his picture on the back of the dust cover. What a geek.
Posted by: Jizm -- a blast from the past at May 20, 2006 9:58 AM
Great review! Too bad about the movie. Tom was extremely miscast in this one. They should have gone with anybody except that guy. I loved this book but can see how difficult it can be to make into a fast paced movie. I am a Christian and yeah, there are SOME Christians out there that did not like this book and will most likely loathe the movie but they need to get over themselves. It's only a piece of of well written, well researched fiction, but they cant seem to understand that.
Posted by: Ashley at May 20, 2006 10:22 AM
Well, I don't know about "well written" or "well researched" (when your primary source is "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" there's not much of a chance that serious research is taking place) but it was a good yarn despite its many flaws. I was a bit curious about the movie until the reviews started coming out, though. I think I'll save my money now.
Posted by: Armando at May 20, 2006 11:04 AM
Ormond, I did that too hahaha.
Posted by: Jordan at May 20, 2006 11:22 AM
The book isn't THAT bad. A six hour cross country flight is all the time you need to read it, so if you're curious buy a cheap used copy and waste away an afternoon otherwise spent watching TV. Bummer about the movie, guess I'll be waiting for the DVD.
Posted by: Katy at May 20, 2006 11:35 AM
I saw this one last night with a few of my friends. We had all read the book and however poorly written, it was a fun read and one that I found it hard to put down. Fact is, it doesnt translate at all into a movie, period. Everytime the Priory or Knights Templar were first brought up, it cuts to Teabing or Langdon and then they go on for a few minutes explaining everything. (it was really just a voice over of a flashback sequence). It jumps around to much and the dialouge was stilted and at times, just plain bad.
The best scene and music in the movie was the final quest when he goes to the Louve (spelling) at the end. And even his jump in logic was quite profound as he finally "puts it together" ugh.
Posted by: Gigantor at May 20, 2006 11:44 AM
Give me a break people, don't be so heavy on the criticisms, are you novel writers? Film directors? Of course there's glitches but think of the message it transcends. It wasn't horrible, and I still have questions about it...but we didn't need any other actor for the part of Langdon, the guy wasn't suposed to be a broadway star, nor someone with a big sense of humor, just someone serious. There's lots of surprises in it too... I can't complain, time & money well spent.
Posted by: Lead at May 20, 2006 12:53 PM
I received the book as a gift and read it quickly enough, despite Dan Brown's "look at me, I'm a real writer!" prose. And I thought maybe, just maybe, the film would be able to be better than the book. Your review just confirms that a poorly written book simply transfers to a poor film....
I'm glad I'm saving my $.
Posted by: Jess at May 20, 2006 12:59 PM
has anyone else noted complete lack of mediocre movies this summer. i mean i have dropped low enough to not demand great or good. but hollywood cant even deliver mediocre?!?
Posted by: disgusted at May 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Well, well, well... some people are just so hard to please!
I read the book and loved it. No, it wasn't Pulitzer Prize material - it was a fast-paced FICTION novel, -- so don't except an Academy Award movie.
Ron Howard tried to stick to the book as much as possible lest the 40+million book fans stone him to death, so he didn't have a lot of options regarding the exposition and lecturing. What was he going to do? Recreate historical scenes as back story? This wasn't a mini-series and the viewer needed to be filled on so many fragments of socio-religious history, that it had to be done in this fashion.
I enjoyed the movie, perhaps not as much as the book because it lacked the suspense of the clues being resolved, but I think Ron, Tom, Audrey and Ian did a fine job.
I do agree with the reviewer on one point - Tom Hanks was probably miscast. They easly could have gone with a younger actor. And -- they didn't give Audrey an 'intellegent' enough character. But hey, the movie is the movie and the book is the book. They'll BOTH earn a LOT of money.
Posted by: Wylie at May 20, 2006 1:54 PM
While it may amuse you to no end to snicker about the supposed ignorance of people who do not know the origin of Leonardo da Vinci's surname, how else do you think surnames came into being? For the record, most surnames can be traced back to five groups: given name of a person's father, physical characteristics or dispositions, place of residence, occupation, or simply invented for their pleasing sound. Now that that has been said, perhaps I will inwardly mock you for not knowing how legitimate da Vinci's surname really is.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2006 3:37 PM
Just in case anyone was wondering, there is absolutely no reason to think that Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. Neither the traditional gospels nor the gnostic gospels that have been recently discovered say He had a wife.
Also, one of the main ways modern scholars know what "heretics" said in the first few centuries after the death of Jesus, is through the writings of the early "church fathers." They would quote a false view in order to then refute it. Evidently no one was claiming that Jesus was married since the fathers found no need to fulminate against the false and dangerous claim.
For all we know, Mary Magdalene may have been a grandmother who insisted Jesus have nourishing meals and eat all his vegetables.
Posted by: chuck123 at May 20, 2006 4:48 PM
I definitely wouldn't call this movie a masterpiece. The dialogue killed it for me; all of us in the theatre were laughing at the limp exchanges, too. But still, I found myself enjoying certain parts. It isn't the first time that I've been much more interested in the supporting characters, as opposed to the 'leads', Langdon and Neveu.
The plot felt like it could have been great, but fell short. It was predictable. (It reminded me of Dogma, and I don't think that's quite the direction they were aiming for ...)
All in all, I went to this movie expecting a lot less than I got, so I guess my time (and my money) wasn't entirely wasted.
Posted by: Stephanie at May 20, 2006 6:13 PM
As for people laughing in the cinema, no chance of that happening when I went, people were too bored and sleepy. Two friends of mine fell asleep for a good 1 and a half hours.
Ian McKellen was the best thing about this movie.
As for Jesus having a wife, what kind of Jewish man isn't married by this early 30s?
Posted by: Tina at May 20, 2006 6:43 PM
Everyone just keeps saying Tom Hanks is a miscast, which I actually agree with. But, honestly, I do not see any a-listers who could pull the job. I was picturing Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe and many others - no one fit.
Posted by: Julia at May 20, 2006 6:58 PM
best review ever.
Posted by: natalie at May 20, 2006 7:16 PM
I'm glad the movie seems to be bad. The one thing I feared was that this steaming pile of a novel might get turned into a serviceable thriller. The novel is not well-researched, fast-paced, or a fun read. It is crap on a cracker. I'm not sure anyone could have turned this pig's ear into anything but, well, maybe a pig's rectum.
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 20, 2006 8:08 PM
I decided not to read the book before the movie came out because I wanted to be able to just enjoy it, rather then pointing out all the differences. I'm glad I made that decision because I was entertained throughout most of the movie. The dialogue wasn't great or believable, but I decided to treat this like a run of the mill action movie. That worked.
Posted by: Nat at May 20, 2006 9:04 PM
Julia, you have a point, which is why Mr. Fox suggested that they cast an unknown in the role instead. It would have been more fitting to have someone with some actual talent remaining for the role, a quality which 99.9% of Hollywood does not have.
I haven't seen the film nor read the book, neither of which I intend to, but good God do I love disturbed minds. Mary Magdalene & Jesus getting it on in the temple of His Holy Father? Priceless! I'm sort of wondering why, though, this book hasn't been burned at the stake, as most Christians are generally so sensitive and barring to new ideas when their faith is speculated about. Which is really often quite understandable.
Oh, and Jeremy, (mind if I call you that?) you're the new subject of my wet dreams at night. "Holy jizz." Holy indeed, baybee ;).
(And yes, I am burning in Hell for that now. And you guys are all coming with me. Come on, road trip!)
Posted by: Gina at May 20, 2006 9:24 PM
Loved the book. Disappointed with the movie.
I haven't been so disappointed in an adaptation since Harry Potter and the POA.
Posted by: Reanne at May 20, 2006 10:57 PM
"...as most Christians are generally so sensitive and barring to new ideas when their faith is speculated about."
...but it's not okay when people insult/misrepresent Islam, Judaism, or any other religion.
Interesting double-standard.
Posted by: TheCes at May 21, 2006 12:07 AM
The proformance by Paul Bettany as Silas was really the only thing that kept me entertained...thinking of the differences between the book and movie only gave me a headache. There were people laughing in my theatre too, but I think it was for how much they just quickly explained huge revealations in the book.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2006 12:41 AM
The "controversy" is the best thing this tired mess has going for it. It guarantees that the film is a must-see for a particular segment of the populace. Also, for Brown's book to sell so many copies, some Christians had to be buying it.
Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have talent. So do Paul Bettany, Ian McKellen, and Jean Renou. It's just that their talents don't include the ability to breathe life into a dead husk.
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 21, 2006 12:41 AM
Last night I went to see "The Da Vinci Code" and contrary to what you may have read, "The Da Vinci Code" is a great mystery novel/movie and is definitely one of a kind. It was bold, thrilling and exhilarating. Regardless of the kerfuffle over content, the movie is beyond doubt worth watching. Even though most critics write that the content is preposterous and nonsensical. Critics say that Dan Brown crossed the line and has affected many people, creating havoc among the Christian religion, questioning Christians' views and second-guessing their faith. These people should remember that the movie is fictional. Whether or not they believe the factional information presented in the movie is up to them.
Individuals who go through the effort to read the book or see the movie obviously are well aware of the content. After all, who reads a book or sees a movie without knowing what the content is about. Anyone who watches the movie and complains about how it affects his or her morals have no right to do so. Some organizations have gone through the trouble to protect these people by having a representative of theirs show up at the theatre before the film started, just to explain what they were getting themselves into. Astonishingly, these same people are enraged of what they have seen in the film because it demoralizes their beliefs. Meanwhile there have been dozens of movies demoralizing other religions and faiths.
Posted by: Mulligan at May 21, 2006 4:08 AM
Working with an interesting new wiki-based site titled "Secrets Behind The Da Vinci Code."
A 'Code' author - Dan Burstein - dumped his content into a wiki so anyone can go in and edit what's there or add new content. The URL is http://secretsbehindthedavincicode.wetpaint.com
Posted by: David C. at May 21, 2006 4:20 AM
I listened to this book on tape while driving from San Diego to Tennessee, so I was grateful for any distraction. I don't know, however, if I have the stomach to devote two hours of my life to these wordsmiths. I do know that I love Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany (I've even forgiven him for 'Wimbledon' which was so bad I turned it off despite his oft-sweaty wardrobe). Thanks for the great review, and thank you for pointing out the irony of Tatou's reduced role, as well as Brown's misconception of feminism- now I have to go back and see if you reviewed "Dirty Love" or if there is more than one man on this website who passed Women's Studies 101.
Posted by: becca at May 21, 2006 10:30 AM
I saw the movie last night and I'd give it a rating of "meh". It was no less entertaining than most summer blockbusters. If it weren't for all the controversy we'd probably forget it existed by next weekend.
I will say, however, that Paul Bettany scared the bejeesus out of me.
Posted by: Jessie at May 21, 2006 12:05 PM
I read the book and figured out the ending about 1/3 of the way through it. *yawn* I wouldn't watch this movie just for that reason.
Posted by: enygma at May 21, 2006 3:53 PM
First off, yeah, this movie kind of sucked. My personal favourite line has to be "I've got to get to a library... FAST!" However, I find it odd that so many people are irate about The Da Vinci Code being a bad book and no one should pay attention to it and blah blah blah. The fact is, people like to be entertained, and more often than not "entertainment" for the masses does not involve literary critique. If I were Dan Brown I'd be sitting on top of my piles and piles of money just laughing my ass off, stopping only to call Michael Crichton over for play a rousing game of croquet.
Posted by: Kim at May 21, 2006 6:04 PM
I'm thinking that Sam Neill would have been the perfect Langdon, he did the same scholarly adventurer type in Jurassic Park to perfection. Harrison Ford is looking kinda ragged these days, also, he's too cranky. I just can't help thinking of Rick (Bachelor Party) when I see Hanks.
That was his best role btw.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 21, 2006 6:20 PM
As a French person, I hugely enjoyed this movie's depiction of the Country of Cheese (and Hams, if the performances are to be described) , grouchy policemen (Jean Reno hoarsely muttering that the Pyramid is "a wart", anyone?), airplane traffic watchers who never work and vacuous Amelies.
I thought the book was hilariously self-important.
The movie was staggering: boring to the point of numbness; then suddenly relieved by flagellation and ze French accente, as well as with wonderfully kitsch flashbacks in technicolor. The Concile de Nice with fat bishops yelling at each other...a treasure.
Tom Hanks is so unattractive in this movie, rather remiding one of boring teachers (btw, what about that lame conference at the beginning of the movie? "Signs...change...-cue swastikas-signs...are mysteries"). No wonder Audrey Tautou avoided kissing him...
Posted by: sara at May 21, 2006 6:24 PM
BarbadoSlim,
Sam Neill... why, yes, I believe you might have it. Sam would have been a better choice, if for no other reason than his ability to see the humor in this story. Good call!
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 21, 2006 7:01 PM
I can't believe how many people have lined up to be suckered by this novel--Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank at all the people who read the word "fact" in the beginning of his book and say "Gee!!! It says that these are facts, right here in this FICTIONAL story, so it really must be true!!!" Read any real history at all (you find that in the REFERENCE section) and you'll see that this is all a made up story to pay for Dan Brown's big house and his wife's facelift. I don't get why people just love to believe the worst crap instead of getting real information from honest scholars and historians. No I will not be handing any more $ to Dan Brown by seeing this movie. He's suckered enough people with this "dreck", as you so aptly put it--if I want to be entertained, I'll watch something that doesn't jump on the "SEX! RELIGION! SCANDAL!" bandwagon, because I am not a sheep.
Posted by: jerkygirl at May 21, 2006 7:02 PM
I haven't read the book. My mother (who reads literature) said it was rubbish, and my dad (who reads Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton type trash) said it was rubbish. That was enough for me. Besides, it sounds like a middle-aged man's wet dream.
But I'm glad to hear this movie sucks, even if it does open at number 1.
Posted by: loulou at May 21, 2006 9:56 PM
I was staying with a friend last week who was reading the book out of curiosity -- I'd never read it, myself. When I asked her how it was, she gave me this analogy: "People who say that it is a great book are like people who say Bud Light is their favorite beer. They clearly don't know any better."
I have yet to read it myself, but since it got a negative review from a friend whose literary taste I trust, I don't think I'll bother. And I feel the same about the movie after reading this review. Thanks, Pajiba, for saving my life, eight dollars at a time.
Posted by: tigi at May 22, 2006 12:03 AM
I thought Patrick Dempsey (Doctor McDreamy) would have been good as Langdon.
Posted by: Chantelle at May 22, 2006 5:04 AM
I think some reviewers are being too harsh on this movie. I mean, way too harsh. I personally liked it (went to see it last night) and thought it was entertaining. In fact, that seemed to be the general feeling I got after the movie from the theatre, lots of buzz around me about people enjoying it (a few people who didn't, of course).
As far as people's opinions of the book and the content of it - it's just that. Opinions. If you look at a book and go, "hah! What a load of crap, and anyone who reads that and likes it is being suckered!", you're being just as stupid as what you're accusing others of being.
Not to mention that I think mostly people are just put off by the theory of the book. Not me, I happen to think it makes for some interesting conversation, but you know - some people would rather sit around and bitch, so more power to you I guess.
Posted by: Brianne at May 22, 2006 8:28 AM
"...as most Christians are generally so sensitive and barring to new ideas when their faith is speculated about."
...but it's not okay when people insult/misrepresent Islam, Judaism, or any other religion.
Interesting double-standard.
Posted by: TheCes at May 21, 2006 12:07 AM
And, interesting point. I completely agree--I'm a Catholic and as far as I can tell in terms of pop culture, it's pretty simple to mock Jesus and Chrstianity or question Christianity in general and not really get shit for it. Also, in my opinion, it's not so much that Catholics are sensitive when their faith is "speculated about"--the book is calling something very fundamental to Christians into question. Personally, I could give a shit because I believe what I believe, but I can see where those 'angry Christians' are coming from. Plus, Opie called those 'angry Christians' facsists in an interview. You really wanna go there, Ron Howard?
The only thing that bugs the shit out of me is that people are actually dumb enough to consider this book as a source of actual information. Obviously, religion is personal and you believe what you believe. But the 'too many dumb people in the world to know the difference' bugs me.
And to anyone who thinks Paul Bettany was scary in this movie, you should see him in 'Gangster No. 1". Scary as hell, but I still love his ass no matter what.
Posted by: em at May 22, 2006 10:18 AM
Dan Brown is a poor man's Umberto Eco. Read (or watch the movie) "The Name of the Rose" for a GOOD "religious" thriller.
Posted by: E-chan-sensei at May 22, 2006 10:20 AM
To second E-chan-sensei, if you want a good paranoid thriller, read Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum."
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 22, 2006 11:55 AM
This review expressed everything I felt about this movie. I thought it was a huge snoozefest with a few interesting moments.
When I read the book (which I thought was trite) I kept picturing Eric Bana as the character. He's is goodlooking and sexy in that quiet intelligent unoffensive way.
Angels and Demons would have made a much more interesting movie.
Posted by: Michelle at May 22, 2006 12:06 PM
"The only thing that bugs the shit out of me is that people are actually dumb enough to consider this book as a source of actual information."
Posted by em
Fair enough. Parts of the Divinci Code are really out there. That said, many people can and do say the same thing about aspects the Bible.
I saw the movie last night. It was alright I guess although I am officially over Tom Hanks. I was generally entertained though - mostly by the ridiculously bad dialogue.
I'm not religiously inclined so maybe that is why I think it is funny that some people say the idea of Mary Magdalen and Jesus having a relationship is totally preposterous but they accept the whole walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead thing without question. Objectively, one seems alot more reasonable than the other, that's all I'm saying...[backing away from the keepboard]
Posted by: Erin at May 22, 2006 12:43 PM
Well, Sony has already spent the money that this movie will make over the next few weeks. It's gone to pay some overhead, so it's not profit at all for them. They'll make some more money on the DVDs, but again, they'll blow the money financing another couple of flops. So, when it's all said and done, this movie will vanish into obscurity, with the occasional viewing on TBS. So long and farewell...and good riddance.
And I still have my $10.
Posted by: Steve at May 22, 2006 12:49 PM
Too bad its opening weekend raked in and will continue to do so until competition comes its way which doens't happen until late June. This means prequels my friends and I for one will be buying the DVD and seeing any further adaptations as well.
Posted by: Brian at May 22, 2006 1:17 PM
Well, interesting read during lounge time and I have to confess these comments and review to be mildly entertaining. But then again it is a rainy Monday morning.
I am a Christian and think it is sad that others enjoy mocking the foundational truths I hold to be dear but I suppose that is to be expected from a society that allows its belief system to be formed by hollywood fiction.
The only reason I havent read the book or seen the movie is I heard it was fiction and it didnt sound very interesting. It still doesnt...,We vote with our time and money so think I will sit this one out... Either we are solid and KNOW what we believe or we can let hollywood dictate to us a fictional portrait of our reality.
How sad is that we have become (I include myself here)a society of entertainment. If it passes the time away as pure entertainment than hey, I will put money in when they pass the bucket..
Or is it that we have no depth to ourselves and can be entertained by any thesis drunged up from the dead?
Posted by: Yo Mama at May 22, 2006 1:37 PM
Well. At this point you couldn't pay me to see this crap...there is a reason I only paid 50 cents for a copy of the book.
Posted by: aliastriona at May 22, 2006 2:10 PM
Wow, Mr. Fox. I'm surprised you actually wasted money on that worthless story.
The DaVinci Code is nothing but a pack of Catholic bashing bulldung and Brown should be lynched for that disgusting venomous crap. I can't believe it's so popular! It's all lies! Every bit of it!
I still have my respects for the actors, although I regret their being sucked into that trash.
I'm sorry; I'm a Catholic and I hate it when some bastard decides to crap all over my Faith.
A big thank you to you, Mr. Fox, for saving people from wasting money on that .
Posted by: a devout Catholic at May 22, 2006 2:16 PM
Oh, come on. It really wasn't THAT bad. I read the book, enjoyed it, saw the movie, and enjoyed it. Just turn your brain off and enjoy the sights. Tom Hanks was ok, but Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany were great!! Anybody who didn't wince as Paul/Silas cranked the celice into his leg? Didn't think so. And, research schmeseach....the whole story, fictional or not, makes sense. I mean, here's this guy...he's in his early 30's, hanging around with a bunch of guys and one girl. He's getting some from somebody.....isn't it less offensive to think it was from her??? Anyway, not all that bad a way to spend a Sunday afternoon.
Posted by: amelie at May 22, 2006 2:26 PM
As a Catholic, I am always embarrassed by the "Christians" who fail to behave as such. The poster "a devout Catholic" clearly hasn't spent much time considering the message of the New Testament, you know, the whole tolerance and forgiveness thingies.
An earlier poster commented that bashing Christianity has no repurcussions. Perhaps because intelligent Christians do not see this book/movie as bashing, but simply as the entertainment vehicles they so clearly are. I seriously doubt anyone renounced their religion after reading/seeing this story.
For what it is worth, I thought the movie was about the best that could be expected, and frankly it was better than I had anticipated.
Posted by: Also Catholic at May 22, 2006 2:38 PM
Thank you... I won't be seeing this movie, and I shall continue to avoid the book.
Posted by: xenylamine at May 22, 2006 2:39 PM
Haha, ormond...me too.
Posted by: TheIdleReceptionist at May 22, 2006 2:44 PM
I went to go see it last night, and I adored the book by the way, and let me tell you this, it sucked. Not even halfway through the movie I looked over at my mom and said "I'm bored" She didn't hear me though, she was too busy sleeping. That movie was unnecissarily long, too much choir music, and even the action scenes were incredibly bland. You want to see a REAL story on the Holy Grail ror the Sacred Feminine? GO read "Labrynth" By Kate Mosse, that, my friends, is someone who has done their research. THAT is what you should read for a good religious thriller.
What annoys me even more is that the previews made it appear REALLY good! When I saw them, I jumped around screaming because I couldn't wait!
And what annoys me even more is how they tiptoed around the religious references, the fact that they had Langdon arguing with Teabing really pissed me off. Was the church funding this movie or something? Don't they know how much PRAISE they would've gotten for actually adapting the real story from the book? I mean, it's not like everyone hasn't read it by now, how bad could it be if they adapted it properly?
All in all, I was extremely disappointed in this, and the only thing I have to say is:
When is the movie for "Angels and Demons" coming out?
Posted by: Bean at May 22, 2006 2:45 PM
I went to go see it last night, and I adored the book by the way, and let me tell you this, it sucked. Not even halfway through the movie I looked over at my mom and said "I'm bored" She didn't hear me though, she was too busy sleeping. That movie was unnecissarily long, too much choir music, and even the action scenes were incredibly bland. You want to see a REAL story on the Holy Grail ror the Sacred Feminine? GO read "Labrynth" By Kate Mosse, that, my friends, is someone who has done their research. THAT is what you should read for a good religious thriller.
What annoys me even more is that the previews made it appear REALLY good! When I saw them, I jumped around screaming because I couldn't wait!
And what annoys me even more is how they tiptoed around the religious references, the fact that they had Langdon arguing with Teabing really pissed me off. Was the church funding this movie or something? Don't they know how much PRAISE they would've gotten for actually adapting the real story from the book? I mean, it's not like everyone hasn't read it by now, how bad could it be if they adapted it properly?
All in all, I was extremely disappointed in this, and the only thing I have to say is:
When is the movie for "Angels and Demons" coming out?
Posted by: Bean at May 22, 2006 2:45 PM
"I'm not religiously inclined so maybe that is why I think it is funny that some people say the idea of Mary Magdalen and Jesus having a relationship is totally preposterous but they accept the whole walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead thing without question. Objectively, one seems alot more reasonable than the other, that's all I'm saying...[backing away from the keepboard]
Posted by: Erin at May 22, 2006 12:43 PM"
Haha, Erin, I get what you're saying, and yeah, believing in a lot of those other things takes a huge leap of faith. I think what bugs a Catholic person like me (and by "Catholic like me" I mean a person who believes in God but can't deny things like science and has no problem with the real evils of the world according to more hardcore Christians, like stem cells and homosexuals--line stolen from the Simpsons) about this is that a major point of Christianity is being called into consideration, and while I have no problem with people questioning that core belief, I do have a problem with some people claiming they did 'research' and know more information when they most likely really don't, since, uh, they weren't there. The beliefs can be questioned and turned upside-down and prodded from every angle, but at the same time, sometimes I think certain things are kind of better off left alone.
Posted by: em at May 22, 2006 4:01 PM
Buying the book "The Da Vinci Code" = $12.50
Ticket to see the movie = $7.50
Reading a bunch of nerds discuss, dissect, tear apart, prop up, pretend to be intellectuals, wannabe novelists and professional movie critics in an all encompassing frenzy of a nerd fest =
PRICELESS
"Get a life. It's a movie for Christs sake"
Posted by: Mastercard at May 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Taking the time to make a yahoo account = 1 minute
Posting on Pajiba.com = 2 minutes
Reading all the posts that are coming because you just flamed a whole bunch of nerds and got your entire office to laugh at all of the nerds too...=
PRICELESS
"For everything else theres Mastercard" dumbasses........
Posted by: Mastercard at May 22, 2006 4:58 PM
Man, am I sick of the "oppressed Christian" bit.
How many people have been murdered by the Church thoughout history, just for thinking the "wrong" thing? The history of Christianity has been one of systematic extermination of competing belief systems. And when there's no one else to bully, Christian sects turn on each other.
Even nice, sensible Christians aren't entirely free of blame. When's the last time you stood up vocally against a more hateful, extreme wing of your religion?
I'd be embarrassed to associate with people who vilify everyone different in the world, then cry "discrimination" and picket when their beliefs are so much as publicly questioned. And I'd be ashamed to have spiritual faith so weak, that it was "undermined" by a movie.
As for the film, it didn't get a fair shake, and we all need to admit it. The lead was miscast, the book wouldn't translate to film under anyone's hands, and its popularity had built-in backlash. Religious folks couldn't leave it alone, of course; and movie critics couldn't wait to collectively rake it over the coals. It couldn't win, and I don't think it should have been made.
Just for the record, I liked the book. It was a good story, despite some flaws, and the lack of a sense of humor with which some fanatical readers--on both sides of the theological fence--took it. And before anyone bashes me as some crap-reading American idiot, I'm a writing major at a great school, but I'm not too proud to like a good beach-reading novel on a slow day. There are worse pastimes. Picketing theaters when real problems exist in the world is one of them.
Posted by: Vi at May 22, 2006 5:08 PM
Wow! Mastercard jokes. Now, that's original. I hope for your office's sake, Mr. Mastercard, that they were laughing at you, and not with you; otherwise, they'd be as unspeakably lame as you are.
Posted by: Derwood at May 22, 2006 5:18 PM
Hey, I had a good time at the theater.
Posted by: invah at May 22, 2006 6:08 PM
That was an awesome read, Jeremy! You write a fantastic and entertaining essay!
I was stunned to read that Akiva Goldsman had been "in charge" of the screenplay! How the hell did that happen? I had always had a fair amount of respect for Ron Howard's intelligence... yikes!
Poor Tom! I love you, Tom!
"...the final step in the Costnerization of his career." HEH! :D
Posted by: Loob at May 22, 2006 6:36 PM
Ok, for the prequel I'm thinking Steve Buscemi as Jesus and Drew Barrymore as Mary Magdalene. And I'll take my percentage off the front-end if you don't mind...
Posted by: Matt at May 22, 2006 6:45 PM
""...as most Christians are generally so sensitive and barring to new ideas when their faith is speculated about."
...but it's not okay when people insult/misrepresent Islam, Judaism, or any other religion.
Interesting double-standard.
Posted by: TheCes at May 21, 2006 12:07 AM"
WHOSE double standard?
Gina didn't say anything about that. Maybe she's up for insulting everyone!
(Just kidding about Gina's intent, of course.)
It bugs me when people extrapolate and twist the words of others, just to pick a fight.
If you need to add-on to what the first person said, in order to get a fight going,
then you may possibly be full o' crap.
Posted by: Loob at May 22, 2006 7:11 PM
Great book but lousy movie, for the reasons already described (Tom Hanks miscast, lousy screenwriting, difficult book to make a movie cuz of all the background details that need describing, etc.). Everyone's got their opinion, but for those who haven't read the book, here's mine...
If it is important for you to read works that are on the cusp of literary greatness (or at least what supposed scholars and critics claim to be so), then you probably won't like it. If you're looking to be entertained by something fairly well-written and suspenseful, you'll probably love the book. Someone compared saying this was a great book to saying Bud Light is their favorite beer. Ummm... How about someone saying this is a great book and Bud Light is great for getting drunk? (Which is pretty much why most of us do all this in the first place: drink beer to get inebriated and read to be entertained...) If pretentiousness and self-importance are priorities for you, then my statement just now doesn't apply. Continue your rants
Finally, love the irritated to enraged comments from the religious crowd who haven't read the book or seen the movie. Organized religion (hell, ANY instance of a small group trying to lead public masses) depends on the ignorance and loyalty of its followers, and you guys are great examples of that fact. If you're so secure in your faith, why not be a little open-minded, read the book, then say it was interesting or not, but obviously a work of fiction...?
Posted by: gbear at May 22, 2006 7:55 PM
HA HA HA - holy jizz - hee hee hee! Okay, I'm going to hell. But I'll have lots of company.
Great review! But what of the cinematography? I can deal with a lot of hoo-ha if it looks purty enough...
Posted by: mariaaaaa at May 22, 2006 8:51 PM
The book nor the movie add nothing nor take away from Christianity...the religion is fucked anyway, it's the opium for the masses...it gives presidents, tyrants, rules delusions of grandeur...it also makes for a great money making scheme, so actors, producers, directors, writers can make oodles of money from it and have this whole illusion of scandal about Mary Magdalene (who probably didn't even exist) and who really cares what some outdated book says and how can you base an ENTIRE religion on the rantings of several men...I can't imagine why people can't start thinking outside the book, I'm already tired of hearing "devout" Christians and scary Catholics go on and on about how this shitty book and film question their faith or it's an insult to God. Get over it...religion sucks, have faith in yourself and stop worrying about what everyone else thinks...
Posted by: gogoboots at May 22, 2006 10:02 PM
it's a shame that such a great plot was wasted by such an awful writer. i've heard the movie was rubbish, and this confirms it. i've never heard so many bad reviews from so many different people. none of them even border on good.
perhaps Ron Howard was not the man to do the job?
the controversy will save the movie's box office.
Posted by: khmae at May 22, 2006 10:10 PM
Once when I was a kid, I read a book called "The Sea Hunt". 'Twas a merry little book for six-year-olds where none of the characters spoke with contractions because kids don't understand the wonderful magic of contractions. I think it was about sailors who caught sea animals for marine shows. Many years passed, and I cracked open "The Da Vinci Code" at a used bookstore. And as I read narrative style of Dan Brown , I wondered . . . . What ever happened to "The Sea Hunt"?
Posted by: Fernando at May 22, 2006 10:21 PM
Not all the reviews are bad, khmae -- Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up. Poor Gene Siskel, who actually had at least half a brain, must be spinning in his grave.
Posted by: Tim at May 22, 2006 10:30 PM
I just came back from seeing the movie, and I was generally unsuprised. Not nearly as good as the book, somewhat better than the almighty train wreck that the critics claim it to be. Granted, I have totally given up on Hanks as a good actor, but I still hold some small hope for Bettany. As a Catholic, with two priests and three nuns in the family, I've been steeped in Catholic dogma in some of it's deepest, oddest, and most interesting levels. AND I STILL ENJOYED THE BOOK. All those embarrassing, close-minded Christians who feel the need to flip out over a text and film that they've undoubtedly never seen or read are absolutely moronic. Really, if you can't handle the prospect of a creative, if historically-challenged writer taking a new look at your religion without getting your undies in a twist, then just go home, watch some Benny Hinn, and stop bothering the rest of us.
Posted by: aratweth at May 22, 2006 10:33 PM
"Dreck".
I love it when you guys use German words. :)
Herrlich.
Posted by: Yetused at May 22, 2006 11:36 PM
Great post by aratweth. Actually, I totally forgot how I started into Dan Brown in the first place... A good buddy highly recommended Angels & Demons and _gave me his copy_ of Da Vinci so that I'd read it immediately, he liked it so much. The thing about my friend... His father is a former high-ranking Catholic priest, his mother is a former nun, and he is as Catholic as one gets. (An odd story I'll admit, but this guy's got as strong feelings for both his parents and his faith as I've seen.) It never occured to my friend for a second to be offended by what is quite simply just a good story. And I didn't even think about the coincidence til after reading all this pissing and moaning from the Religious Right out there. Grow up...
And yes, it's _still_ an awesome book.
Posted by: gbear at May 22, 2006 11:44 PM
All said and done, the movie grossed $224 million world wide in the first few days. That must the biggest DI*K ever to be shoved up all these critic's asses. It shows that they are out of touch with the public and shouldnt be taken too seriously.
Posted by: bob at May 23, 2006 1:59 AM
Ugh, gogoboots, it's OPIATE, not OPIUM. If you're going to randomly quote Marx, at least do it properly.
Posted by: Christine at May 23, 2006 10:44 AM
No, bob, it shows that massive, carpet-bombing promo for a movie with a huge, pre-sold fan base can really create an opening weekend. Let's see what next weekend brings.
Oh, and if BO is your canon, then you must, must give props to The Passion of the Christ. Another movie with lukewarm critical response that made crazy jack. And, on a % of return basis, kicks tDaVC's hinder.
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 23, 2006 10:47 AM
gogoboots, will you marry me????? I think I love you!!!
Posted by: amelie at May 23, 2006 11:15 AM
A Lonely Guy reference! You win!
Posted by: James at May 23, 2006 12:30 PM
David,
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the bit about the surname. Snarky reviewing is one thing. Overly bitter, acidly jealous, jump-on-the-bandwagon reviewing is another. I haven't seen the movie, and while I read the book a couple of years ago, I can't remember it at all -- which is pretty damning, I think. I wasn't really planning on seeing the movie, but an honest review, as opposed to a slanted, hateful (for some reason) one would have been nice.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 23, 2006 1:01 PM
Saw the movie last night and I have to thank Pajiba for making me enjoy it more than I otherwise would have. They lowered my expectations such that this could have been as good as Garfield the Movie (or even Garfield 2: A Tale of 2 Kitties) and it would have exceeded expectations. I enjoyed most of it. Truly, I can't really argue with much that Jeremy wrote. It was all there just like he spelled out. It just didn't ruin the movie for me. Honestly, the worst parts were trying to understand what utterly adorable Audrey was saying and dealing with Hanks' ill fit for this role. It was definitely at least an average movie, maybe even a bit above, and easily worth the matinee price I paid. Sometimes I think you guys try to be a bit too deep for even the above average movie goer. But I still love your reviews and agree with you much more often than not.
Posted by: altan at May 23, 2006 2:17 PM
oh come now! Islam and Judaism (not to mention lesser known branches of Christianity) not to mention Hinduism and others get insulted in our culture ALL THE TIME. And questioned, and distorted, and made into weird sci-fi television episodes. YOU jut don't feel it because it's not you. Christians run everything in this country. Get a grip. You're not oppressed.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 23, 2006 2:18 PM
I never read the book (or wanted to) but saw el film in the theatre the other night because it looked like a good escapist caper type movie.
And that's all it was to me.
If you go into the theatre expecting nothing more than a rather overacted (I'm talking to YOU, Tom Hanks) adventure/mystery/Scooby Doo with scarier villains (COUGH*Paul Betany*COUGH) type flick then it's a fun enough ride.
I don't regret viewing it.
Posted by: TheIdleReceptionist at May 23, 2006 3:37 PM
Altan: I totally agree with you... I walked into that theatre last night expecting to be asleep in 5 minutes, and was pleasantly surprised that not only was I awake throughout, but also enjoying myself thanks to Bettany and McKellen.
Thanks Pajiba. You made my evening enjoyable, and my husband thrilled that I actually agreed to go despite reading your review.
Posted by: CarolynfromCanada at May 23, 2006 4:08 PM
Also, I would like to say that this is the first move since Brokeback that has inspired conversation about film at my family dinner table... not an easy feat.
My cousin was also curious why a cartoon is drawn of Mohammed in a newspaper in Holland and half of Europe is up in flames, yet Christians are being criticized for grumbling about a blockbuster movie spanning the globe...
Any thoughts?
Posted by: CarolynfromCanada at May 23, 2006 4:11 PM
I think I saw this movie a year or so ago. Nicolas Cage was much better.
Seriously, this WAS National Treasure on road trip. Decent ride, terrible movie.
Posted by: sjmor4 at May 24, 2006 12:11 AM
To refer waaay back up in this, thank you, E-Chan-Sensei, for Umberto Ecco! I have read many of his works, but nothing of Brown's. The bits I had heard of the Code sounded like lame re-hashing of Ecco's themes, so now I don't have to read the Code unless I want brain candy on the beach!
Thank you, thank you!
Posted by: cargirl at May 24, 2006 2:54 AM
The way I see it, you have a book that is a phenomenally successful bestseller, challenging a faith and its book that is even more phenomenally successful. Just the maths on this suggests that you will have millions of detractors, and most of these will be Christians offended by the content. Now make a movie on this controversial book slightly sub standard, and you will have millions baying for blood. There is a line in "Angels and Demons" that says "There is nothing that arouses human interest more than human tragedy" and if all you millions are going on about the movie as tragically rubbish - GUESS WHAT - there will be millions more that will go verify this for themselves...
Posted by: sandman at May 24, 2006 4:38 AM
Cargirl: You're welcome!
Vi: I, too, attended a great school, and am also a writer, and also am not too proud to read beach novels for entertainment (even when I'm not on the beach). That being said, I still think Dan Brown is a poor man's Umberto Ecco, if only because it's painfully obvious he wants to be Umberto Ecco and make money at the same time. I think I would have enjoyed TdVC if he hadn't imposed pretentious language and butchered transitioning on an intriguing plot, elevating the whole thing to the verbal equivalent of mutton disguised as lamb.
Obviously a lot of people enjoyed this book, and that's great. I hope it encourages them to go and read more books, support their free libraries, and eighty-six the steaming piles of shinola television and Hollywood has become by virtue of just ignoring them (hey, I can dream). I just object to people who claim TdVC is TEH B3ST BOOK 3VAR!!1!1 when there's so much out there that is well-written, well-plotted, and entertaining all at the same time.
Posted by: E-chan-sensei at May 24, 2006 9:13 AM
I enjoyed reading the book. To say that this book is poorly written is too harsh, I think. What I do know is that the story was interesting to me, and it kept me engaged until the end. I think making broad statements about what people like to read is silly, and I'm not sure why people care so much. I think the majority of readers like a literary work as much as a beach read.
I love Tom Hanks in the way I love James Stewart. No part he plays or heinous hairdo he sports is going to change that. I do, however, agree that he has been miscast. But, I am the person for which movies are made. I suspend my disbelief with the best of them (I would make a terrible critic), and due to this review my expectations are so low that I imagine I will find a way to enjoy it at the matinee price.
Michelle, I didn't picture Eric Bana as Landon, but as Bana is so hot that it causes me physical pain....well, I'm game.
Posted by: tknocks at May 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Crap; I didn't realize that I'd piss so many people off with my comment. I'm sorry, but... that's just my opinion. I never intended to be a total bitch and shove it in anyone's face. I didn't mean to make anyone mad... crap.
Sorry... *is so extremly embarrassed*
(And yes, tknocks, Bana is hot! :P)
Posted by: a devout Catholic at May 24, 2006 11:05 PM
I tried to read the book but couldn't get past the first ten pages--the style just wasn't for me. I think the only reason I now explain to people why I think the writing is crap is because they started bitching me out for not having read such a "marvelous book."
Religious people getting upset about this book would make about as much sense as getting riled up over The Omen. It's just a story, not a religious commentary.
And finally, Bana--the more movies the better.
Posted by: aleth at May 25, 2006 1:46 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed the book as entertainment. I had, however, already read "Angels and Demons" and enjoyed Brown before he became a bandwagon to jump on. From the outset, I questioned the casting choice of Tom Hanks. I seriously love Tom Hanks, but he just didn't seem like Langdon to me.
I want to see the movie, but dread what I will find. This review made me decide to wait until it comes on video. No use wasting $13 at the theatre.
Posted by: TorontoPaula at May 25, 2006 10:10 AM
Dan Brown is a poor man's Umberto Eco. Read (or watch the movie) "The Name of the Rose" for a GOOD "religious" thriller.
Posted by: E-chan-sensei at May 22, 2006 10:20 AM
To second E-chan-sensei, if you want a good paranoid thriller, read Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum."
Posted by: apocalipstick at May 22, 2006 11:55 AM
You two are so right. I'm going through The Name of the Rose right now, and it's so much better than The Da Vinci Code.
I wish this movie had done better, but with Dan Brown at the helm (and admitting he had written a manuscript that put the "opening act" at 20 hours), you can kind of see what you're working with. I think it was just campaign management and insecure Christians that promoted this crap. There is proof of a wholly human Jesus, but it's not enough to sway the Vatican to change doctrine. So take TDVC as it is --- poorly-written fiction, and for the love of God, believe what you want to believe already!
Posted by: duckandcover at May 25, 2006 6:27 PM
They should make Dan Brown's "Deception Point" into a movie. Better yet, adapt it for a season of 24. Afterall, most of it takes place over 1 day. As for "Angels and Demons" I couldn't finish it I was so bored by it. It was obvious to me who the bad guy was and after finally getting fed up with the atrocious dialogue I flipped to the back and saw that, yes, I was dead on. So I gave the book back to my sister. As for "The Da Vinci Code", the book was entertaining but nothing more. I have no idea why it is so popular, but I admit it makes me kind of sad when I talk to people that call it a "great" book. Um, no. I'll catch the movie on DVD.
Posted by: Rob at May 25, 2006 9:17 PM
What, no word about Bettany's Silas, the albino monk? From what I've heard from all other reviews, he (along with the always fantastic Ian McKellan) was one of the saving graces to the film.
Posted by: Ann at May 25, 2006 9:59 PM
The movie sucks, it blows and i just cudn't swallow it.
Ron howard has relied too heavily on the source material and shows a complete lack of originality. the book was a fast-paced page-turner but it's film translation is plodding, tiresome and unexciting.
There are some revelatory scenes in the book, such as the existence of jesus' wife and child but they are mentioned so matter-of-factly in the film that there's simply no thrill to it. On the other hand, certain aspects of the book that could have been done away with(eg. the cause of tom hank's character's fear of confined spaces) have been gone into in some (boring)detail. The slow pace and the unexciting narration really do in the film.
Peter Jackson is a director in a similar mould...he can make a good film only if the source material (j.r.r. tolkien) is great. In this case, given that the book is mediocre pop-fizz thrills and chases, the film isn't good, it barely makes it past the average mark.
See the film once, it'll probably be the best nap you've had in some time. Just make sure u take along a nice shoulder to drool on.
Posted by: Jaideep at May 25, 2006 11:35 PM
I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book. Frankly, I can stomach just about anything in book form. However, this particular one was difficult to read through. Yes, it was interesting enough, but it ultimately came up short. It's not the sort of book that leaves you thinking after you finish. In fact, I feel a little dumber after reading it. A very forgettable work of fiction.
Posted by: Cat at May 26, 2006 5:12 AM
Props to Also Catholic above. I think that's the ideal reaction. I am waiting for the sequel: The Adventures of Teabag and the Holy Jizz.
I read the book, and it is entertaining in the same way Harry Potter is entertaining -- it creates a great story and keeps you turning the pages. And this book and movie will entertain a lot of people. Thanks to Pajiba, though, I'm saving my $8.
I agree on the miscasting. And I agree that McDreamy would have been a good pick. Or Bana.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 26, 2006 10:31 AM
Oh well, at least everybody isn't vivisecting Brokeback Mountain anymore. Guess we can thank Brown, Howard, Hanks et al for steering us back to a good old fashioned breeding controversy and giving the homosexuals a break in the process.
Actually, I think they could have spiced up both the book and the movie a lot with a gratuitous sex scene between Leonardo Not A Surname da Vinci and one of the altar boys. Gawd, just a handful of spit somewhere, anywhere and this movie could have been a contender.
With Leonardo's not a surname in the title you'd think the least Brown could have done was give a nod in our direction. Oh well, maybe when the sequel comes out, The Da Vinci Load, we can get back to arguing about homosexuality instead of *yawn* Christianity.
Posted by: Tom at May 26, 2006 11:58 PM
I haven't seen the movie, but thanks to those many, many, many reports on this oh so controversal movie, think know exactly the storyline and can only say 'I'm not impressed son' and will be saving my money and precious time.
About miscasting Tom Hanks, that was actually the first thought I had when I saw the very first picture of him in that movie. I mean what's going on with that wig (don't know if it really is, but for me that's what I saw)? I know he can act, but he can't pull off a twenty-something role no matter what.
I'd prefered Hugh Jackman in the role, but I'm a jackmaniac and therefore still glad he won't be be associated with something like that by the public.
Posted by: mk at May 27, 2006 7:11 PM
"oh come now! Islam and Judaism (not to mention lesser known branches of Christianity) not to mention Hinduism and others get insulted in our culture ALL THE TIME. And questioned, and distorted, and made into weird sci-fi television episodes. YOU jut don't feel it because it's not you. Christians run everything in this country. Get a grip. You're not oppressed."
-anonymous
that is so true, on the radio, tv, movies, newspapers etc... anything that is not mainstream christianity is always made out to backward and wrong. btw, you cannot blame a religion for something some of it's followers have done...
the da vinci code is entertaining.. it's not meant to blasphemous, but to show another point of view...
Posted by: sara at May 30, 2006 2:08 PM
This is a very gripping and exciting book but when i went to see the movie tonight with my friend (who also read the book) we almost ended up walking out of the theater. I was so angry by the time the end of the movie came around because it was so different from the book. I actually want to hunt down the person who changed it and hurt them badly. I would highly recomend reading the book and never seeing the movie.
Posted by: Connie at June 1, 2006 12:41 AM
I agree with Michelle, Angels and Demons would have made a much better movie. But I think that all along, critics were going to mock this adaptation. It is a book written to appeal to the masses, masquerading as an academic's wet dream.
I thought the film was ok, not anything spectacular. But what was with the complete lack of chemistry between Hanks and Tautou? In the book, there is an underlying sexual tension between them. In the film, nothing. Would have made the film that little bit more interesting, if nothing else.
Posted by: Emma at June 1, 2006 2:43 AM
can we all get over this damn book/movie. i'm tired of hearing about the protests as well. it's FICTION. isn't protesting this book similar to protesting Dr. Suess?
nummber two: if you don't like the book, don't read it, and certainly don't go see the movie.
i have not read the book, nor seen the movie. i just don't care...i know some of you are wondering why i am commenting on this story. simple: i'm stuck in shitty new york city at a meeting for work and there is nothing else better to do...
Posted by: steelcitygirl at June 2, 2006 10:23 AM
If I complimented the quality of this review by stating that it's the first article that I'll ever masturbate to, would that suffice?
Actually, I liked the movie. I have to admit: it was entertaining, and dare I say, worth the $9 I paid. Somehow it got past my Movies-That-Suck radar. Thankfully, I've read your article before I read the book. [Phew!]
Posted by: Allison at June 4, 2006 2:09 AM
i read the book and i saw the movie. the book was fun and a quick read. the movie was very bad. honestly, as i watched the movie i really couldnt think of anyone who is gifted or popular (i dont confuse the two)now who might have pulled off robert langdon. most likely it would have been better had a complete unknown been used for the part.
in my opinion it was a mistake to attempt to make a movie out of a book that was written like a screenplay. where do the writers have to go? how can you translate a one dimensional romp into movie success? maybe denzel washington would have been a good choice, but in a movie so caucasian it isnt even an option. (yes, i know everyone in the book was white, but really, denzel could have done it.)
and why was it neccessary to make sophie so ridiculously simple? she was pretty brave and helpful in the book. and angorosa had no depth in the movie at all and i am very disappointed that alfred molina didnt get more of an onscreen shot at portraying a controlling cult leader. i am positive he would have done quite well had the script been fleshed out.
silas was awesome and was the only character that managed to get some kind of reaction out of me.
Umberto Echo researches his work and then weaves well written fiction around facts that have been researched, researched and researched some more. there would be no da Vinci code without Foucault's Pendulum. read that very fat novel for a more verbose and multi dimensional take on the grail and the templars.
Posted by: someone at June 4, 2006 5:13 PM
What kills me is they passed over the much better written Angels and Demons for the Davinci Saga. Hanks as Langdon, it's like Harrison Ford 2006 playing Indiana Jones 1982. Isn't Tatou the reincarnation of Julia Ormond? Please someone tell me, why can people sit through a cinematic lecture/verbal diarrhea from actors, yet no one can sit for more than hour of a college lecture. The end result is the same, you still have to go to the bathroom to shit out the junkfood you just ate.
Posted by: C.J. at June 7, 2006 4:44 PM
"The Adventures of Teabag and the Holy Jizz."
"The Da Vinci Load"
Thank you, thank you the posters who wrote these. Had me snort-chuckling at the screen. I have to admit I read this review and subsequent commentary purely for the entertainment value. I just knew this tripe [oh sorry, did I write tripe? I meant type of course] book/movie dealio would have all sorts up in arms and on the warpath, waiting avidly for someone to make a post in which they could twist the words or meaning to something they could readily attack as fast as their fingers allowed them.
Although I have no desire to either read this book or see this movie, I must applaud both pajiba writers and readers: you so very rarely disappoint.
Posted by: the sleeper at June 10, 2006 4:41 PM
As a woman who was raised as a Catholic, I used to ask my parents every Sunday at Church -- "Why are there no women at the altar? I only see women serving men lunch and breakfast." I was fast on my way to becoming a feminist, I guess. (I was born in the 60s). I loved the book because I related to some of the same issues raised therein, especially why the Greeks and Romans pre-christianity celebrated men AND women gods but the Christians do not. So I found the religious parts of the story (not the silly plot) fascinating. The movie wasn't awesome, but I enjoyed it immensely because it reminded me of why I liked the book. It was OK to have Tom Hanks' character "tell the story" because, frankly, I couldn't keep all of the different factions straight since I read the book quite a while ago.
So if you think it would be interesting to just explore some other ideas about Christianity, then read the book or see the movie. It might make you think just a little about why we believe in religion the way we do ....
Posted by: Suzy at June 12, 2006 10:45 PM
In response to "TheCes at May 21, 2006 12:07 AM," (Do a "find on this page" and it should come up)
The only reason Christians are not open to new ideas is for the simple reason is our beliefs are based purely on the Old Testament, the teachings of Christ and the divinely inspired apostles. I slightly enjoyed the Divinci Cide movie, didn't make my top 20 list, but it was okay. While the storyline formula didn't follow the usual film "standard" it was entertaining all the same. I can see how the Goddess idea can appeal to woman, but what we must realise is that God is neither man nor woman. Although the bible uses the word "He," You must remember that in the time that it was written, where men were the very dominate gender, She or It would not have been perceeved by the readers/listeners that God is a great authority. As for the "myth" behind the story, couldn't find a more poorly "researched" concept. Why someone would believe a painting painted by someone nearly 1000 years (i don't know exactly when) after the event, could be used as evidence, is beyond me.
I feel that the only reason people are upset with the story is that the false ideas behind the novel are being portrayed as fact.
Sorry about the essay.
Posted by: Ryan at June 22, 2006 1:25 AM
I thought the film was the biggest load of hurl the world has ever seen. I didnt bother reading the book due to the other research i had done.
But althought the film and book seem to be a big let down, the ideas still get so many people thinking.
I have decided to research the subject as a whole.
Its many different angles and surroundings.
I belive that i cant totally understand something until i hear every piece of evidence however probable or improbable it may be.
Check out my blog and dive further into this massive worlf of fact, fiction and mystery.
Posted by: Alex at June 28, 2006 4:44 PM
Coming to cinemas next Summer.....The Ken Done Code.
Tea towels, koalas-Ken Done!
Mwahahaha
Posted by: Chantelle at June 30, 2006 11:19 AM
Book was good...movie was the worst movie ever made! The movie assumes everyone has read the book, and so they leave out crucial parts. Not to mention that the ending was changed as well. Frankly i thought the book was overrated anyway...personally brown's "angels and demons" is far more thrilling. However now that they're bringing that book to movie form, i'm hoping they won't screw it up like they did the davinci code.
Posted by: Nina at July 6, 2006 12:44 AM
Now, I'm not saying that the book or the movie was good (count me among the sleepers. I woke up in the middle, while McKellen was flouncing around his chateau -- really, you guys think this was a good performance? Then I woke up near the end, in time to giggle hysterically at the Silas and Teabag corpses.)
But I'd like to find out why Da Vinchi offends some Christians so. They say that saying there is a possibility Jesus was married and had child is the same as saying, oh, that Jews start all wars.
Isn't the whole point of Jesus that He was a god made man? The Word made flesh, who dwelt among us? Jesus walked, talked, ate, breathed, drank, preached, shat, and a hundred other unrecorded things. He did this to become close to people He would suffer and die for. Why is having sex and a normal family life excluded, different than drinking or breathing?
And why does it matter if He did or didn't? If Jesus did have sex, does that mean we shouldn't love our enemies and avoid casting the first stone? If he was married, was his suffering on the cross meaningless?
Anyway. em, Paul Bettany's ass is a sight to behold, as is beating himself silly with a whip, but he was stunning in Gangster No. 1. Why didn't more people see that movie? It was funny, scary, sad, everything Da Vinchi is not.
Posted by: Janis at August 12, 2006 4:49 AM
"[H]is tin ear for dialogue is metallurgically surpassed only by the lead pipe with which he drives home a point, any point." That phrase AND your Brokeback Mountain review! My god, I am in love. Why haven't I met you? Are you really just one person? What a beautiful mind.
Posted by: rudy at September 25, 2006 4:43 PM
"Ugh, gogoboots, it's OPIATE, not OPIUM. If you're going to randomly quote Marx, at least do it properly."
Christine- It actually is Opium, not Opiate. So...yeah, if you're going to snidely correct someone, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
Posted by: gena at October 3, 2006 10:21 PM
I have to agree with the reviewer who was hoping Silas would kill them already. Although I was more of that mind while reading the book. How bad can a book be when you're hoping its main protagonists will bite the dust already and make it stop? The faux-cliffhangers at the end of each chapters were just annoying.
The movie was marginally watchable thanks to Tom Hanks. It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Among books, though, it was definitely among the worst 3 I've ever forced myself to finish (just so I could have an educated opinion on it). I'm not even talking about the history or the theology of it--those were ridiculous, but I'll give any work of fiction a pass if they can manage to pull of things like, oh, PLOT and CHARACTERIZATION. You gotta throw me a bone, or willing suspension of disbelief ain't gonna work.
The movie was- eh.
Posted by: miercoles jueves at February 26, 2007 8:03 PM
Worst book, like, ever...it was laughably bad! Horribly written, paper thin characters; it was one notch above a bodice ripper.
I did,however, see it's cinematic potential and was convinced it might make a good film. Now I'm glad I never saw it.
Posted by: Fabiola Thing at April 6, 2007 5:31 PM