The DaVinci Code

Director Ron Howard has made some good flicks in the past. You may remember a few of them: Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Backdraft, and Willow. I personally think of him as a man that makes large, powerful, epic-esque films. When I think of Apollo 13, I think of a story that captured the American public, and when I think of Cinderella Man, I think of a story that gripped emotions, and pressed down on the heart of the viewer. Though I have come to expect much from this man, I did not expect much from his directorial experience with the DaVinci Code.

That is not to say that I believed he was going to do a poor job. Quite the opposite. I think that the film was very well directed, and that it was managed in a very clever, and professional way. Most books adapted to film are messed with by the director, and made into something else. This is not the case. Despite a few minor changes near the last 25 minutes of the film, the story is spotless, and almost word for word, in terms of action and story. Dan Brown and writer Akiva Goldsman did a very good job of adapting the novel to screen.

With that, the actors selected for this film fit perfectly. Though I didn't, at first, see Tom Hanks as a very good Langdon, it very quickly became apparent to me that I was wrong. Though I've come to expect much from him as an actor, he fit this 'low effort' role very well. Supporting roles of Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, and Jean Reno all compliment this film. Their performances were seamless, and executed very well.

But now I must talk about the actual film. I remember checking the reviews right away, to see how the public was accepting it. And I was sad to discover that the film was not doing very well. On Rottentomatos.com, it had an approval rating of 19%, and IMDB currently lists it as a 6 of 10. Me, I'm not sure I'd go that low, but I'd not rate it much higher than 7.5 of 10. This film, though it was hyped as a 'summer action" certainly wasn't that. And that's the point!

Most people came into this film thinking it was going to be an action packed hybrid of Indiana Jone and the Last Crusade mixed with National Treasure. This is not the case. This is a slower pace, historical and fictional story of discovery. One of the films heavy criticisms came from it's pace. The film has several instances where it slows to expose some history that people might not be aware with. For those that came to see explosions, and Audrey scantily clad, this just isn't what you're looking for. It's a character story (at one point, you can even see the Mickey Mouse watch that Langdon owns.) It even tries to get further into his own past by speaking about Langdon's falling down a well.

The point here is, this is not a SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER. The summer blockbusters start next week, with X-Men 3.

Though I think that the film was good, and that it was done with professionalism, I do have to say that it wasn't all that impressive. It wasn't what I had come to expect from the director. But maybe I'm ok with that. Maybe, because he didn't branch off, and try to make the story more interesting than it already was.

But I don't think that's a reason to not see this film. It is a work of fiction. Treat is as so. I've read reviews, saying that this is the worst slander that anyone could have made towards the Christian faith. I'd have to say that's a little far fetched.

The point is... if you want, go see it. It's an entertaining film, has some good acting, a great cast, a strong director, and an entertaining story. It's nothing special, but hey, at least it's not another movie about teens surfing, or some lightweight car racing film that takes place in Japan.

Need something to do on a Friday night, and want to see something that will entertain you? Go see this film. It's pretty good, and I'd suggest it to friends. Just don't go in thinking it's going to be a front runner for that little golden man, Oscar.

6.75 of 10.