The DaVinci Code - A simple review

So, I saw the DaVinci Code last night (it's was Julie's choice, but what the heck, I had nothing better to do with $11.25 US - yep, €8.90 per ticket). Before you all scream the question that is on everyone's mind, I just want to assure you all, Tom Hanks' hair did not bother me. Why are people focusing on this anyway. It's just hair; many people can grow their's longer or shorter, depending on their mood. Tom Hanks had longish hair for this film. Fine.

Anyway, being that my brain tends to purge large amounts of irrelevant and semi-irrelevant information, I had basically forgotten the book. Sure I remember the overall premise. An American guy drives around Paris in a smartcar and somehow ends up in Scotland with a Frenchwoman with a heavy accent. Best of all I forgot who the overall villian was. It added to my movie experience. We could say that the DaVinci Code (the book) didn't have a terribly marking impact on my life. My review of the book was...eh! I read a lot of pulp fiction and the Code was not the best and not the worst that I had read last year.

Anyway, getting to the movie. It was mediocrity in THX surround sound. Sure it was an enjoyable 2 hours and 20 minutes (or something like that). Jean Reno was not at his best - "Leon/The Professional" saw him in better times. Audrey Tatou was okay, if not a little flat in her English-language blockbuster debut (she has done some other lower budget films in English). Tom Hanks - whatever, he didn't make any huge mistakes. Ron Howard did a good job at totally desexing the relationship between Langdon and Neveu. As I said, I don't totally remember the book, but I do seem to recall that there was at least the hint of a relationship between the two protagonists - here, nothing.

I was going to avoid a spoiler, but what the heck, this is my biggest critism of the movie, so I'll have to officially state: SPOILER ALERT, stop reading now if you didn't read the book, haven't seen the movie and want to be mildly surprised if you do see it.

I don't remember exactly how this was done in the book, but in the movie, Teabing's reason for revealing his evil is so stupid and flat. He tries to force Langdon and Neveu to reveal the secret by force, but they are already trying to do this. Why the hell didn't he just let them continue? This rang very untrue in the movie. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO FORCE THE SUBJECT!! Even if we learned that he was "The Teacher," he didn't need to reveal this. He'd already killed Remy, why not sit back and let our two characters do the work. His only motivation was that the secret be revealed? Ugh. Just terrible. I know I know. American sense of justice etc, means that he has to somehow be punished for his actions.

Anyway: I would have a hard time recommending this to anyone, espeically at over $11 a ticket. Rent it on video, read some reviews so you get the general premise, whatever. It's too long and too tedious at parts to really say that this is a master oeuvre. Or what the heck, go see it if you want. Someone has to pay Dan Brown's take and Hanks' $25 million.

Oh and just my little post script on the whole religious aspect. IT'S FICTION DAMN IT! I don't understand why so many people are up in arms about this thing. We have movies about Robin Hood, the World Wars, Aliens, the CIA, and Michael Moore's entire catalog that no one takes seriously. Why do they take a piece of pulp that purports that Jesus was married to be serious? Come on, grow up and take it for what it is - fiction, pure and simple.