The Holy Grail of Psuedo-historic Claptrap?

As a novel, there is no doubting that The Da Vinci Code set the world on fire. The Asda-trotting masses lapped up the paper-thin plot, amateurish writing, historical inaccuracies, hammy dialogue, questionable source materials, two-dimensional characters and lack of emotional depth like free champagne at a Dan Brown launch party.

There is little wonder then, that this latter day marvel of marketing and spin should translate those exact same qualities on to the Big Screen. However, Ron Howard manages the remarkably rare trick of making the movie even duller than the original book.
No mean feat when one considers how a straightforward action thriller, that is comparatively a quick and easy read, is transformed into a plodding, one-sided and criminally self-indulgent piece of cinema.

The problem, I fear, lies in substance. If one strips away Dan Brown's central theme, there is absolutely nothing left but abysmal acting and treble-hackneyed plot devices.

For those who don't already know the story (and let's face it, even your baby does by now) here is the concept in a nutshell:
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and begat offspring, and a surviving 'royal' bloodline of Christ exists to this very day.
Notwithstanding that the only historical ‘evidence’ (I use the term advisedly) that supports this ‘controversy’ (again, advisedly) is merely a tenuous sentence in the Biblically omitted Gospel of Philip, which may or may not state that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth, Brown makes an astounding leap of credulity and fictionally expands the theme to suggest that Leonardo Da Vinci knew this explosive secret. Brown suggests, Da Vinci, was, in fact, no less than Grand Master of a clandestine organisation set up by the Templar Knights to protect this royal bloodline. Still with me?
Because of the suppression of the Church, Da Vinci decided to paint all about it in his famous works of art - most notably, the Last Supper – indicating the truth of Jesus’s descendents.
Despite Mary Magdalene being regarded as a saint for centuries by Catholics worldwide (the religion The Da Vinci Code seeks to undermine the most, and in such an overblown fashion it’s almost like The Godfather all over again), Brown would have us believe the Church has in fact suppressed Magdalene worship in order to continue a male-dominated theocracy up to the present day. A ‘secret’ the Catholic Church will do anything to discredit and destroy, including the hiring of the entire French police force, the International Swiss Bank, insane albino monks, and – erm - leading Grail historians tottering about on walking sticks.

Now, beneath all the flash, these intriguing ideas may have made for compelling viewing in the hands of a competent and perceptive director, but sadly, on film, The Da Vinci Code seems little more than a cynical vehicle for a visibly washed up Hanks and an obviously nervous Audrey Tatou, who, by now probably wishes she'd never strayed beyond the respectable confines of French cinema. As an Indiana Jones movie, this would have worked a treat. As a serious, engaging historical thriller, it fails miserably.

Admittedly, there are a couple of highlights, but nothing to write home about. Bettany doesn’t disappoint as the insanely zealous Silas, and McKellen makes the best of a bad job with the unbearably expositional script, but both these talents are wasted here. The rest of the cast literally ‘dial it in’, and the expected tension and drama of the narrative falls dreadfully short, leaving a decidedly un-grabbed and fidgety audience.
Honest-to-God (and pun intended), the entire pace of the film is gruelling - a fact which only becomes worse as the second-half drags by into an interminable finale and the plot eventually (and thankfully) unravels into possibly the greatest 'so what?' moment of modern cinema.

Overall, the whole theme is handled with a distinct lack of sensitivity. Before viewing this film, I defended The Da Vinci Code on the grounds it was widely taken out of context, but faced with the subject matter up on the screen, I could not help but feel such a humanistic and far-sweeping premise should have been properly examined and thoughtfully explored. The issues here would have been meaningful given one iota more of love and attention. But clearly, that creativity has been set aside in favour of continuing the mass market appeal of what in all honesty remains a very weak, scratching-the-surface story.

Ultimately, the real tragedy of The Da Vinci Code is that it succeeds in doing the very thing it sets out to condemn – it twists history, religion and mythology into an unrecognisable pulp. It is painfully ironic that the movie begins with Robert Langdon (Hanks) bemoaning how pop culture has obscured the truth of our symbols and myths.

Now, thanks to The Da Vinci Code, it is feasible that the truth of those ‘truths’ may never be known.

JB

I don't know if I'd call this a review. More of a scathing. I only had to read the title to realise you hated it, so with that out of the way I'm left wondering why bother to continue, so I skipped to the conclusion and wasn't surprised at what I saw.

JB, this is just a comment on your review as a "review" and not on your opinion of the film. It comes across a bit Michael Moor - ie, we can see your conclusion before your argument, so it looses all sense of being even slightly impartial.

However, I can also argue the other side of the coin, that this is successful as a review, because even though I'm honest in skipping the bulk, what I've read is really making me consider the idea of saving my money.

Question: are reviews supposed to read like reasoned arguments, or are they just personal opinion? Just wondering.

Colin M

Sounds a bit too leniant to me Wax, from what I've seen (not much actually, but enough. More than enough...)

Reviews should be a bit of both I reckon Colin. You can hate something and slate it without being Michael Moore you know.

Besides, Michael Moore, for all his ills, has done a load more positive things for America, through his up front investigative style, than President Dubya (I'm sure you'll agree!!)

There's nothing up-front about Michael Moore's investigative style: it's as tendentious, manipulative and unprincipled as the propaganda of his opponents. That's what destroys any serious stature he might genuinely have achieved if he'd applied even the bare minimum of journalistic standards to his brave and highly watchable/readable works.

Pete

Yes, the review is a subjective piece from a non-critic member of the public who got conned into watching this film. If I can save others the trouble, then my work here is done.

Seriously though, the art of writing a review is tricky in that it should be impartial as you say Colin. This is a pasting, and as impartial as I could get.

JB

With all due respect, Pete, I think that is a bit harsh.

Without Michael Moore, Dubya would get away with a hell of a lot more. He's playing them at their own game, and "unprincipled" is a matter of opinion. I think George W Bush is rather unprincipled and I am glad people like Moore are out there.

Moore does blow it sometimes, like in Fahrenheit 9/11, but what he did in Bowling For Columbine was brave, thoughtful and vital. No one else does it with such results.

He is a brave man, and takes risks and unless you are an admirer of Bliar and Bush, I'd say deserves some respect.



<Added>

And I'd say walking into Walmart with two victims of the Columbine massacre and returning the bullets, and then getting Walmart to stop selling bullets, was up front.

I'd say walking into a bank, and demanding why they give away guns with their accounts, is up front.

I'd say detailing the business (double) dealings and huge corporate interests of the Bush regime in a published book is up front.

And brave.

As I mentioned Michael Moore, I should say that I was a big fan of his show and Crackers the Corporate Parrot (or whatever the hell it was), and Bowling for Columbine was superb. But all said, if you sit down to watch a Michael Moore show, you best get ready to go along with his side of the argument, because it's all you're going to see. It's the same with 99% of documentaries, as the program maker usually have a point of view to get across, so they use the show to do that. I only put my thoughts across on here because James asked for opinions on a piece of creative writing, so I was really just looking at the review to see how biassed/unbiassed it was. It takes a brave reviewer to watch a film or listen to a record they dislike, but see through personal predjudices to give due merits (this doesn't reflect your review, JB, purely an opinion from reading reviews where the reviewers have admitted that very thing).

ps. I really, really didn't like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and it took all my metal not to write a single word review: "shite". Even so, I don't think I gave a particularly detailed or articulate review, so I'll bow out now (HP review is here)

Davy

If you want to excuse Moore's liberties with the documentary form (did I say liberties? I meant abuses) on the basis that his point of view is in your opinion right, then you're on a slippery slope. His work is arch-propaganda and his big mistake was to offer his opponents ammunition (no joke intended) to effortlessly shoot him down. He has earned a reputation for dealing untruthfully with his audience, which renders him pretty much neutralised. And that's his own fault.

Pete

Fair play Colin, I see what you mean definitely.

I just don't think many reviews are unbias, or even fair. If Cosmo Landesman thinks a film is shit, which he seems to generally, he says so from the start. If he thinks Star Wars is churlish and childish, then it's shit. End of story. That's his opinion, and good. How dull is a review that is balanced and says, well, it's not very good, but there are some good things. Well, I mean Ian McKellan's good...

Yeah, no shit. Ian McKellan is incapable of being bad. He's a fantastic actor. He could read the back of a cornflake packet and it would sound amazing. That's not the point. The point is, the film can't be good, because the book is so utterly dreadful. What do people expect? Ron Howard has made some good films, he knows how to direct, but no one could salvage a decent adventure romp from that book, unless you changed fundamental basics about the plot and the characters.

Reviews should just be one thing, in my opinion (as someone who knows nothing about writing reviews, I admit...) and that is honest. I don't want to know if Cosmo Landesman thinks Tom Hanks' hair looks okay, or the lighting in Westminster Abbey was gothic and stuff, unless the film is worth going to watch. If critics are pissing themselves at the bloody thing, I'd say it's not really to do with them being snobby or pretentious, just that the film really really sucks.

You know, if people like it still, fine. Superb. I love Star Wars to peices, but even I can see Episodes 1 and 2 are very dodgy indeed, but I still have them in DVD, and even watch them now and then...oh God I better shut up now.

Sorry everyone...

...but just one thing on MM.

Moore is one sided you say, but what would be the alternative POV in Bowling For Columbine? To present am argument in favour of Heston, the NRA and Lockheed Martin would be criminal, to be honest.

Why would someone who thinks the gun laws and culture is America's biggest problem, do that?

Should he tell us why George Bush could be considered right to invade Iraq, when the reasons for doing it were fundamentally wrong?

Moore gets a completely unfair press in this respect, because, as you say Colin, every documentary is one sided, when you consider it. Even if they start unbias, they will soon show either a subject you are sympathetic with, or that you disagree with. Look at Nick Broomfield's work. The TuPac and Biggy doc was superb, not biased, but you still come out with the story, and it is for you to decide the truth.

There are one or two dodgy things in Fahrenheit 9/11, compared to the numerous other things that are spot on.

The man can't win, I guess he knows that.

I'm annoying myself now. Sorry.

<Added>

Okay Pete. Well good for them. I wish Moore would just go away and stop trying to show the truth about gun culture, or about the Neo Conservative coup in 2000. The one where they actually cheated, and fixed free elections. The ones that Michael Moore provided solid evidence for in his book. I mean, what a complete bastard he is.

Or about how American troops go into battle in Baghdad with "Die Muthafucker Die" blaring away in their tanks, as they described how it buzzes them up to see the city burning as they mouth the lyrics "watch the muthafucker burn".

I mean what is the man doing, exposing that? Must be making it up?? Or what?

I mean who cares anyway. The man is obviously in the wrong. I reckon he should be strung up.

The thing is, he could argue the opposite side. He could argue for the NRA or the right to invade Iraq because there is an opposite view, held by an awful lot of Americans. Louis Theroux often allows the opposing side to put forward their arguments- he just does so in a way that makes them look a bit thick.

When reading a review, an essay or watching a documentary, I think that you do want to hear an opinion - that's especially important in an essay, otherwise what's the point of writing it? But if the concluding opinion is apparent from the outset you feel like being preached to. Sorry if this is taking things away from the original review.

Yeah I know you can do that. Of course you can. Tune in to Fox News and there you go.

So does that make them right? Is, for some reason, Michael Moore not allowed to express his opinion without being referred to as an arch-propagndist (LOL - yeah right, up there with Goebbels)?

Fox News basically gave George Bush the Presidency, and people accepted it. That's not propaganda, I watched it happening live. They called the result first and the Bush campaign, and their cronies in Florida and especially the Supreme Court took it from there. I think that was when MM decided to play them at their own game, and THANK GOD he did, coz it exposes them for what they are. Fox News are DANGEROUS, so I think he thought fuck it, now is the time.

Good on him.


Yeah lots of people support Bush, great. I remember me and Silverelli falling out coz he voted for Bush last time, but he seems like a great bloke. Matthew McConnahey (dunno how you spell it) was wearing a pro-Iraq invasion t-shirt at the Oscars where they all booed Moore for speaking out against the President, and I'm not boycotting his films. The thing is it doesn't matter if a lot of Americans think it is right, as their view is adequately covered by the fact that their President has invaded Iraq.

As for the Louis Theroux thing you say, well that's what MM does alot of the time in Columbine, like with the director of Lockheed. And in 9/11 when he tries to get Sentors to pledge their sons to join up (which all of them refuse).

So all I'm saying is he gets a completely unfair press.

Davy

In Columbine (I think it's Columbine, correct me if I'm wrong) Moore is at pains to contrast the happy co-existence of black and white people in Canada as contrasted with economic and social apartheid with which America is riven particularly with regard to its African-American population. Moore establishes a scene of himself in Canada, where he makes this point, and follows it with a sequence of shots showing black folks happily walking along the streets talking to white folks with everybody getting along just fine. Neatly made point. Except that if you look at the shots, you'll see that at least one of them is a repeat of a shot of a black man walking along smiling which is used earlier in the documentary in a scene set in America.

Now if that kind of thing is going on in Michael Moore's world of film-making, I'm afraid I lose interest in everything he has to say. It's a blatant abuse of audience trust.

Your essential point that ends justify means? Well we've seen a few unsavoury characters use that argument down the centuries...

Pete

I don't think Moore makes documentaries. He makes polemical movies in a documentary form. Good for him. And us.

Z

Yep - fair point Pete. Totally.

I mean I have this very argument with my own brother - who often slaps me down in the same way

It is a good point and I can't really argue with it, but I still quite like Moore!!! I prefer to take the Team America approach and ridicule them all too, but what I don't like is (oh God you're gonna wince when you read this) the fact that the moral cowardice of the left wing American (and British) press is forgotten as they strive to direct all the attention on how Moore has blown it for them. Those were supposed to be Free elections in supposedly the place where modern democracy was born (supposedly), and instead of people in positions of power standing together to stop the fixing of said free elections, they just gave in, let Fox News decide the fate of the country (the World?) and pretend it never happened. I remember thinking on that night in November 99 when Bush stole the Presidency in front of the World, as the Bush pro-gun lobby cheered and hollered (I remember one supporter aiming his fingers at the camera and pretending to shoot) oh shit, the world's in trouble then.

Ten months later...

Then it is down to people like Michael Moore (who had already been made enemy no 1 by Fox News after he tried to support Clinton in the Lewinski case) to point this out, play the bastards at their own game (cheating and lying involved, fair enough) and then he gets shit from the left wing press for being as bad as Bush. He took them all on, so whatever you say about the man, he has bollox of steel! Better than sitting around debating whether Bush is that bad really, whilst the neo-cons do exactly what they want (apart from when the pesky United Nations politely ask them not to).

Oh I dunno, it just does my head in, but I imagine probably not as much as I am doing yours in!

regards



davy

<Added>

Wow Zettel - yes, that's it!!! LOL - look at my ragings and rantings and then you sum it up like that.

Talk about less is Moore...

Oh dear that is bad.

Then they should be publicised as polemical movies. Not as documentaries.