Growing up, ya man was raised in a very strict catholic household. Rocking a Rosary around the neck, always making the sign of the cross on ourselves before we walked out the door (or whenever passing by a church), and never eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Yup, that’s my fam. But no one is as strict on Catholicism as my mama. I remember one time I was looking at some pictures that she took of people in El Salvador reenacting Christ’s crucifixion. (That’s a yearly routine in Central American countries during Easter.) So I asked my pops, “Who’s the person carrying the cross?” And my pops had a real confused look on his face and, in Spanish, he said, “I don’t know? It’s probably ya mama.” Even though it was a joke, it was a sensible statement.
So with that being said, I wasn’t surprised that a few hours before I saw The Da Vinci Code my loving mother forbade me to see the movie that the church outlawed. The only thing I could think was “Damn! This movie really is to Christians — specifically to Catholics — what Mel “The Meltdown” Gibson’s depiction of Christ’s life was to Jewish people.”
For those who’ve been living under a crack rock for a hot minute, The Da Vinci Code was originally a book written by Dan “Do The” Brown and it tells a story of a Mafioso-like Opus Dei (hit man and all), of Leonardo Da Vinci heading an age-old secret society and leaving clues to his religious beliefs in his artwork, and Jesus Christ living life as a normal man before seeding up his wifey, Mary Magdalene, before he died. (Hence, the protests from the church).
In any case, even though it got my ma dukes tight, I was off to see the controversial movie, and let me tell you, it wasn’t all that. Having read and reviewed the book itself a few years back, I must say, my imagination was way better than what Ron Howard showed me.
The Da Vinci Code stars Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, a symbologist who is called on to help the French FBI solve the homicide of an old man who went down inside the Louvre museum. Once he befriends the old man’s granddaughter, the French Fry (F*** Freedom Fries! She’s a French Fry cause she’s hot!) and Hanks together realize that the murdered old white man done left a few clues hidden in Da Vinci’s artworks, which eventually lead to the truth. And I ain’t talking about the truth about his killer, I mean the truth that the church has feared since their beginning, feel me? So now Tom and Fry are off, and with the help of Magneto (Ian McKellen), they go on an eye- and mind-opening adventure. But there is one small problem: There’s a murderous albino Opus Dei Monk (now that’s just funny to say) who’s killing his way to the truth that they’re trying to uncover. And not only that, but The Professional (Jean Reno) and his crew of cops is on they ass like they was OJ and AC on the highway, na’mean? Serious business!
Now, being that I read the book already, I ain’t gonna lie, the movie was kinda stale to me. It was like a one man Public Enemy: no Flava, na’mean? I mean, Ron Howard did a good job with his adaptation of the book, but in a lot of ways the characters didn’t come to life on the screen, bar Magneto. Tom Hanks is nothing less than a genius whenever he applies himself to his characters, but on the reals, he just wasn’t Robert Langdon. In the book symbology is to Robert Langdon what a boyfriend is to Paris Hilton, na’mean? And to me, Tom Hanks just didn’t capture that passion. I’m a Tom Hanks fan to heart, but he was not the man for this role. Even his wig piece was one of the worst I’ve ever seen in Hollywood. It was right up there with Donald Trump’s hair. (Try to tell me that “You’re Fired” s*** the way you do, son. I’ll break ya face!)
Ian, on the other hand gave an impeccable performance. His charismatic depiction of the crippled Sir Leigh Teabing was brilliant. Walking around with four legs like an ill…well, old person. He was still keeping it thorough. He was the most interesting character to watch in the movie. Whether he was cracking a joke or speaking on history, Ian gave the flick life that neither Tom Hanks nor his cutie counterpart could. You got outshined by an old timer, Tommy boy! And it wasn’t even Pacino or DeNiro.
As for the hot French Fry (Audrey Tatou), she was the eye candy of the movie. Her portrayal of cryptologist Sophie Neveu wasn’t half bad. But it was her being attractive that really helped her cause. Her slim and curved physique. Those big bedroom eyes that scream “Take me!” and her nice shiny hair. Yeah, she had it poppin’. She’s the type of professional woman you’d wanna corrupt, you know?
When these three characters finally cracked the code, I gave the flick 3 Gangstas.
All in all, it was a good movie. The movie was true and blue to the book that made Dan Brown the new age whatever. The most creative and entertaining parts came in the movie whenever a story about history was being told: the story was reenacted and we could see what they were talking about.
Now, could the screenplay itself have been better? Sure. Could they have done a better job with the dialogue? Absolutely. Could they have cast not necessarily better actors, but better actors to fit the characters being played? Why not? These are the few things that needed improvement, but at the end of the day, they are the most vital parts of the movie. We all know it’s a great story to tell, but when you actually decide to paint that picture, you better have your a-game on and poppin’.
But like I said, at the end of the day, if you read the book you won’t be to thrilled with the movie. If you’ve never read the book, it’ll be a pretty cool experience. And honestly, I don’t see why people are so upset that someone made a movie around a rumored legendary holy bloodline. I mean, I for one don’t care what Jesus did. He’s still the G-O-D in my eyes.