The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
Despite earning over $750 million worldwide, it was generally agreed that 2006's The Da Vinci Code was too bloated and sluggish for a would-be thriller. It's arguable, though, that these simply reflected the faults of the source material. Dan Brown identifies some very intriguing premises, but his writing and plotting is rarely more than workmanlike; yet it is hard to deny that his books are real page turners. Their compulsively accessible style is what producers of blockbusters strive for. When watching this inevitable sequel (the book was written before Da Vinci, but the film reverses the chronology), it at first seems that the film is just continuing in a similar vein to its predecessor: plodding pace, unashamed trotting out of cinematic cliché, and most damagingly, crushingly cumbersome expositional dialogue. However, once its plot is eventually set in motion, it does manage to shed some of its flaws and move at a relatively good clip. The ever-present ticking clock device works well to add some impetus to the narrative, and it rarely becomes bogged down in overt lecturing.
Tom Hanks, returning sans inexplicable mullet hairdo, returns as Harvard symbology professor Robert Langdon. He's his usual genial self, but brings no real personality to what is a bland part. His character has no arc or storyline whatsoever; he's just a vehicle to drive the plot, solve the puzzles, and provide relevant historical context. The nondescriptness extends to Ron Howard's direction (again), which is fine but completely devoid of flair. Nevertheless, the script here is a much tighter affair than its predecessor, apparently benefiting from the adaptation work of David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spider-Man) rather than being a solo effort from Akiva Goldsman (Batman & Robin), who does still co-write this time. It may also be the case that the plot, concerning shadowy sect the Illuminati's attempt to destroy Vatican City with an antimatter bomb, simply lends itself more to the film medium than Da Vinci's more popular but less propulsive Holy Grail mystery.
Given that synopsis, there is still a sense that it takes itself all a bit too seriously; there's none of the twinkle of the eye that distinguishes the (first three) Indiana Jones films. It is obviously patently ridiculous, but the film follows the author's position that it's unlocking earth-shattering historical conundrums. But any aspirations the film may have for being a more erudite and intellectual form of religious-themed adventure are undercut by the moments when the film seems to be speaking to those audience members with the lowest IQ. But these clumsy sections - there's a tendency to over-explain everything, such as the election process for a new Pope - are generally pardonable offences. The setting (entirely in the Vatican and surrounding parts of Rome, although some locations had to be reproduced on a soundstage) and time frame (one night) prove to be conducive to some decent set-pieces, even if it all feels rather too contrived. Many of the supporting players, such as Ewan McGregor and Armin Mueller-Stahl, do their best with what they're given, and Howard throws in a couple of red herrings along the way that partly manage to keep the viewer off guard.
The summary
Ludicrous hokum that's not half as important as it thinks it is, but still enjoyable and generally diverting.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!