Da Vinci Code

With Angels and Demons being released recently, I was reminded of The Da Vinci Code. Mainly, how much I hated that movie.

I went to see it in the theater because I was assured that it was a compelling and wondrous film. I had not read the book but I of course knew the plot. Da Vinci Code is one of those films/books that you don't have to see or read to know everything about. I was curious to see it because I like conspiracy theories and mysteries and my brother said the book was good.

After watching that film I will never read The Da Vinci Code. It seemed that every five minutes of the film had a WTF moment. The plot was nonsenscical and overly complex. The story was predictable and cliched and the dialogue was uninspired.

My first issue with the film is in the beginning when the museum guy is assasinated by the flagellating assassin. Look, I'm not a professional assassin or anything but it seems to me that if after you attack the target he still has enough strength to wander around the Louvre, take down a bunch of paintings, write cryptic clues on them, hang them back up, draw a giant replica of the Ventruvian Man in his own blood, strip naked and lie down spread eagle on the floor...well, damn, I don't think you did a very good job of assasinating him.

My brother told me that in the book it makes more sense because the museum guy set off the alarm and locked himself behind a security gate so the assassin couldn't get him and the assassin was forced to flee before the cops showed up. Hmm, yeah, my point is still valid. Assassin should have done a better job. How about shooting the guy in the head instead of the stomach? That's what I'd do. Can't walk around after being shot in the head, nosiree. Also, how slow is the response rate for the French police? The guy has enough time to set all that up before the cavalry arrives? What, were they in the middle of dinner?

Also, I know that the museum guy has to keep the secret of the Knights of Templar, or whatever, so he can't be detailed in the message he leaves for Tom Hanks. But couldn't he be a little clearer so the guy isn't a murder suspect? I mean, he has time to leave behind all that other crap but he can't write a note explaining that he just wants Tom Hanks to see the crime scene and that he is no way responsible for his death? He can't follow your clues if he's in jail, ya jackass.

Also, the whole secret is just a giant plot hole. "Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and had a kid and we can prove it because we have Mary Magdalene's body and can match her DNA to her descendents!"

Okay, first of all, is it a big deal that Mary Magdalene had a kid? No. No one has ever disputed that she had a kid. I'm sure she had a ton of kids. No one cares. So does it matter if there is a descendent of Mary Magdalene? No. It only matters if Jesus had a kid. And the only way you can prove that the Sophie character is Jesus' descendent is if you have Jesus' DNA. And they don't have that!

Second, what does having the corpse of Mary Magdalene prove exactly? You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Mary Magdalene. DNA doesn't mean anything. DNA is only useful in matching people to their relatives or showing you've been in a certain place. So you can show Sophie is related to this corpse you have, but you can't prove that the corpse is even Mary Magdalene because Mary Magdalene didn't have a DNA record made for herself back in 30 A.D. The corpse could really be anyone.

What the hell are the Knights protecting? There is no solid evidence of anything! No physical proof that Jesus was married, that he had a kid, none of it. It's all speculation! And stupid speculation too. "Oh, I have the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Oh, that figure next to Jesus looks like a woman. Clearly he was married and had kids."

My biggest problem with Da Vinci Code is that people are really dumb when it comes to historical fiction. If you write anything about a historical figure or event, people automatically think it's true. You could write a novel where George Washington blows up the redcoats with a bazooka before flying away in a heliocopter and there would be people who would think that it actually happened. I remember that when the book first came out I was hanging out with some people and a girl was raving about the book saying how all the clues matched to the paintings and it was all so clear to her now. I turned and I said, "You know it's fiction right?" She said (in all seriousness) "Yeah, but it's still true!" Face meet palm.

The movie can't even end without pissing me off. When the scene with Teabing was over I thought the movie was too. But, no, now we need to be told what we already know, Sophie is Mary Magdalene's descendent! Oh, my God! I totally knew that! What a twist! Then the reveal is over and the movie is done! Thank God...Oh, no wait, Tom Hanks is shaving and figured something else out! *sighs* Can I leave yet?

Oh, and that bit towards the end where Sophie starts to walk on water? Cute. But if anyone involved with this project had bothered to read the Bible, they would know that Jesus is not the only one who can walk on water. Anyone with true faith in God can walk on water. In fact, St. Peter walks on water towards Jesus before being shaken by the storm and starting to sink. (Matthew 14: 24-31)

Now, I'm Catholic and this movie does insult me. Not because it dares to question my beliefs (Lord knows that's been done a million times before) but because it does it so poorly. Lousy research, a giant plot hole...It's half-assed. I don't mind critiques of my religion, I don't mind people making up stories. Creativity is good and I love compelling stories. But, please, do it right. Don't just cobble together a quick plot about the Catholic Church because you want to be edgy and controversial. I think that's what bugs me the most. You know Dan Brown picked Christianity because that would cause the most controversy and create the most buzz for his novels. Commercialism, the biggest conspiracy of all.