I think that most anyone who writes for a living (including film critics) probably takes the success of The Da Vinci Code novel as a deep personal insult. The writing is that artless and clumsy. It’s also probably safe to say that a number of these people are either Christians who are offended by Dan Brown’s stabs at the faith, or people who are simply annoyed at the tremendous historical liberties Brown takes which he slyly attempts to pass off as fact. I imagine a lot of critics are probably coming into the movie with a big chip on their shoulder from the abonimation of a novel.
I mean, it can’t be that bad, right? The cast is uniformly excellent, and Ron Howard is pretty consistent in generating films that are at least okay. Maybe it’s just a decent (not great, not terrible) somewhat long-winded movie that a lot of people are predisposed to dislike.
I thought the book was a crappy screenplay. 2 page chapters, 2 dimensional characters, and plenty of expository dialogue. I thought it even strongly backed away from suggesting the Catholic church or even the Opus Dei sect were villains. In my mind, purely because that would be an obstacle to becoming a “major motion picture”.
I like Tom Hanks, but even his presence can’t save an airport potboiler. I knew as soon as the protagonist caught a glimpse of himself in the mirror about two pages in (for a clumsy and generally unneccesary description of his appearance) that it was gonna be a groaner, and to adapt it into a semblance of respectability is just asking for trouble.
I don’t get all the anti-Davinci rhetoric, either. It says right on the spine that it’s fiction, and Brown has never claimed otherwise. There is no greater invitation to scorn than popularity.
It’s horribly plotted, but if you’ve never read The Chalice and the Blade or Holy Blood, Holy Grail I can see how it would be captivating.
Actually, he tries to have it both ways if you watch interviews with him. I don’t think he believes a word of it, but he always seems to mouth platitudes about how his book raises interesting questions about the history of the early church, when in fact it doesn’t because he gets the basic stuff so wrong.
Umm, they are a real thing I am pretty sure. The reason I say this, is because while flipping channels a few weeks ago, I think I saw CNN interviewing one of them.
That was probably Opus Dei. That’s real, though Brown makes a lot of stuff up there. A lot of OD members have been making the press rounds demonstrating that first, most are lay Catholics, and second, they don’t hire albino assassins.
Priory of Sion was a real organization in the sense that a hoaxster had it registered as an organization in the late 50s. But they aren’t anything important historically or theologically speaking.
DB: Most of the information is not as “inside” as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for THE DA VINCI CODE was based in part on her hope that “this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience.”
…
Q: Would you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?
DB: Absolutely not. In fact, I’m quite the opposite-more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other “mysteries” that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind THE DA VINCI CODE was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.
…
Q: How much of this novel is based on fact?
DB: All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist. Photos of the paintings and locations can be viewed at www.danbrown.com.
Personally, I just hated the book because I thought it was stupid–not the conspiracy, per se (after all, you can’t have a conspiracy novel without a conspiracy), but it just had supposedly smart people continually doing stupid things for no reason except to lurch the plot in some direction or other.
What, you mean like in Angels and Demons where the main character almost passes out due to lack of oxygen in a manuscript chamber, and mentions how he should’ve turned it on first but oh well, only to do the exact same thing again later?
Well the theory isn’t new, it dates back to gnostic heretics in the early centuries of the church. Of course that doesn’t guarantee that it’s a true story.
Ripples, ripples, in a glass of water,
He approaches for the oncoming slaughter
Bellowing roar to shake the bow and tree
The tyrannousaurus rex comes for me!
Pity them, those cursed disposable cows
No human dignity for death now
Audiences cheer, lawyers are devoured
While raptors chase cute blond kids for hours
Oh! if Spielberg had but known that Jackson
Would augment his brontosaurus action
Spectacle on yonder screen would longer hold
Against the memory, from last reel rolled.
What awful plight for a fanciful lark,
Lo! the legacy of Jurassic Park!
