The Da Vinci Code

User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 487 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Juantag
    May 20, 2006
    3
    I read the book; I've got advanced degrees in history and theology; this movie was a real dud. Tedious to the extreme, muddled and academically laughable (like the book), it doesn't do its actors justice at all. Don't bother; see Gigli instead.
  2. MichaelB.
    May 20, 2006
    3
    I understand that story elements often get changed or condensed in the book-to-movie transition, but this is way out of line. The book is ten times better.
  3. BlakeR.
    May 23, 2006
    0
    This movie was a sorry excuse for a book adaptation. Howard, Hanks and the rest of the gang had a real opportunity to really make some noise in the world with a controversial best seller that is sure to be a hit. Instead, they are so afraid to test the boundaries that they are stuck in their own bubble of boredom and solemn. The character development prunes rather then ripens, the story This movie was a sorry excuse for a book adaptation. Howard, Hanks and the rest of the gang had a real opportunity to really make some noise in the world with a controversial best seller that is sure to be a hit. Instead, they are so afraid to test the boundaries that they are stuck in their own bubble of boredom and solemn. The character development prunes rather then ripens, the story "for what it's worth", is cut to peices and Howard has shown once again that he would rather be the family man then make a controversial movie worth waking up to. Next time I want to see a visionless rendition of a story, I'll just go to sparknotes. Expand
  4. KyleM.
    May 30, 2006
    3
    This film's treatment of history was very clumsy: outright untruths are heralded as great "secrets" kept from the world by the utterly evil Catholic church. Not only that, but Tom Hanks' performance was mediocre at best. The plotline was moderately entertaining for the first half-hour or so, but then the wild goose chase just drones on and on. Had Brown taken a few more history This film's treatment of history was very clumsy: outright untruths are heralded as great "secrets" kept from the world by the utterly evil Catholic church. Not only that, but Tom Hanks' performance was mediocre at best. The plotline was moderately entertaining for the first half-hour or so, but then the wild goose chase just drones on and on. Had Brown taken a few more history courses, and had the director dropped another hour or so onto the cutting room floor, this may have been worthwhile. Expand
  5. Mobius
    May 30, 2006
    3
    Ive never read the book and to be honest i wasnt really looking foward to seeing it but the wife wanted to see it anyway. normally im pretty good at following plots but as ive never read the book i came out of the cinema having to ask questions even the wife couldnt answer, im sure the book covers why the Opus Dei wants loads of money from the churchand why the bank manager wants to kill Ive never read the book and to be honest i wasnt really looking foward to seeing it but the wife wanted to see it anyway. normally im pretty good at following plots but as ive never read the book i came out of the cinema having to ask questions even the wife couldnt answer, im sure the book covers why the Opus Dei wants loads of money from the churchand why the bank manager wants to kill them and why there is 50 burly blokes and one grandma at the end of the film, This Movie would have been 10 times better if we had left it to indiana Jones to find out as he done a better job of it in the last crusade. Expand
  6. Ryencoke
    May 30, 2006
    0
    I went to this movie expecting it to be an "okay" movie. And, it was about the opposite. This was the first movie that I actually walked out of. I was bored to death, boring story line, cheesy and just lame. I left an hour in. This was the worst movie (from what I saw) that I have ever seen. It seemed like an 'Uwe Boll' movie. Really it's that bad. Avoid at all costs.
  7. MichaelG.
    Jul 9, 2006
    0
    The Da Vinci Code is one of the most predictable and nebulous movies I've seen in quite a while.
  8. DavidC.
    May 19, 2006
    3
    If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled that you'll find humor in several of the lines and shots. I didn't read the book, but I can't imagine it being as bad as this film. At the If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled that you'll find humor in several of the lines and shots. I didn't read the book, but I can't imagine it being as bad as this film. At the end of the day, the creators walk away with fat checks, so congrats on marketing an awful film. The unintended comedic scenes.bring my score up to a 3. Expand
  9. JoelL.
    May 19, 2006
    3
    Awful. The book is gripping. The movie is not; it's a dud.
  10. MarioD.
    May 19, 2006
    0
    The film and its actors must be inmediatly considered as front runners for the Raspberry awards... they are the sure winners.
  11. Jesus
    May 22, 2006
    2
    Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious person who likes to see the downfall of some hooky faith then your still gonna find this a boring film nothing aint gonna change that. I just feel sorry Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious person who likes to see the downfall of some hooky faith then your still gonna find this a boring film nothing aint gonna change that. I just feel sorry for the people that actually think this is a good adaptation of the book. my advice is go and read the book then go see the film. Expand
  12. Pops
    May 22, 2006
    3
    Boooooring. Long periods of slow moving dialogue and introspective pauses, broken by horrific, sudden violence.
  13. Linkster
    May 22, 2006
    2
    Yawnoramapaloozaa I read the book ... a laborious yawnfest. The only reason I went to see the movie was because of Hanks/Howard and their previous efforts. The movie was even more of a yawnfest! If you enjoy sleeping in theaters this is the flick for you.
  14. DennisL.
    May 23, 2006
    2
    Boring.
  15. EdmundB.
    May 20, 2006
    0
    Boring, sacriligeous. Poor concept and worse acting.
  16. R.H.
    May 24, 2006
    0
    It's a perfect match! One of the most soulless and poorly written books is now a movie directed by the least visually engaging director in Hollywood (Ron Howard) and the least exciting actor in Hollywood (Tom Hanks). May the hacks unite!
  17. NooraB.
    May 26, 2006
    3
    Usually I want to at least finish movies I'm watching. But during the first half an hour I completely lost any interest even though enjoyed reading the book. The plot follows the book too carefully, Audrey Tautou can't act in English as well as she does in French, and Ian McKellen is really trying to be funny but with that director it really doesn't help.
  18. RM
    May 27, 2006
    2
    Even more dreadful and corny as the book, which I am embarrased to have been persuaded into reading. I am far from religious, and welcome attacks on Christianity, but the way the book does it is cringeworthy, and the way this film does it is just tame and pathetic. Poor effort.
  19. TedB.
    May 28, 2006
    0
    Yawwwnnnn... An utter waste of my time and money. I'd like the past 2 hours of my life back. What a joke.
  20. FrederickS.
    May 28, 2006
    2
    Completely absurd!
  21. SebastianD.
    May 29, 2006
    3
    Please do not discover that Budha is a fraud so as not to see this kind of movies again.
  22. PabloE.
    Oct 13, 2007
    0
    This was simply one of the worse movie ever. The book was at least a page turner. This time, from a mediocre book a even worse film.
  23. Mike
    Nov 30, 2006
    0
    Was this movie bad!!!! Its just so silly and unbelievable that I simply didnt want watch it after 1hr and 30mins. It seemed to drag on and on. What a bore!
  24. Luis
    May 18, 2006
    3
    I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most exciting book of all times but I didn't feel it in the movie. The screenplay and approach simply just did not work. I am also disappointed with the I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most exciting book of all times but I didn't feel it in the movie. The screenplay and approach simply just did not work. I am also disappointed with the actors except for Jean Reno (who played the character of Bezu Fache exactly the way I imagined it). It's a lousy adaptation. I am so disappointed because I was hoping that it is a good movie after the awful Poseidon but it's not. Expand
  25. SteveC.
    May 19, 2006
    1
    [I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it.] I can't believe it! Discounting the visuals (which are not merit of the film), It is overall such a bad film on so many levels. Sure there are worse films, but heck these people are supposed to have gone to film and acting schools. It's absolutely obvious that the writing doesn't work! This is a film not the book! And with [I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it.] I can't believe it! Discounting the visuals (which are not merit of the film), It is overall such a bad film on so many levels. Sure there are worse films, but heck these people are supposed to have gone to film and acting schools. It's absolutely obvious that the writing doesn't work! This is a film not the book! And with such a script (recalls the last Star Wars films) what do the actors do...? No chemistry at all, just i blah, then he blahs, then the other guy blahs, like reading away mindlessly... Hanks' worst acting, as miscast as Tatou. So, just another hollywood megaproduction soon to be forgotten. Expand
  26. KennethD.
    May 19, 2006
    0
    The problem is before you see the movie you think well it can
  27. JoshuaW.
    May 21, 2006
    2
    The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character interaction for any of the superb cast members to play with. Its all aout getting from A to B as quickly as possible. And if they had been a little The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character interaction for any of the superb cast members to play with. Its all aout getting from A to B as quickly as possible. And if they had been a little more faithful to the book, there would have been some serious acting going on in this film. Also, some of the changes made to characters deprived them of their depth, and once again a chance to shine in their roles. There was also an overabundance of cheesy film effects to help us, the viewer follow what really wasn't a difficult story line along. This is the first movie in I don't remember how long that I kept wanting to actually leave while it was playing. If my girlfriend, who also hated it, hadn't been so determined to stick it out, I would have left the theater and salvaged some of my time. I had high expectations and they were brutally not met. Expand
  28. TimG.
    May 20, 2006
    2
    Contains nearly as many examples of Deus ex Machina as the entire Harry Potter series, some of the most wooden dialouge outside of an Uwe Boll film, and multiple ridiculous "history lessons" where characters feel the need take a pit stop while being chased by the police so they can spout off lectures about ancient history. How could millions of readers be so dumb?
  29. WillieG.
    May 21, 2006
    1
    I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so recently that I could hold the book up as some measuring stick by which the film should be measured. I had very humble expectations for this flick, I wished I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so recently that I could hold the book up as some measuring stick by which the film should be measured. I had very humble expectations for this flick, I wished only to be mildly entertained. Instead, I was literally sedated upon several occations. This is truly one of the most forgettable films I've ever seen. I'll award 1 for the popcorn, it was less stale than usual. Expand
  30. MartyA.
    May 21, 2006
    1
    Loved the book, hated the movie. I urge you to stay away or at least wait till it is on TV.
  31. AlfredNB.
    May 20, 2006
    0
    Cannot understand why Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church are portrayed with so little factual truth. What is the point?
  32. TracyB.
    May 20, 2006
    3
    Such a good book- not a good movie.
  33. RedragonGreen
    May 20, 2006
    1
    OK Andy, the movie sucked. Yes the acting is "wooden," directing is sloppy, if not lazy. On a religious note, yes Da VInci was no saint, was very much a naturalist in his religious beliefs, maybe even neo-pagan, maybe even gay (hey, it was the renaissance for crying out loud) but there is no proof by any historian that Da Vinci was putting anything anti-catholic in his artwork. In regards OK Andy, the movie sucked. Yes the acting is "wooden," directing is sloppy, if not lazy. On a religious note, yes Da VInci was no saint, was very much a naturalist in his religious beliefs, maybe even neo-pagan, maybe even gay (hey, it was the renaissance for crying out loud) but there is no proof by any historian that Da Vinci was putting anything anti-catholic in his artwork. In regards to the Priory of Sion, that is a fabricated organization created by a neo-nazi in 1956. His name is Pierre Plantard, and a recent 60 Minutes episode exposed Plantard as a mentally deranged anti-Semite. He was even arrested for being a con-man in the mid 1950s. All the documents about the secrets of the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar were proven to be false becasue the script used never existed in the time period that Brown and Plantard said the documents were from. Also, the person who the Priory of Sion gave their "historical" documents too for safe keeping stated they were forgeries. So what gives people? The movie and the book are offensive and based on anti-catholic lies. and it seems that for all the people who say it is just entertainment and fiction, why do some people, like you Andy, seem to feel if this movie is rated low, or if catholics are pissed off, that your anti-catholic reliigious beliefs are somehow being criticised???? Its all fiction Andy, why are you so upset?? How does it feel to have your religion criticised, since thats all this piece of trash is, a smear campaign against the Catholic Church and the divinty of Christ. Oh, can someone please provide proof that Opus Dei is involved in murder? I mean if they are so secretive and deadly, how does Dan Brown know so much, and live to tell about it? Why is it that those who defend Brown and his work, defend him and his work as if its the truth? Well, the DA Vinci Code will now go down in history just like the Protocols of Zion: bad and hateful fiction that only provides bigots with more ammunition to hate those who believe in a religion and set of morals that are different than their hateful bigotry. PS why does Dan Brown on his website say all his evidence is fact, such as the Priory of Sion, if this is just a work of fiction? Why is it that historians, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Agnostic, who have written biographies about various characters that Dan Brown says were part of the Priory of Sion, never ever mentioned they were in the Priory? Because the Priory never existed. Also, the Romans and Jews both knew Jesus was never married. and there never was any occurance of Jesus ever being married. So a long dead French royal blood line is actually alive? I bet the French are rolling in their seats over that. I bet the french never knew that one, at least I have never read that in history books. Oh, but I forgot, DAn Brown knows the real actual history...but wait...arent we talking about a work of fiction??? And if Dan Brown all of a sudden knows the real meaning of the bible, than how come all of the various christian and jewish denominations, with ministers both male and female, have never found any meaning in the bible to support this whole "goddess" religion that Brown seems to think that Newton and Da vinci were following. makes one wonder...Dan Brown...author, historian , or con-man??? I guess some would say all of them, but if he is a con-man, how can you trust him with what he says? I thought we were talking about fiction in the first place? How is it that the Da Vinci code has become a religious work of belief? So, what do we now call those who believe the Da Vinci Code is fact and not fiction? Do we call them Brownites, Danites, or Davincians? Expand
  34. MichaelClark
    May 22, 2006
    0
    Come on, come on. The book is the literary equivalent of a Big Mac. You'll think it's "good" when you're eating it, but afterwards, you'll just feel bloated and stupid. No movie based on this garbage could possibly be good.
  35. LeonardoD.V.
    May 22, 2006
    2
    This is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll find out that Dan Brown's "Facts" are based on fraudant documents and his claims about the church/Jesus are bogus too -- which really sucks the aweThis is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll find out that Dan Brown's "Facts" are based on fraudant documents and his claims about the church/Jesus are bogus too -- which really sucks the awe out of the book & movie. Anyone can publish comments against a religion in order to make a big seller. Expand
  36. DanielT.
    May 23, 2006
    3
    Dan Brown - The new Michael Moore. Why ? This film deliberately sets out to challenge your sense of justice, to make you go "Oh no, that can't be right, we've got to do something about these organisations that lie and cheat" You buy into it, you feel empathy with the characters then ...uh oh ... You bother to dig a little deeper (something Ron / Dan etc must have hoped you Dan Brown - The new Michael Moore. Why ? This film deliberately sets out to challenge your sense of justice, to make you go "Oh no, that can't be right, we've got to do something about these organisations that lie and cheat" You buy into it, you feel empathy with the characters then ...uh oh ... You bother to dig a little deeper (something Ron / Dan etc must have hoped you wouldn't do) and find it's all based on rumour and lies and quickness-of-hand trickery. You leave feeling foolish to have believed it all. I call that the "Michael Moore" syndrome. Tom Hanks acts like he genuinely doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Tautou is GORGEOUS !! and the one reason to see this film IMO PS I'm not in any way religious. Expand
  37. Missy
    May 23, 2006
    1
    The Acting was good but the movie was HORRIBLE. it was too long and boring. and down right pointless...
  38. AlO.
    May 25, 2006
    2
    This film is like the book, totally useless.
  39. BrendanK.
    May 27, 2006
    1
    I didn't read the book and I was open minded about the movie when going to the cinema. But the awful script and the bad acting makes me never want to read the book again. Why oh why are there people who really like this movie?!? Beats me.
  40. JulieW.
    May 28, 2006
    2
    Forget the plot (convoluted); forget also the cinematography (half-decent); the key dud about this movie, and why I have thus rated it, is the acting. I no longer have high expectations of Tom Hanks (shame, as his earlier movies had showed promise) andIan McKellen, who appears to have sold out to blockbusters; but I was deeply disappointed in Audrey Tautou, whose acting here as Forget the plot (convoluted); forget also the cinematography (half-decent); the key dud about this movie, and why I have thus rated it, is the acting. I no longer have high expectations of Tom Hanks (shame, as his earlier movies had showed promise) andIan McKellen, who appears to have sold out to blockbusters; but I was deeply disappointed in Audrey Tautou, whose acting here as 'good-looking investigator' is simply going through the motions. Do not judge her on this movie - go see 'Amelie' and 'A Very Long Engagement' - no comparison. Expand
  41. DanR.
    Jun 1, 2006
    3
    Not nearly as endlessly boring as Sideways, but that's not saying much. Da Vinci Code is supposed to be a thriller, and it completely misses on that note. Tom Hanks was handed a two dimensional boring character who hardly ever speaks, so he's not given an opportunity to save this flick. The only true ray of light was Ian McKlellen...
  42. LyleM.
    Jun 11, 2006
    2
    Tom Hanks needs to take off his plastic mask and get into the character. I was disappointed with both the acting and the script. Much harder to follow than the book.
  43. NateH
    Feb 13, 2007
    3
    Tom Hanks could have done a similarly effective acting job by telecommuting.
  44. ScottD
    Nov 20, 2006
    0
    Horrible movie. Im suprised it even got good reviews from anyone. Howard managed to turn lead into lead again. Horrible book, horrible movie.
  45. Cinemeister
    May 18, 2006
    2
    i am from Manila, i saw the movie premiere Thursday here (blame it to the Greenwhich Time), as a Dan Brown buff, ive read Da Vinci Code thrice and swear to be open minded not with the religious matters but with film, in short, i leaved the words in the book and opened my eyes with the car chases, Robert Langdon as Tom Hanks, yeah the Priory maniac Teabing played by Sir Ian and how will i am from Manila, i saw the movie premiere Thursday here (blame it to the Greenwhich Time), as a Dan Brown buff, ive read Da Vinci Code thrice and swear to be open minded not with the religious matters but with film, in short, i leaved the words in the book and opened my eyes with the car chases, Robert Langdon as Tom Hanks, yeah the Priory maniac Teabing played by Sir Ian and how will Ron Howard weave Browns words into pictures. Everyone knows about the story so here is the verdict: the film is not a masterpiece, it lacks chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, what made it amazing are the locations in Europe, the revelations became interesting thanks to Sir Ian, while Hanks and Tautou are the shadows of new tourist guides in Europe. The Da Vinci Code is Hollywood's National Geographic Channel shown in big screen. Expand
  46. JeffD.
    May 21, 2006
    3
    The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it interesting how people are not only rating the quality of this story, but are so invested in the content. A bit of research will reveal that the key The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it interesting how people are not only rating the quality of this story, but are so invested in the content. A bit of research will reveal that the key points of the story are somewhat (though not really) accurate. I seriously don't see this shaking my faith at all. It's a hodge-podge of legends. Expand
  47. VictorV.
    May 22, 2006
    3
    How could Ron Howard screw-up TDC? He is so over-rated!
  48. TigrisV.
    May 22, 2006
    0
    Ugh! I'm so sick of "controversy films" that drum up all kinds of media attention to get people out to spend their money, only to be disappointed by a big flop of a film. It's also very tiresome to read all these reviews of people who loved the film (scores of 10!) attacking those who object to the poor script, uninspired directing, and lousy adaptation of the book. Just because Ugh! I'm so sick of "controversy films" that drum up all kinds of media attention to get people out to spend their money, only to be disappointed by a big flop of a film. It's also very tiresome to read all these reviews of people who loved the film (scores of 10!) attacking those who object to the poor script, uninspired directing, and lousy adaptation of the book. Just because someone didn't like a film doesn't make them (a) stupid or (b) a mindless conservative Christian. Au contraire, anyone with a critical mind should avoid this clap-trap. It's a very poor quality film adapted from a novel of very poor scholarship. It's only a fictious story people! Don't take it so seriously! As a totally fictious story loosely based on some myths and symbols, it's entertaining in the book, but fails to entertain on the screen. Don't waste your money in the theatre. Rent it later if you have to satisfy your curiosity. Expand
  49. MarkB.
    May 23, 2006
    3
    Why didn't all those Catholics and evangelicals who objected to the thesis propounded in Dan Brown's novel (that Jesus Christ was a lot more human than divine, and had a wife and kids) raise a big stink BEFORE the movie was scheduled? It's not like the book suddenly became a blip on the pop-culture screen just last month or anything; the thing's been ruling the Why didn't all those Catholics and evangelicals who objected to the thesis propounded in Dan Brown's novel (that Jesus Christ was a lot more human than divine, and had a wife and kids) raise a big stink BEFORE the movie was scheduled? It's not like the book suddenly became a blip on the pop-culture screen just last month or anything; the thing's been ruling the best-seller charts for what's seemed like forever and TWO days! And though director Ron Howard has grown far more subversive in the decades since he was nursing orphaned baby birds on The Andy Griffith Show (Ransom and The Missing were far bloodier than you'd expect from mainstream R-rated studio action thrillers; Parenthood featured Mommy doing something to Daddy that's not often seen in a PG-13 family comedy; the theme of Night Shift seemed to be that it's great to be a prostitute if you have really nice pimps; and Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas essentially turned Who-ville into South Park), his impish tendencies are nowhere to be found in this way-too-respectful, stultifyingly leaden and butt-achingly dull adaptation. Howard's movie (his worst ever except for The Grinch and his first effort, the Roger Corman-produced Grand Theft Auto, which shouldn't even count) is bound to frustrate and displease Brown's devotees AND his nonreaders alike--there's far too little action and far, far too much woodenly talky exposition to engage the former group, and the clues and anagrams are piled on too haphazardly to make sense to the latter. (I DID read the book by the way. It's pure hackwork, but it kept me turning the pages partially due to Brown's breathless, Indiana Jones-like pacing, which in turn is somewhat artificially augmented by his tendency to write very, very short chapters.) Even as a cinematic tour of some of the greatest pieces of art and architecture in Europe, the movie fails almost completely: other than maybe to create a false illusion of Old Worldliness, why light everything so dimly and pastily that visually the film makes Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, with its deliberately candle-lit cinematography by John Alcott, look like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory by comparison? And as far as the lead performances are concerned, it's mystifying enough that Howard managed to completely drain off all the exquisite charm, vulnerability and delicate wistfulness that made Audrey Tautou so universally beloved in Amelie and A Very Long Engagement--his sole direction to her appeared to be "Here. Suck this lemon"--but since Howard has worked well with Hanks before, what's the excuse for Hanks giving such a flat, humorless and utterly waxen performance here? (The fleshiness that Hanks has displayed in his recent films due to the natural progression of age serves as a major liability here: he looks, sounds and moves as though encased in paraffin.) At least the supporting cast is a huge improvement: Paul Bettany (Master and Commander, A Beautiful Mind) makes his fanatical hit man, a monastery-created Frankenstein's monster, equally frightening and pathetic, and the great Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters, the Lord of the Rings movies) displays more charisma in the opening scene, when we just hear his voice over an intercom, than Hanks and Tautou manage to muster up for the entire movie. Perhaps this is what makes the climactic discovery scene, in which McKellen acts as mouthpiece for Brown's theories about the nature of Jesus Christ, so frightening for certain religious people: McKellen explains it all with so much twinkly wit and charm that he not only gets the audience to pay attention, he actually wakes some of them up. The enormous $77 million box office that The Da Vinci Code picked up in its first weekend (some of it undoubtedly based on the "This is the movie that THEY don't want you to see!!!" factor) shouldn't bother the Catholic Church too much; after all, if it survived the altar-boy scandals of the last several years, to say nothing of 2003's The Magdalene Sisters, it can survive anything...but this thriller's absolute inability or refusal to thrill will create a word-of-mouth backlash that will earn The Da Vinci Code a place in end-of-year history as one of 2006's biggest underachievers. There's no need to bring back the Legion of Decency: Howard, Brown, Hanks, Tautou and screen adapter Akiva Goldsman have proven to be their own worst enemies. Expand
  50. NickM.
    May 24, 2006
    2
    An award-worthy movie: After all, anyone who can equal Dan Brown as a bad writer needs to be recognized! Well done, Akiva. Though, of course, he's not to blame alone: Everyone here deserves some, aside, perhaps from Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany. This has to be one of the most lackluster and utterly forgettable flicks I've seen in ages.
  51. JoseU.
    May 24, 2006
    3
    A movie can be either entertaining or interesting. It can even boring AND interesting. The worst is when a movie is boring and uniteresting, such as this one. The storyline and script were predictable and pompous, and towards the end, I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. I give it three points for the visuals.
  52. Torque
    May 26, 2006
    1
    A boring and pompous work. Brown has issues with The Son of God and Man, and furthermore tries to pass off fiction as history. I suggest any seeker of the truth look to more than one source as the be all and end all of their search. Not even Hanks and Howard can pull off this one.
  53. GregM.
    May 26, 2006
    2
    Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Bettany's horrendous spanglotalian hack-cent, Molina's marvelously crooked shnozz, and Jean Reno's-- well-- his Bezu Fache as all we have Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Bettany's horrendous spanglotalian hack-cent, Molina's marvelously crooked shnozz, and Jean Reno's-- well-- his Bezu Fache as all we have at the end of this whirlwind (as in throwing rubbish around real fast) ride. Expand
  54. JustinS.
    Jun 28, 2006
    2
    When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if this movie could have been done justice in a blockbuster summer movie. For this movie to be done right it would have to have been a 4 hour epic because When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if this movie could have been done justice in a blockbuster summer movie. For this movie to be done right it would have to have been a 4 hour epic because at 2 hours and 30 minute there was no chance to build up the drama or the mystery. I do blame Ron Howard however for the casting of Tom Hanks. Don't get me wrong I love Hanks, but I didn't buy Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon from minute 1. For this performance he should be put on an island with AIDS as a slow witted man and have a two "man" bachelor party with a volleyball. It receives a 2 because Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen were amazing in their roles. Collapse
  55. BlakeK.
    Aug 17, 2006
    3
    This movie could be good, if you never looked at the book, at all. Other then the main plot, not much is the same. [***SPOILERS***] in the movie there is only 1 cryptex, in the book, there is 2. The end is also messed up, alot. Do yourself a favor and read the book if you haven't already.
  56. Matt
    Dec 17, 2007
    1
    Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was better than the film. It has to be. Anything was better than that garbage. Storyline is way out in left field. I honestly tried to pay attention but it was Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was better than the film. It has to be. Anything was better than that garbage. Storyline is way out in left field. I honestly tried to pay attention but it was way too confusing. If you want to see a good movie with Tom Hanks, watch Saving Private Ryan. Expand
  57. AlisterL.
    Dec 30, 2007
    1
    I had plenty to say about this movie, but then read Anthony Lane's review from the New Yorker and found that it had all been said for me.
  58. Nov 26, 2012
    3
    Boring. I'm required to write a much long review just to qualify as a metacritic review. But for this laborious snoozefest, one word would really suffice: boring. Tom Hanks: boring. Gandalf: boring. French people: boring. See something else.
  59. Apr 12, 2016
    2
    So want to hear a conspiracy theory?

    Here it is. Maria Magdalene, the wife of Jesus was pregnant by him. She fled from Judea to France to give birth to a daughter and thus a bloodline descending from Jesus to the present day was started. Mainstream religious leaders did not favor Maria's position as the most beloved of Jesus hence she was denounced as a whore and any trace of her
    So want to hear a conspiracy theory?

    Here it is.

    Maria Magdalene, the wife of Jesus was pregnant by him. She fled from Judea to France to give birth to a daughter and thus a bloodline descending from Jesus to the present day was started. Mainstream religious leaders did not favor Maria's position as the most beloved of Jesus hence she was denounced as a whore and any trace of her importance was purged from the bible, which was given it's most definite woman hating shape under emperor Constantine in 4th century AD at the council of Nicaea.

    So... what has this got to do with Tom Hanks?

    Well, the purge wasn't as thorough as expected, hence up till the present time a secret order tries to wipe out the last traces of Maria cult while defenders of that cult try to protect her memory and descendants. One of the members of the latter group gets killed by first in the Louvre and the victim leaves a complex message behind and names Hanks for reasons. Hence he gets dragged from his book signing session somewhere in France by the French police to shed light on the murder and his role in it.
    What follows next is a conspiracy plot in which Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks), the wrong man in this movie, accompanied by Sophie Neveu(Audrey Tautou), tries to solve the mystery while being pursued by the French police and the assassins of the evil sect. You get your dose of betrayal at some point. You know the deal.

    The main issue with this movie is that it is centered around this conspiracy theory which in the book, - which I have never read - was the key interesting thing as it slowly got revealed. It is also the focus in the movie. But precisely that part is extremely dull: there is a huge amount of exposition, baloney history and explaining to reveal everything to us and after a while it is just too much as people like Da Vinci and Newton get dragged into this surreal fantasy.
    Unfortunately as a consequence of the main characters in the movie, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu are underdeveloped. Who cares about some professor of symbolism babbling platitudes? Who cares about a pretty dull French lassie who is in the movie to share the danger with the professor and not much more?

    The movie thus is about two rather dull people unearthing a top heavy conspiracy that is just too long winded to keep the attention. The story sinks halfway to never resurface again. Not even with the aid of Ian McKellan, the only highlight in the movie as all the other decent actors, such as Reno and Phrochnow get to play predictable characters. There are of course various attempts to infuse some tension into the movie, with the pursuit by the French police and the secret society, but ultimately even the pursuers are your run-of-the-mill one dimensional villains.

    The capital error is that the movie focuses on the wrong thing. In movies like North by Northwest it is the characters that are the focus and not the conspiracy. Here it is exactly the other way around. In this movie the conspiracy takes precedence and is shoved right into your face: look how smart this is you can hear the writer/director say! The characters, who should have been at the center, remain in the shadows because they can not be allowed to stand out with all the fake history being revealed at nausea.
    The movie should have taken it's cues from the likes of North by Northwest, The Name of The Rose, Casablanca or Gone with the wind. Make sure you have some interesting people with captivating conversations. And perhaps then the mystery would have been the icing on the cake. Not the other way around.
    Expand
  60. Jan 30, 2016
    0
    I give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere in the western world, leave the body unattended so that the clever clever character played by Tom Hanks can examine it. The french police, as depicted inI give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere in the western world, leave the body unattended so that the clever clever character played by Tom Hanks can examine it. The french police, as depicted in this silly silly excuse for a movie, leave only one cop at the Louvre to watch the body and he apparently is also charged with patrolling the entire Louvre, so when he goes off on patrol the Tom Hanks character enters stage right

    It apparently did not occur to anyone on the movie production staff to check the real-life web site of the real-life Louvre because if they had they would have discovered that the real-life Louvre is one of the premier museums on the face of the planet, and that it has a security staff numbering in the thousands and they are on duty 24 hours a day, every day, so if anyone were ever murdered inside the Louvre in real-life I dare say there would be at least a half dozen officers, or 100, available to stand watch over the crime scene to ensure that the evidence was not compromised by anyone, even someone looking very much like Tom Hanks.

    But the real crime here is that the french police are made to look like idiots. I mean, probably the most basic lesson all cops learn at cop academy is PROTECT THE CRIME SCENE. Even the police in most Sherlock Holmes episodes know this. And this is approximately where I stopped watching. If I want this level of sheer idiocy I'll watch The Three Stooges.
    Expand
Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 40
  2. Negative: 7 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material.
  2. Da Vinci never rises to the level of a guilty pleasure. Too much guilt. Not enough pleasure.
  3. 100
    Ron Howard's splendid The Da Vinci Code is the Holy Grail of summer blockbusters: a crackling, fast-moving thriller that's every bit as brainy and irresistible as Dan Brown's controversial bestseller.