DA VINCE CODE - THE MOVIE

I am still hazy, confused and pretty much lonely since the last posting. Took leave yesterday to allow myself some space to think things over, I guess. But, after a last minute push in the queue to get the last 27 tickets plus sitting in the third row in A-Q13, let me just share my experience watching the most anticipated movie in May- Da Vinci Code at GSC Midvalley, yesterday.

I read Da Vinci Code in 2004, right after it shot to the top spot in almost all bestseller fiction’s list. Numerous dialogues and debates ensued as a response to the book within the Christian and Historian fraternity during that year. An online gimmick plus various websites that tried to rebut the book helps the sale of the books a lot, too. Well, as a reader with very basic knowledge of Christian (the most vivid moment would be when I helped Sis As, a Master student in Theology translated her questions to English during her interview with a priest from the Brickfield and PJ churches), I could not validify the assertions made in the book although a notion that suggests the superiority of feminity in leading a religion, in this case, Christianity is very appealing and quite…delicious.

But, ada apa dengan Da Vinci Code- the movie? Is it as controversial as the book or has Ron Howard tame the plot a bit just to make it accessible? As far as I am concern, the film, albeit slight modification here and there, followed the plotline founded in the novel faithfully. So, if that is the case, the movie should be as fast-paced and action-packed as the book, right? Well, wrong. The adaptation, in fact fares worse than a B-Grade documentary as it tries to mimic the elaborateness of the book- explaining the history of Holy Grail, Kinghts Templar etc. I feel Tom Hanks `s character is damn bounded by the wordy explanation that he must undertake that his acting falls flat many a times. Alhtough, Ian MacKellen, (an all time favorite actor of mine) at least, shine in his role as Leigh Teabing despite some of the longer academic dialogues he had to endure. Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu, is the most disappointing of all. She lacks the charisma of a smart cryptologist with such a shocking background (allegedly the last living descendent of Jesus) and the absence of on screen chemistry between her and Hanks makes thing worse. I mean dude, the way she reacted when she knew of her ties with jesus `s sang real could be best described as monotonous. In fact, her lame joke about turning water to wine and walking on water seemed a bit off and as though suggesting that knowing that you are a close relative of Jesus is an everyday discovery.

Ron Howard`s take on cinematography saves the movie apparently and he should write his thank you notes to the Louvre Museum, Templars Church in London and also all the other nice buildings he included in the movie. Touted as the second largest worldwide release after Star Wars III, I guess the hype surrounding the movie either creates a higher level of expectation on the quality of movie or the movie itself, is plainly a disastrous adaptation of Dan Brown’s bestseller. After watching it, I feel the controversial surrounding the movie is much more enticing, exciting and worthy of attention compared to the film itself. Perhaps, I could built up my case on the notion of Sacred Feminity by watching Desperate Housewives or watching Earl`s wife on My Name is Earl airing on NTV7 nowadays. Fortunately, my sudden irritated ness with the movie coupled with few yawns here and there, brought back my natural bouncy, ready to insult character in like 10 minutes, hence watered down my sense of mandom-ness. Sorry, Ron, but the movie was disastrous to me, big time! So, help me god, let us just focus on the line of argument put forth by the book and movie rather than judging the substance of the story from the quality of the movie! There `s more promises in that, trust me!