This Da Vinci's no masterpiece

By Alan Charlton

It is ironic that the movie version of THE DA VINCI CODE commands viewers to "seek the truth." In fact, in response to the book, numerous historians and theologians have done precisely that, with the result that there have been innumerable books, articles, and television programs simply debunking all the "facts" upon which Dan Brown based his best-selling novel.

Only the totally ill-informed, therefore, will give any credence to the plot which claims that the Holy Grail refers to Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus and that her heirs are alive today, protected by a secret order called the Priory of Sion. A group of those belonging to Opus Dei are supposed to be intent on destroying the members of this priory.

If one is to bother with the book (or the film) at all, the only reasonable approach is to consider it a piece of escapist fiction.

Now if, like me, you found the book abominably written and tedious to read, then you will doubtless find the movie version similar. For the first hour or so, it is an entertaining mystery, but as it continues its 150-minute journey it simply becomes de trop.

If, by contrast, you were among the millions who found the book gripping, then you may find the movie version similar. It does reveal gaping holes in the original plot, but enough of the narrative has been included that some may find this escapist piece of nonsense as entertaining as the novel.

If you have never read the book, then be prepared for such a deluge of information and plot complexity as to find the whole thing frequently confusing and even downright boring.

Brown did manage to come up with a tangled plot which cleverly combines fiction with fiction-purporting-to-be-fact in a truly inventive fashion. However, it doesn't translate too well to the screen. With more twists and turns than a busy sommelier's corkscrew, the plot dashes around Europe, with so many people counter-plotting that it is difficult to understand much of what is going on.

Things are not helped by Alan Goldman's often unintentionally comic script. Director Ron Howard does his best to keep things moving by making certain montages quite gripping, but too often he can't cover up the weaknesses of the plot, and for some peculiar reason he has attempted to illustrate the "historical" parts with unconvincing flashbacks from what appear to be silent movie epics (including a downright hilarious shot of what purports to be the Council of Nicaea).

Tom Hanks as the central character manages, understandably, only to look confused, without once convincing the viewers that he could possibly be an authority on anything, let alone a Harvard professor of religious symbols. Audrey (Amelie) Tautou makes a pretty if vapid heroine.

Only Sir Ian McKellen as a drily witty Englishman manages to come off well, and for a while he lifts the movie as it begins to sag, but even he is eventually forced to devolve into melodramatic histrionics.

The truth is that, responding to the demand of the producers to seek the truth, one discovers that the truth is that the movie is an unsatisfactory mess which goes on too long and outwears any welcome it may have had.

Because of violence, including brutal murders, crude language, irreverent underpinning, rear male nudity, scenes of corporal mortification, a fleeting hint of prostitution, and a glimpse of ritualistic sex, the USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O - morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.