Movie Review: The DiVinci Code (warning: spoilers)

Sorry it took so long to post, friends. The blogsite's been having troubles uploading my posts and I decided to just write at home. Hopefully, we're back in business--especially since I sent some of you all emails!

Like answering a question with a question, I'm going to start this review with a book review. I hated the Divinci Code book by Dan Brown. I'm really surprised I read it cover to cover. Complicated and completely devoid of adjectives, Mr. Brown's text reads like a Grisham novel---it reads like a movie adaptation. 'You've seen the movie, now read the book!' is it's attitude at the time, even tho there was no film yet. You could practically see the camera angle comments and editing remarks between the dialogue. He wanted to make a movie. Worse, he deals with art for goodness sakes, but lacked the ability to create said art in the reader's brain. I had to keep running to the internet to see exactly what he was describing.

So, as I read, I believed that it would make a good movie.

I was right.

The glaring drawbacks of the hack job of a book are greatly reduced on the big screen. The tale is a complicated one, but luckily, also facinating. Seems that the Holy Grail of old was really not an object but a secret. The secret being that Jesus of Nazareth was more mortal then we can ever think--to the point that he got married and fathered children. It also seems that a secret cabal knew this and did their best to hide the lineage from the church. The church, if this information got out, would be called a liar and might collapse--so they intend on keeping it as quiet as possible.

Enter Tom Hanks character, a symbolgist from Harvard. He has the skills to decipher hidden clues created by DiVinci and others in their works and possibly open this story wide. Hard to make a bookish professor exciting, isn't it? You do what you can, but it's another blow to the tale. At least his cohort was a cop. A small, geeky cop with no gun. Go figure.

Sounds complicated, right? It is and that is the problem. If I were to tell you, merely just tell you these secrets, you'd be asleep after the first paragraph, even if you were pious. But if, as Mr. Brown probably thought, I hid it in a work of fiction, well, you might be more interested. Most likely. But the fact of the matter is, this is heady stuff. Good stuff, but not for the faint-of-brain, for lack of a better discription.

If you like to think during your tales, this might be for you. It's also a fairly passive story. The protagonists merely move from situaition to situation, reacting instead of acting on what is happening around them. It's as if they are kidnapped the entire time by the legend floating about them. Such passivity doesn't make for engaging work. If either of them were shot, I wouldn't care, for they weren't all that interesting to begin with.

Actually, I think the film did so well by the very church that snubbed it and asked others not to see it. YOu would think a church after so many years would have learned the ins-and-outs of the movie machine. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Remember Mr. and Mrs. Smith of last year? Medicore film propelled to the top of the heap due to the well-timed romance of it's beautiful leads? Same goes for this movie. The mere fact that this title was repeated again and again from various pulpits made individuals take note and want to find out what the big deal was. Aint' nothing better for Hollywood then a request for a boycott. Many crappy films have found power this way.

But DiVinci, like Over the Hedge is better than average, but not great. Seems to be a reoccuring theme this year. Last year, the movies were just bad. This year? A step up, slightly.

Please, dear God, bring me a good movie! This is a start, but I'm still waiting for more.