If the code was broke maybe someone should have fixed it

Would you look at the gap between the last too dates. Good gravy, certainly makes one wonder where the hell I've been doesn't it? Or it least it would if anyone hade any care what so ever for my personal well-being, but I think they're all too busy burning effigies of me, or something along those lines. So where exactly have I been these past few weeks? What important tasks dragged my kicking and screaming away from making regular posts here? Well as much as I would like to say that I was gallavanting around the world searching for buried treasure, sadly that would be a lie. Then again, that's never stopped me before. So yes, that's exactly where I was, venturing around the most exotic and perilous corners of the earth searching for pirate booty. And yes, I do mean that in both the trunk full of gold and black-slang for buttocks meaning of the word. Let's face it, who hasn't spent countless nights dreaming of pirate women with bountiful posteriors?

Moving on, I went to the moving picture theatre last night and saw The Davinci Code, and because the public have craving it, here's my thoughts:

Before heading into the movie, I already knew it had been receiving a lot of negative press (it even seemed like I had become the test subject for the movie according to my family, who all wanted me to report back to them with my verdict. Cheap bastards), but this didn't surprise me. With the cyclone of hype this movie had surrounding it, there was no way it was ever going to live up to expectations, movies rarely ever can, just take a look at the backlash the Matrix sequels suffered. Sure they weren't the greatest films ever made but how were they supposed to match the lofty fan expectations of Pure Orgasm Condensed Into A Sci-fi Movie?
As for me, I steered clear of any reviews. I wanted to go into this one without any preconceived notions, it was going to disappoint or impress me all on it own merits.

But no matter what mine (especially mine) or anybody elses opinions on this movie are, it's still going to make a shitload of money, because there are three camps of people who are going to see this film: A) Fans of the book who would see it even if it was made using only retarded monkeys and cardbord sets, B) People who have been too lazy to read the book and like the idea of a cinematic 'cliff notes' version, and C) People who are just plain curious to see what all this controversy is about.

As for this ridiculous controversy, over-reaction doesn't even begin to describe it. One of these days the Church may get itself some common sense and learn to realise that things like this are purely works of fiction (if I could underline that I would) designed the purpose of entertaining people. If they really think there's anyone out there who's going to start questioning their faith after seeing that, maybe they should really be asking if that was the kind of person they even want as a member of their church, because I'm not sure I'd even want that person as part of the general population. If there was a statement at the beginning of the film saying "what you are about to see is pure, unadulterated fact. You have been lied to for two thousand years you wacky Christians. Burn the Vatican! Start the Revolution!!" then maybe there would be something to complain about, but I certainly didn't see that message anywhere and I was paying attention pretty well. And don't get me started on the reports I've heard about Albinos complaining about the fact that one of the villians being Albino, which they are trying to claim is defamation. If that was a case then there's a very extensive back-catalogue of movie villians out there for every kind of monority to sue over, with many taking precedent over the Albinos I'm sure.

Maybe now I'll start talking about the actual movie. I haven't read the book, so I'm judging it purely as a movie and have no idea what is/isn't product of the adaption. If you want my one sweeping statement to sum up overall what I thought of the movie, then here it is: Meh. It was decidedly middle-ground fare. There's parts I like, there's parts I disliked. Overall it's a film that features some very good ideas and theories that quite frankly I feel belong in a better story. All the conspiracies regarding the church, Jesus and Mary Magdelane being married and having a child, the true Holy Grail etc. mainly serve as a groundwork for what is very much a redimentary mystery movie. You can even see parts where they have tried to turn it into more of an adventure than it really is. The brief car-chase is an obvious, and unsuccessful, attempt to create some more 'thrills' that practically screams at the audience "I DON'T KNOW WHY I"M HERE!!!" So the main thing I came out of this movie with is food for thought on a variety of concoted theories based in historical facts, which is something I certainly enjoyed.

Ironically, it is these same ideas the movie is founded on that served as one of its biggest detractors for me. Due to all the information they want to get across, the vast majority of the dialogue in the film is exposition. Seriously, I have not seen a movie that felt the need to explain so much (so many times) to the audience in a long time. For one thing, it spoon feeds most of the information to the audience without giving them even the slightest chance to work things out for themselves. Not only does this result in many lengthy monologues/psuedo history lectures, but it also eliminates most of the opportunity for character development. Sure, there are some feeble attempts but mostly they amount to nothing. After Tom Hanks' character is set up to be claustraphobic only for it to lead to absolutely no payoff later in the film, you'll be left scratching your head wondering what the hell was the point. It's the case with most of the characters that they just don't seem to have any. Audrey Tatou make look absolutely freaking adorable for the whole movie, but it's a little sad when she isn't given too much else interesting to do. It's not to say her's and Hanks' performances are bad, they do the best with what they've got. The one saving grace though is Ian McKellen. This man rules. He is leaps and bounds beyond anyone else in this film, leaving them staring at his foot and cane prints in the dirt. With his character spending large portions of time handing out gift-wrapped packages of exposition, this role could have had disastrous and sleep-inducing results in the hands of the wrong actor. Fortunately his Sir Leigh Teabing is a sly old dog with a certain amount of eccentric charm to him, so you are interested in what he's got to say (and believe me, there's a lot of it). Personally I can't wait to see more McKellen (which could be the mantra for every movie - More McKellen!) when X-Men 3 is released this week.

The length is another thing that hurts the movie. It's a 2 and a half hour movie with an ending that runs on for about 25 minutes too long. It suffers the multiple ending syndrome that LOTR: The Return of the King suffered from, only in that case it was understandable because, after all, it was wrapping up what amounted to a 9 hour movie. Davinci feels the need to give the audience a solution to all the mysteries and possibilities that it poses, when really leaving some of them unanswered (i don't care if it would be a departure from the book or not) could have left a much more interesting opportunity for the audience to draw their own conclusions and debate the truth - at least in the world the movie inhabits - of the conspiracies. Throughout the film there was also some uneveness with the pacing. It starts off movie fairly quickly, straight into a murder (and about that murder; after the guy got shot, why did he go to the complicated effort of crawling around everywhere, stripping off all his clothes, carving a pentagram into his chest and posing himself like one of Davinici's pictures? Think about the logic in that for a bit, because there is none!) and I was enjoying it quite a bit for the first half hour. It's only after that that it gets a little stop-start, threatening to bore you with excessive laying out of the plot - yep, there's that problem again - before getting the story moving again.

It probably sounds like I hated the movie, which isn't true, I just feel like it was a bit of a squandered opportunity. There was a good director and talented cast attached to what has been one of the most popular and talked about books in years, and there is definately a better movie buried in all the ideas the movie throws at you. They made it look good, which an on-location shoot in Paris certainly helped with (and special mention should go to some of the historical flashback sequences, which give off the impression of paintings come to life), but it is disappointing when it should have been - like one of Davinci's paintings - more than just pretty pictures.