The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code
I've gone back and forth on wanting to see this movie for a while, but finally I said, "what the heck?" and put it in the queue. Before I get to the movie, though, let's go ahead and deal with the hype about the book so that we can get it out of the way and actually consider the movie all on its own.
I know that a lot of people are upset that this book gets so many historical facts wrong, that some think it's poorly written, etc. When my husband and I first read this book I enjoyed it. I thought it was just as well written as any other popular best-seller, and in fact, much better than many. I liked the subject matter and the ideas it was exploring, and we had good conversations sparked by it. Later I talked to several people about it and I started to hear all about how they felt that Dan Brown was presenting some sketchy and badly researched ideas as fact and they seemed offended by that. I was sort of swayed by these arguments, in no small part because I really respect and liked a lot of the people who were saying these things. The more I think about it, though, the less I agree. I mean, it's a novel, a work of fiction. It's a fast-paced modern novel with some interesting bits of history and mythology thrown in. Fiction, people, fiction. I read a book called Assassini about a sect of killer priests harbored by the Vatican, and I don't recall anyone getting their britches twisted about it. I think, because The Da Vinci Code was so very popular (and there is a reason for its popularity - it's easy to read, moves quickly, has interesting characters and plot, and has a lot of thought and conversation provoking ideas), it's sort of a natural reaction for intellectuals to tear it apart. I do want to point out that Dan Brown didn't create these ideas out of whole cloth. There have been numerous books, articles, and movies that have made similiar points, heck there is even a video game called "Gabriel Knight: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned" (featuring voice work by Tim Curry - woot!). Anyway, in the end, I think it's a decent book, I accept that it's a work of fiction, and I think it should be enjoyed for what it is, not vilified for trying to be something it's not.
So, all that being said, let's talk about the movie, shall we?
First off, I still don't know that Tom Hanks was the best choice for this role. On the one hand, yes, he does certainly have a professorial vibe, but it's the dry, tweedy, musty sort of professor that you would find in the lecture hall and expect to smell faintly of old toast, burnt coffee, and dandruff shampoo and who's lectures are a challenge even the most hardcore insomniac. The Robert Langdon of the book was more dynamic, more vibrant, more charismatic. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find Tom Hanks charismatic at all, and between the atrocious hair and the strange bloating he has going on, I found him rather hard to look at in this movie. Audrey Tautou did a pretty good job as Sophie Neveu, however I really did want her to have red hair. Those are nitpicks, though, I admit.
On the whole, I found the movie pretty good. It had an interesting story, the action was evenly paced, and the directing was up to Ron Howards standards (well-done but nothing innovative or spectacular). I thought Ian McKellan was a great choice for Sir Teabing, and the writers certainly did a good job preserving the important plot points from the book without altering, omitting, or contradicting what was written in the book (yes, I am looking at you, adapters of the Harry Potter books *glare*). So, all in all, if you can see your way past the book hype, enjoy a good tale of mystery with some history and religion thrown in, you will likely enjoy this movie (as long as you don't spend the whole thing trying to figure out what happened to Tom Hanks head). It was sort of like a more leather-bound library style Indiana Jones movie.