CRACKING THE DA VINCI CODE - A Bullet Point Review
You’ve heard all the controversial babble surrounding The Da Vinci Code, but the real controversy is how such a supposedly good book can turn out to be such a cinematic dud. Here’s how The Code breaks down:
*The story is so ludicrous it makes Raiders of the Lost Ark look like a documentary. If they’re going to go that way out with the premise, they should at least attempt to portray some historical facts accurately, so that the narrative could at least appear to be somewhat plausible.
*The plot is unnecessarily convoluted, with twists and turns that feel completely manufactured – twists and turns that serve the genre rather than the story itself. In other words, this is a thriller purely for the sake of thrillers and not a thriller that flows naturally from a solid story. For instance, a man is shot in the Louvre at the film’s opening. He's about to die and has little time left. How does he spend his precious remaining moments on earth? He devises the most absurdly cryptic clues imaginable, leaving behind a pointlessly complicated message. Isn’t that how most of us would spend our last remaining moments?
*Most of the characters’ motivations don’t make any sense. For example, why is this professor, who should be more concerned about clearing his name of murder, willing to elude police, risk his life, and go on a wild goose chase with a woman he doesn’t even know - because she’s hot? As well, why are so many people willing to radically compromise their values in order to destroy a secret that could never possibly be proven and so could never present any threat to Christianity? A secret that isn't in any real danger of being exposed?
*One of the villains, Silas, an albino monk with a few unresolved issues, is so over the top, he even looks like the Emperor from the Star Wars films.
*One of the main secrets revealed near the very end of the film, is painfully clear long before that and definitely not worth the approximate 2.5 hours we had to sit through to reach that point. Thus the finale is rather underwhelming and anything less than climactic.
The bottom line: As far as summer movie escapism goes, The Da Vinci Code works more like a mild distraction, than a first rate thriller. A good thriller flows out of a good story, not solely out of a good premise, no matter how original that premise is. Dan Brown should have focused more on justifying the characters’ motivations and behaviours rather than resurrecting dubious historical legends. As for the controversy, having not read the book, I do believe that one needs to be very careful when incorporating sacred symbols into fiction. The Jesus Story, whether one believes it or not, is sacred to millions of people, and so Brown should have been a little more respectful of the subject. It’s not a matter of people believing that the story may be true, it’s a matter of desecrating images that are sacred to millions. But as far as posing any threat to Christianity, it can only pose a threat if Christians are insecure about their beliefs. People who are secure in their own belief system aren't threatened by opposing points of view. In fact, opposing belief systems often help to strengthen one's own ideologies. After all, you can learn a lot from "heresy". Historically, it was heresies that forced the Christian Church to affirm and formalize its doctrines. The only thing The Da Vinci Code really threatens is quality summer movie viewing as the the film adaptation will more likely be remembered for being one of the biggest critical disappointments in the medium's history, than anything else.
On The Rickter-Scale, the Da Vinci Code rates a 4.5 out of 10.
THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform
posted by Rix Flix at 11:55 PM
3 Comments:
Uggghhh,
The world goes on, into 07/06/06.
Damn.
Why are you harping on plot holes and realism? Have you learned nothing from your hero, Roger Ebert? The whole mystery/secret is just a "Macguffin" for cryptic puzzles, codes, secret societies, car chases, etc.
And as for 'being careful about sacred symbols', isn't that just subtle censorship?
That being said it was a mediocre movie, not bad, certainly not great, but watchable.
AAAHHH - I hate to disagree BUT...plot holes and realism aren't so much the issue - it's the motivations and behaviours of the characters that are the real issue. The story doesn't have to be realistic in terms of plot, but it should be realistic in terms of people's motivations and behaviours. Even the most absurdist fantasies need to have characters who behave in a plausible way - a way that's authentic to human beings, not in a way that's simply convenient for the plot. As for your other point, I wasn't talking about censorship but about treating sacred traditions with an appropriate level of respect. However, having said that, when did censorship become such a bad word. Most of us live with censorship everyday as we censor ourselves constantly in the majority of our human interactions. Without censorship, society would break down into anarchy. What you call censorship, I simply call self-control and respect.
Post a Comment
<< Home