The DaVinci Code (2006)

This movie by Ron Howard based upon the ridiculously controversial book by Dan Brown proves to be a nearly inferior adaptation of the latter. Some minor and tolerable changes in some scenes are made. Firstly, we see one on the way Robert Langdon is invited by the French Police to the Louvre. Langdon’s character himself is portrayed a little swaying from the character we get to know in the book. In this movie he is seen as somebody who’s reflexive and more like an advocate of the Church than of the points raised in the book, which as we all know created so much hullabaloo. Aside from those, the script is generally faithful to the book.

An American in France, Langdon is implicated to a murder case of a known curator of the Louvre Museum and is invited by the French Police to the crime scene. A symbologist himself, Langdon is initially made to understand that he is invited to construe the underlying significance of the strange symbolic position the victim managed to pull in before he even lost his breath and the puzzling inscriptions on the floor (which, Langdon doesn’t know yet, writes his name as well). Sophie, the “granddaughter” of the victim who leaks that Langdon is actually considered a suspect, later devices a plan to walk Langdon out of the scene. The writings on the floor, Sophie believes, have a message intended for her. She recalls there’s something important and top secret his grandfather seemed wanting to tell her. Not having enough time, his grandfather, Sophie believes, had the message concealed in the hints left and that he wanted Sophie to look for Langdon for help in decoding the covert message intended for her. The story then tracks the journey of Langdon and Sophie on the way to discovering the real message drawing nameless attention and real immense danger for both of them.

With Langdon’s character a little bit on the safe side, the Church actually needs not worry of the implications this movie will bring viewers who are churchgoers. Attempts to ban the movie and expressions of fear that one’s faith will be shattered upon watching this movie prove insecurity on the side of the Church. This movie actually does them a favor. There are some historical and rhetorical subtexts, which could have made the movie more scholarly thus more convincing as the book is and more like a threat to the Church’s doctrines as the book again far more seems, not included in the movie to perhaps give way to Hollywood-style thrills as such elaborations could bring about boredom. The movie surprisingly draws on one’s Christian Faith strengthened. Things raised feared to undermine the Christian Faith are actually touched just briefly and quickly. Instead of the theme more focused on the arguments based on the supposed facts to support the biggest possible cover up in the human history, it is more on what should really matter—what one really believes in. The movie seems to just lay down random “gibberish” about the claims and is not really “insisting” for anyone to believe them.

The movie after all never lacks the expected thrills aroused by the idea of a possible cover up in history. My heart was pounding fast from start to finish to think I have the book read myself. Though the movie itself doesn't really affirm the hype, it’s still worth your time and money. This is still a must-see movie for thrill-seekers.

© 2006 Jonathan Susvilla