The Da Vinci Code – Sakrileg

Platt, fade, visuell unattraktiv. Und für mich, einen Atheisten, der maximal seinen eigenen Glauben anerkennt, auch inhaltlich uninteressant. Die Schauspieler*innen sind ausdruckslos (eine Ausnahme ist nur Ian McKellen), sehr gut ist nur die düstere Musik von Hans Zimmer. Die literarische Vorlage habe ich nicht gelesen und ich werde es auch nicht machen. Ein typisches Hollywood-Fließband-Produkt, ein brillant verkauftes Wasser. (11.06.2006)

Vor zehn Jahren habe ich irgendwie intuitiv gespürt, dass der weltweite Hype um The Da Vinci Code – Sakrileg eine Blase ist, die an mir vorbeiziehen kann, ich werde den Film irgendwann einmal anschauen oder das Buch lesen. Und 2016 habe ich The Da Vinci Code – Sakrileg in zwei Anläufen angeschaut bin zweimal weggedämmert, und vor allem habe ich mich über zwei Stunden fürchterlich gelangweilt und den Kopf geschüttelt, wie überkombiniert ein Plot eigentlich sein kann. Ich erkenne an, dass das Buch fesselnd, genauer und schlagkräftiger sein kann und dass die Amerikaner die literarische Vorlage total kaputtgemacht haben, so wie sie es schon tausendmal vorgemacht haben. Das aber werde ich nicht mehr erfahren, weil mich nichts auf der Welt mehr davon überzeugen kann, "The Da Vinci Code – Sakrileg“ als Buch zu lesen. Da stehen in meiner Bibliothek weitaus verlockendere Titel. (17.08.2016)

Howard is innocent here. The plot, which is primarily about talking and talking, probably couldn't be filmed better. Even the actors do a solid job considering what the script allowed them to do (both Hanks and Tautou were fine, not to mention McKellen). And those two and a half hours did go by pretty quickly. Why 2* then? The problem is the rambling source material and, logically, the script. Brown confuses apples with pears, history with myths, creates conspiracy theories as a skillful manipulator, which are nice to listen to (and read), but at their core they are pulled from the proverbial ass and are closer to stupidity rather than controversy (but what can you expect from a man who confuses bits with bytes in his “Digital Fortress”, right?). How am I supposed to enjoy such a film when what it presents - from the premise to the unbelievable characters - is one big pile of nonsense? At the end, when the twist is revealed, I was just waiting for Monty Python to show up and sing a song. I can understand the big sales, a hearty media and advertising campaign can do wonders ("Film of the Century!" etc.), but I wonder, did this "poor man’s Daniken" really sell 60 million copies? Well, to each their own, but everyone gets what they deserve, of course. (27.05.2006)

Like the book, the picture is rather “naive" and rather than quality, we get solid craftsmanship instead. Thanks to the flatness of the characters, the actors have very little acting to do, which is highlighted by it being rather garrulous and so the entire movie relies on vocal performances. Although this could easily be cut down a good few minutes, in the end it is watchable without great damage to your health. But the only actually positive side of the whole Code is Zimmer’s soundtrack, which makes even the most boring dialog scene seem as if it is something fundamentally important for the story. The creators tended toward the secrecy storyline, which is therefore given the most space and so only a fraction of the movie is devoted to cracking the code and this becomes just a necessary evil with no power behind it, which is a great shame. OST score: 4/5 (30.05.2006)

Writer Dan Brown is definitely not going to become the new Umberto Eco, yet his book is quite readable. Unfortunately, the film version is rather unfortunate, given the literal adherence not only to individual scenes but often to the lines themselves, which somehow lose their meaning and logic without further explanation. This then becomes a continuous sequence of dialogues, from which the most fervent conspiracy theories, which so annoy the bigwigs in the Vatican, are suppressed into the background. Still, hats off to Ron Howard for making it flow relatively well despite the exorbitant runtime. If it wasn't for the awkward car chase that steals from The Bourne Identity and the rather clumsily filmed flashbacks, the film would have been more than decent because the scene where Langdon contemplates the cipher and the memory of Issac Newton's monument forms in front of him is amazing, as is the final kneeling. Tom Hanks is not suitable for the main role at all (the wannabe youthful look does not suit this actor), while on the other hand, Paul Bettany is excellent as the albino, including his precisely chosen accent. It’s a thriller worth a single watch, and if it hadn't had the heavy advertising, the copies in the video stores would have been covered in dust after a few months. (24.06.2006)