Techtite DVD Reviews

The Film: When is a film bulletproof from its critics? The answer is clear, when looking at the surprising box office success of Ron "Opie" Howard's craptacular adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. This was a film all but totally shielded from critics, until hours before its theatrical release. Upon viewing it, only a lowly 24% of all professional critics surveyed, had anything nice to say. Yet thanks to a brilliant publicity campaign, agnostic popcorn-addicted theater patrons had to see it for themselves. After all: wasn't this film made by the same Oscar winning producer, director, and scriptwriter team behind A Beautiful Mind, while starring the Oscar winning actor of Saving Private Ryan...?

Let's answer that question later, as we cover the plot. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is requested to assist in a big murder mystery. The murder is quite mysterious indeed, as the victim was mortally wounded, yet had enough time to leave behind an outlandish number of cryptic clues; puzzles that no one man could solve alone. Enter Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), whose job is to help the police decipher crime-related puzzles. She will help Robert solve the occasional clue, run from the occasional villain, and most importantly, find out what the heck this poor guy was trying to tell them all before he died.

Now, I'm an open minded theater patron. If you want me to suspend disbelief to enjoy a whimsical fairy-tale; fine. But such suspension of disbelief has a ceiling. If you begin a murder mystery with a crime scene, and said murder victim was a regular human being, do not tell me the victim of the crime was mortally wounded, yet had enough time to strip themselves completely naked, write numerous cryptic messages in his own blood, hide an important clue down the hall, paint a circle based on a classic Da Vinci drawing on the floor, then pose within the drawing oh so specifically, all while bleeding to death and I would imagine, in serious pain. One need not solve the puzzle of exactly what trilogy of numbers this man should've been thinking before he died, if he had that much time prior to death. This calls for wisdom. The numbers are 9...1...1.

The rest of the film is one big chase scene, where Robert and Sophie solve a puzzle, go to the location mentioned in the puzzle, only to find another puzzle just seconds before someone chases them for finding said puzzle. This makes for a slightly amusing action movie, but the lack of character realism is a distraction. While the original novel probably made more sense, in this film it seems almost like our two supposed "heroes" have all but forgotten about their dead friend at the beginning of the movie, as they obsess over the next natty brain twister. Even when Sophie gets a near-confession from a prime suspect, she seems less interested in bringing him to justice, and more interested in the five letter word needed to open a cute little puzzle box she found.

Said puzzle box is the "cryptex": a gold cylinder with a scroll inside, which can only be opened with one out of 12 million possible code combinations. Trying to crack open the cylinder with the wrong code will lead to an inner vial of corrosive liquid dripping onto the scroll, destroying it forever. In fact, as the film attests; even dropping the cylinder by accident will destroy its contents forever (!). The creator of said puzzle box is supposedly a genius. Are they? Either they wanted the scroll destroyed, or they wanted it preserved. There is no "option 3." If they wanted it destroyed, why did they not simply burn the scroll post haste? If they wanted the scroll read someday, why make it so that there was less than a 1 out of 12 million chance of someone not destroying it? That's just ridiculous.

As for the cast; there's a big difference between casting a talented performer, and casting someone who is right for the role. As award winning as Tautou and Hanks are, they just aren't right for the roles as described in the book. Conversely, Ian McKellen (as Sir Leigh Teabing) offers his typically excellent acting to a role that perhaps didn't deserve such an actor performing it. Even when given dialog that makes utterly no sense, Ian's delivery of his lines is as good as it could ever get. Yet the same cannot be said for Alfred Molina, who performs the role of an archbishop like he was mistakenly told this film was The Godfather 4. As for Paul Bettany as Silas the hitman monk, I think he did an okay job. Yeah, I know; "hitman monks"...? Well; that's The Da Vinci Code. Enjoy.

In the end, any mystery is only as good as the final "big reveal," and therein is where this film fails. If you want such a revelation unspoiled, see another film, because this plot device has stirred a lot of politically incorrect controversy, and any fair review must address this. To wit: the film alleges that Mary Magdalene had a child with Jesus, and was in fact his "Holy Grail," and by a leap of faith larger than the Nile, this "proves" he was just another guy. I'm no biblical scholar, but I do know that Christians consider Jesus an immaculate birth, hence their belief in the divinity of Jesus. If he ever had children, they would be quite mortal, since they were not immaculate births. Yet this "Code" insists that if Jesus had kids that did not follow his every footstep, then he was just another guy. How so? That's like saying Thomas Edison could not have invented the light bulb unless all his kids invented it too. That's ridiculous. Even more ridiculous: spending 125 million to transform The Last Temptation of Christ into a murder mystery rewritten by a village idiot.

Upon the closing credits, one puzzle remains: how could so many Oscar winners have made such a mess? Simple: they're only human. Brian Grazer may have produced (no joke) over 75 movies and TV shows, but: he's only human, so he also made crap like The Cat in the Hat. Ron Howard is not much better, with his irrefutably frivolous flop, The Grinch. As for scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman: he also wrote Batman & Robin, which by fan and critic alike is unanimously considered the worst Batman movie ---if not the worst superhero film--- of all time. As for Tom Hanks, four words: Bonfire of the Vanities. Yikes.

Not that I'm trying to belittle these people. We're all only human. I suppose therein is what this movie is trying to assert, but when it belittles millions of people's faith and beliefs in the process, that's just wrong. No film should attempt to belittle anyone's race, creed, religion, or "lifestyle" for simple fun and profit. That's all I got out of this movie, and that just isn't entertaining to me.

The DVD: Sometimes a blockbuster gets its due in the form of a gift set. Other times you wonder if the gift set was planned months in advance, and the manufacturers weren't told in enough time that the film was self-pretentious crap. Whether you loved the film enough to warrant a "gift set," or you just think the thought of having your own itty bitty "cryptice" is cool; yes, there's a gift set, and if we didn't think the film itself was crap, we might even buy it ourselves.

The Gift Set (which as of the time of this review's update, can still be ordered at Amazon) is essentially the same DVD with the same bonus features, which we'll be getting to soon enough. The only additions are the "gifts" of a faux replica of Robert Langdon's journal, and most importantly, a miniaturized yet "working" replica of the cryptex, just as seen in the film. Man; if the film wasn't so darned disappointing, we'd be all over this one. The film was pretty bad, though, so if you want this, get it now, because it's unlikely they'll make more.

As for DVD itself; it has the same video extras whether you buy it in gift set form or not. "First Day on the Set With Ron Howard" tells the tale that Opie has said in many an interview: that the core reason he accepted the director's chair for this film, was to be able to direct a movie in The Louvre. I still fail to see why he accepted to direct a movie just to film in the Louvre, and yes, I'm an art fan, so don't go there. It's just that; there's nothing spectacularly awe-inspiring about this film that would make it the definitive reason to film in the Louvre. If Opie wanted to film in the Louvre, why didn't he simply film any movie there? Problem solved. The sales pitch seemed to be: watch this movie because it's the only chance you'll ever have to see the Louvre in a movie. Um; I have legs if I wanted to go see The Louvre, thank you, and I also have The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel, so again; what is so freaking spectacular about this film's being filmed in the freaking Louvre? Enough!

Take away the apathetic "thrill" of seeing Opie in The Louvre, and what is left? Ten...yes, ten...featurettes, that's what. We have a featurette about who will be the inevitably next member of the "One Hit Wonder" book author club, Dan Brown. We have a featurette about fictional character Langdon, which makes one wonder if the editors of this film had edited the film, would we have cared about this character a little more? Another featurettes asks us "Who is Sophie Neveu?" with us asking the screen in vain, "Didn't you watch your own movie to answer that question?" Another featurette promises an expos� about the film's "colorful, memorable, and frightening characters," which would be rather believable if we hadn't remembered how out of 211 professional critics, only 24% thought this film was any good. That's less than one out of every four critics who "didn't see" the same mess we all did.

More featurettes...and more hype. The "Magical Places." "A Close Up look at the Mona Lisa" (which, no, does not reveal a magical message when looked at with a blue penlight). "The Filmmaking Experience" was divided into two parts, though we see no reason why. "The Codes of The Da Vinci Code," is a lot like your friend giving you a code book for a video game you finished playing two years ago. I mean; we saw the movie, guys. We don't need an "expos�" to the film's "many" secret codes, thanks. Add a featurette about the film's music (the film had music? really?), and my job re-reviewing this piece of overwrought cinematic catastrophe has come to an end.

Wait; there's more! Put this DVD in your computer and you get to play the video game based on the movie. Too bad the game had all the thrills of a movie that already played out like it was based on a video game. Which is to say: the game sucks. Surprise, surprise, eh?

	Final Rating : Near Miss. So dark, the con of Opie! It's one thing for Ron Howard to have totally bastardized The Grinch, but to some fans this film was a potential masterpiece, and this film...isn't.
For more on this site's ratings system, click here.

Got a review you'd like to share? Techtite will post 2 of the best "guest" reviews received for any product, online, for all the world to see!

All text, Title graphics, and pix not of reviewed products, are created by Techtite, copyright 1999-2006; all rights reserved. Picture of DVD cover is used only for the purpose of review (and to make shopping for product easier); it by no means represents any affiliation with Techtite and the distributors of this product. For further "legalese" & disclaimers, click here...

Techtite's DVD Reviews!

The Da Vinci Code

A Review by Techtite