Da Vinci Code mini review

Da Vinci Code mini review: Someone emailed me requesting that I explain why I think the film adaptation of Da Vinci Code stinks (however, they didn’t dispute my theory that references to the Fifth Ave. Apple Store are buried in it). Here’s what I mean: The movie is boring. Say what you want about the book, but it was a page-turner that was filled with suspense and intriguing historical theories and who-dunnit twists and sexual tension and one of the creepiest villains ever. I found myself dozing off during the movie — bored by the long explanations some poor character was having to make to explain what the heck was going on in the scene. The movie does succeed in one thing: the villain is still creepy, perhaps even moreso. But the sexual tension is removed and all of the religious and historical theories are talked to death in such a way as to make them seem more whacky than plausable. Heck, the Opus Dei people should be inviting people to this movie rather than boycotting it as no-one would confuse the movie with reality in the way too many readers confused fiction with fact in the book.

If the image on this post is puzzling you, the answer can be found with image view.

Technorati Tags:

  • bhudgins

    Haven’t seen the movie, but when I heard it was under way and Tom Hanks was cast as the lead, I was dumfounded. In the book, the professor-hero is described as something of a stud, albeit he’s somewhere in the early 40s range, I think. In another era, they might have cast Richard Chamberlain in the role. In 10 years, I could see Matt Damon playing it. But although Tom Hanks is many things, he simply doesn’t project studliness. That alone made me wonder how the movie would turn out.

    There’s a lot more to be said about the line between fiction and even arguable fact, of the desire to dispel nagging, suppressed doubt, and to ascribe all our uncertainties and ill-ease to vast shadowy conspiracies. But not here. Someone may be listening.