Wednesday, 4 August 2010

THE DA VINCI VIRUS

CONTAINS SPOILERS. DOES NOT CONTAIN TOM HANKS.

There are indeed many things missing from this movie, not the least of which are any hints of Da Vinci and, unless someone on set was coming down with the flu, any hints of a virus. It's been retitled from the frankly lame Cup Of My Blood, ostensibly because it's got religious artefacts dotted through it and, somewhat interestingly, an albino. However, unlike the character from the Dan Brown book and hilariously humourless A-list movie adaptation, here he's called Limpy and he's the henchman of a bloke known as Sparky.

What we do have in The Da Vinci Virus are a lighting scheme of murky darkness with a sickly green tinge to everything that makes it look as though the characters are about to throw up; some debatably blasphemous photographic imagery juxtaposing naked women with religious items and icons, a few indifferent but enthusiastic gore effects and a lot of frankly dreadful reading-out-loud acting typical of the digital zero-budgeter. Following the mysterious disappearance of his wife, one-time photographer Jack Fender is reduced to shooting softcore pornography for websmut mogul Sparky. One morning Fender is given a mysterious box by a couple as they perish in a car accident: the box contains a holy relic of unimaginable power and various forces are seeking it for their own hideous ends. Is Fender the chosen one who alone should guard this object?

It's not very good, obviously, but there are a few semi-decent ideas in there which might have made for a better film if there'd been some more money and better acting. Sadly, budgetary constraints, and the consequent underinvestment in people who can give a usable line reading, result in the film not even achieving the level of intermittently good fun. Being made on digital, there's a moment of dialogue that seeks to justify it as our hero insists on photographing with film because it's better, while his associates would prefer him to shoot digitally because it's easier. Frankly I'm with Fender - electronic filmmaking may be easier and cheaper but it doesn't look as good and this is a prime example.

**

No comments: