El código Da Vinci

Plana, sosa, visualmente poco atractiva. Y a mí, como ateo que reconoce como mucho su propia fe, tampoco me engancha argumentalmente. Los actores, con la excepción de Ian McKellen, son anodinos; sólo la oscura música de Hans Zimmer se mantiene por encima del promedio. No había leído la novela y ahora no lo haré en absoluto. Típico producto en cadena de Hollywood, agua brillantemente vendida gracias al marketing. (11.06.2006)

Hace diez años, de alguna manera intuitiva sentí que la locura mundial alrededor de "El Código Da Vinci" era una burbuja inflada que podía pasar por alto tranquilamente y tal vez en el futuro lo miraría o lo leería. Y en el año 2016 miré "El Código Da Vinci" dos veces, me dormí dos veces y sobre todo me aburrí terriblemente durante más de dos horas y sacudí la cabeza ante la sobrecombinación de la trama. Reconozco que el libro puede ser cautivador, más preciso y más impactante, y que los estadounidenses, como demostraron mil veces, arruinaron completamente la plantilla literaria. Sin embargo, no lo descubriré porque nada en el mundo me convencerá de tomar "El Código Da Vinci" en forma de libro. En mi biblioteca tengo títulos mucho más atractivos. (17.08.2016)

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)

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)