Cracking the "Code"

I'm happy to announce that Ron Howard's adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code" isn't nearly as bad as some of the critics made it sound (*** out of four). Oh, it's not that I disagree with what many of them had to say about the film: it is, after all, slow-paced, long, and not nearly as fun as it could have been. That said, it is fun to watch the litarary mystery visualized; the locations are exciting, and the acting is satisfactory (though a sleepwalking Tom Hanks has never been so forgettable, greasy hair notwithstanding...).

What I felt like was missing from the movie, though, was one of the book's greatest strengths: the code itself. As with the adaptations of many beloved novels, the screenplay seems so determined to fit in all the important locations and plot developments, it forgets to emphasize the mystery itself--Da Vinci and his paintings feel woefully underused in the movie, even though they played a major role (maybe the BEST role) in the book. This becomes apparent about 90 minutes into the movie, when Teabing (the spirited Ian McKellen) gives Robert and Sophie a Reader's Digest version of the grail lore using Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" as an example. Suddenly we realize what has been missing: the clues from the paintings that made the whole preposterous mystery so much fun. Although I thought the book was sometimes a little too dense with history, I think the movie could have benefitted from a little more--easier said than done, I realize. (Thank goodness I never have to adapt a bestselling novel to the screen!)

Oh, fans of the book won't be too upset--Dan Brown gave the movie his thumbs up and so do I; I'd rather have a movie that is too faithful to its source than one that completely ignores it. The movie is at times a little graphic--don't really know how you can sugar-coat a murderous, masochistic, albino monk (who by the way, isn't shy about showing his albino-bum to the audience...so be warned!). Not a bad way to spend two and a half hours, but you might be able to read the book in just as much time. Or you can just rent "National Treasure," and spend your time trying to decide whose hair looks more unnatural: Tom Hanks' or Nicholas Cage's (although I'm no fan of Tom Hanks' current hair, at least it's REAL hair...).

One final question: why does Paul Bettany's albino get to wear a cloth in the trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/large.html), but the movie has him naked? I'm guessing it was an issue where they filmed the scene both ways, and will use the clothed version for TV and airline viewings...doesn't really make sense to me, but that's my guess. One of these days I'll discuss the how this issue relates to the MPAA and Hollywood, but for now we'll settle on discussing the naked albino.