"The Da Vinci Code" **1/2 (out of four): Rote and ironically accurate adaptation of a book for which accuracy is but a passing concern.
For the seven or so people who have yet to read the book, Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s wildly successfully “The Da Vinci Code” isn’t likely to sway you. All the pieces are still in place for a top-notch page turner. A mysterious murder, exotic locales, an attractive male-female team on the run from the police, clues hidden throughout history. If you were going to read it, you still probably will. If not, there’s nothing here that will change your mind. In fact, you’ll probably come away saying, “so what’s all the fuss about?” Or worse, “this is just like ‘National Treasure’.” But unlike last year’s blatant, ham-handed attempt to cash in on “Code’s” success, there are some pleasures to be had here.
Stumble This
Reddit!If you liked this story, you might also like...
- Our complete archive of Big Picture Reviews.
What annoyed me about this movie was how apologetic it was. Hanks played Professor Disclaimer, running around shouting things like "Of course it's all just a myth! There's no way to prove any of it!" And then he has that scene where he's talking to Sophie and then he says reassuringly to all the Christians in the audience "All that matters is what you choose to believe." As cheesy as the book was, it at least was definitive in proposing these theories, making you believe that they were really uncovering a plausible secret history.
There's something to be said in these days of politicians pandering for the Christian vote that Dan Brown wrote a book that claims that Jesus was just a guy and that the Catholic Church is evil and still made enough money to pay his strippers to dress up as nuns while he snorts coke off their asses.