The Da Vinci Code was a two hour endurance test of lectures and conspiracy theories centered around the origin of Jesus. The film was, in a word, boring, but it is a testament to its subject that the film managed to be watchable at all … despite the terrible haircut on star Tom Hanks.
Now Hanks reunites with director Ron Howard to bring Dan Brown’s other conspiracy-laden opus Angels & Demons to the screen. However, the newest plot is less intriguing, involving the election of a new Pope. Fortunately the Illuminati arrive to spice things up. Slightly.
Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a “symbologist” who also specializes in being the most intelligent man in history. Like the first film, Langdon can walk into any room or conversation and be instantly able to cough up random dates and events at will without even struggling. The downside of this trait is that it reduces Langdon to a walking Wikipedia, rather than a flesh and blood character for whom we can root. In this case, he is assisted by the lovely Ayelet Zurer as an Italian scientist who has managed to create antimatter just in time to play a part in the devious scheme of the Illuminati. They plan to use this newly-created and poorly-understood substance to blow up the Vatican.
Sounds like a great idea, actually. But that might ruin the tension of the trumped-up plotline, which attempts to up the excitement level using the countdown device. Howard intends for our pulses to race as Langdon frantically scours Rome for the antimatter bomb.
Yawn. The film shuttles along weightlessly from place to place without any depth or, even worse, a sense of time. I did not know that you could take a helicopter flight across Rome in the span of three or four minutes, but now I do. This kind of absence of realistic time and motion plagues Howard’s movie, as he attempts to convince us that our heroes are capable of being almost everywhere at will.
Speaking of being everywhere at will, our ACME villains the Illuminati – who apparently number two by my counting – manage to, like most action film villains, anticipate every move of everyone on Earth at any single moment. The Illuminati make terrific villains if you go by their mythology. Unfortunately this film turns them into a very small, unbelievably intelligent group of petty criminals. With a 400 year old grudge. Whatever.
But any goodwill the movie had built during its running time is thrown completely out the window of that Roman helicopter I mentioned earlier (literally) during the finale, one of the most startlingly stupid things I’ve seen in a theater this year (topping even Knowing which I reviewed 22.03.09 for shock value). This is, in my mind, on par with the infamous refrigerator sequence from last year’s Indiana Jones (reviewed 22.05.08) abortion. I laughed out loud to the point of wanting to piss my pants to convince myself I was awake.
Ultimately, there is no point to the production of this film other than to make a lot of money. At least the previous film had meditations on the birth and life of Christ; this is just a silly potboiler with lots of phony plot constructions. I can’t imagine anyone really cares about any of this; Even actual conspiracy theorists would be bored by the code this time around.
Hanks is too good of an actor to be plodding around in a thankless role like this. Unlike the Nicolas Cage character from the National Treasure films, Hanks’ Langdon has almost no personality traits or drive aside from spitting out boring archaeological factoids. Anything projected off of Hanks in this film comes from Hanks’ own personal warmth and charisma, although those features are missing through much of the film. Perhaps he was just as bored as the rest of us. Through his eyes you can almost hear him saying: what am I doing here, and why should anyone give a fuck about any of this?? Indeed.
This film is utterly pointless and not particularly fun until the ludicrously awful final five minutes. If you’re a fan of staring open-mouthed at a screen while your brain slowly dies, then this is the film for you. My highest recommendation for anyone is that this film contains moving images that might manage to distract them. Other than that, you might be best to skip it, go to church, and pray for Hanks to return to life.
4 Comments
Frank and to the point… I like. I tend to think Ron Howard is the wrong director for this sort of material. He’s too… mushy when it comes to stuff like this. Tom Hanks is wrongly cast too – I never imagined him as Langdon: wrong director, wrong actor and even wrong screenwriter – I wonder how David Fincher would have fared instead? I reckon he’d bring the dark qualities these books need… and what the hell’s Ewen McGregor doing in this film??? Scottish dude as an Italian Vatin Official??? Hmmmmmmm…
The best screenwriter in the world would have considerable difficulty adapting anything from Dan Brown’s source material though- it’s thriller by numbers stuff in the most cynical of forms. Literature by numbers; to the lowest common denominator.
And I have a major issue with the idea that a Symbologist could be any kind of charismatic “action hero” no matter how restrained. What next an archaeologist who fights Nazis? Oh…
Adapting a script like Angels and Demons must be a massive task as the book itself does not initially appear to adapt well from page to screen. I think The cast and crew did a good job with the time limit they had to fit the story in.
Films are not documentaries and are not to be taken so seriously. There is not always the need for factual information like flight times in films. We never see Jack Bauer go to the toilet in 24 do we?
I found watching the film enjoyable even after reading the book and seeing the changes they made. I thought it was entertaining and thrilling.
I’m not saying the film is perfect, no film is. Lets just say that when it comes out on DVD I’d consider purchasing it.
Both novels by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are excellent. Perhaps a different director who doesn’t feel the need to always include his BFF, Tom Hanks, as the lead might have been able to give a more honest and exciting visual interpretation. Neither movie came close to capturing the core essence and profound attraction of the novels’ characters and plots. And Tom Hanks, although a competent actor, was a poor casting choice for Langdon, thereby, sinking both movies from the “get-go”. The novels deal interestingly and intelligently with controversial, delicate issues. Both novels are exciting, written with strong plots and uniquely compeling characters. Unfortunately Opie drove a nail through both of them with his movie adaptations. He did not capture the dark side of the novels, nor did he exhibit the profound shock that needed to be conveyed on screen. Both novels are two of my favorite reads, and I was delighted when Ron Howard announced he was going to bring The DaVinci Code to the screen until he presented Tom Hanks as Langdon. Then I knew it was going to not reach the pinnacle that it should. When he did it again (since it is the same lead character) in Angels and Demons – I just thought, “What a waste.” I would have liked to have seen Scorsese or Tim Burton interpret these novels to the visual medium. Too bad.