The Da Vinci Code

User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 489 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. kitty
    Jul 6, 2008
    10
    I absolutely loved this movie! I was completely entertained, and I have never read the book so I had no idea how it was going to end, which was a nice change since I normally have movies all figured out by the halfway point.
  2. AlanS.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    After reading the critical reviews i was ready to be disappointed. But I found this a surprisingly good film and very true to the book. Don't believe the hype - there are a lot of agendas out there (anti-populist, right wing Christian etc) that want to see this film fail. If you want to see an entertaining film with some good ideas, see the Da Vinci Code.
  3. Aug 1, 2011
    10
    easily one of the best films i have ever seen i think that it really finds a way to connect with the audience and makes you think about things in a different perspective
  4. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    Fantastic Movie full of suspense. Of course the story is setup, of course Hollywood is greeting us. But if you want a great entertainment after work see that movie. I very much enjoyed doing so. Same as Part 2 the "Illuminati"
  5. Aug 30, 2013
    10
    Excellent and epic!!! I really enjoyed that picture!! The music from Hans Zimmer was perfect and I want to watch it again!!! A surprisingly excellent crime thriller!!!
  6. ClaranneL.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Despite the reviews, took a chance and really enjoyed the movie - take it for what it is a great fictional story - hard job to fit in all the details from the book - but RH did a good job...
  7. StanR.
    May 20, 2006
    9
    We saw it last night with a group of 6. We all really liked the movie and cannot believe we saw the same movie that the critics have slammed. The audience clapped at the end and generally seemed to like the movie. It held our interest and told the story without skipping any important points. It is a thinking person's movie- maybe the reviewers didn't want to think. Sure, it We saw it last night with a group of 6. We all really liked the movie and cannot believe we saw the same movie that the critics have slammed. The audience clapped at the end and generally seemed to like the movie. It held our interest and told the story without skipping any important points. It is a thinking person's movie- maybe the reviewers didn't want to think. Sure, it isn't the book, but that's a different medium. Expand
  8. JaredD.
    May 19, 2006
    10
    Best movie of the year. The critics were wrong. If there was never a book before this movie, people would be applauding the film. This beats out anything put out by the film industry lately. Very entertaining. Everyone at the premiere I went to loved it.
  9. RossA.R.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    Very interesting and thought provoking. Sure, it might feel a little slow for today's short-attention span audience and will be despised by religious folk who won't give the movie a chance to tell its story, but if you're in the mood for a good thriller and like puzzle solving adventures, The DaVinci Code is a good bet.
  10. GodComplex
    May 20, 2006
    9
    This movie is smart, like the book. A lot of idiots are going to see this and not get it.. They haven't read the book, and they don't know much about history, which menas they are lost after the first five minutes. ::shruggs:: I'd ignore idiots/critics alike. God see it if you know your history, read the book, or are just a bright cookie!
  11. JoshuaM.
    May 21, 2006
    10
    I'm suprised at the harsh reviews the movie is getting from a substansial amount of critics, I wonder if they were caught up in the negative publicity the release of it into theaters is causing. I read the book and it was a fantastic piece of literature fiction or not. The Vatican should actually be thanking author Dan Brown to begin with for renewing interest in the church. When I I'm suprised at the harsh reviews the movie is getting from a substansial amount of critics, I wonder if they were caught up in the negative publicity the release of it into theaters is causing. I read the book and it was a fantastic piece of literature fiction or not. The Vatican should actually be thanking author Dan Brown to begin with for renewing interest in the church. When I looked at the first reviews that it got from the Cannes film festival I was pretty shocked and as I saw more and more negative reviews pour in from all over I knew something was wrong. Critics cannot always be trusted becuase sometimes they buy into the negative contoversy surrounding something and basically go with the flow. I thought the film was a fantastic adaptation and a very solid thriller even if you didnt read the book. Ron Howard did an excellent job in adapting the material into a visually arresting film that a larger audience can enjoy. My advice go see the film dont always believe what the critics have to say if you read the book you'll definatly enjoy the film and if you didnt you still will because it has a great cast and a great story that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the very end. Expand
  12. JeffS
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Under-rated, over-hyped and a darn-fun great translation of a good book.
  13. HelenB.
    May 20, 2006
    10
    Fantastic movie, very true to the book. But this movie is sure to get mixed reviews, it depends on your beliefs, that's why there is so much contrast in the reviews we are getting by the critics. Plus critics make mistakes sometimes. they're only human. The movies is great, loved it. Casting was well done and the settings were amazing. The acting is pretty good, not as bad as Fantastic movie, very true to the book. But this movie is sure to get mixed reviews, it depends on your beliefs, that's why there is so much contrast in the reviews we are getting by the critics. Plus critics make mistakes sometimes. they're only human. The movies is great, loved it. Casting was well done and the settings were amazing. The acting is pretty good, not as bad as the critics said it was. Expand
  14. MichaelL.
    May 22, 2006
    8
    This was a fine, cerebral telling of an interesting story. Critics hate it, which signals "good film" to me. To a population raised on M:I:3 and Spiderman, yes, this is talky and slow in parts. It actually, God forbid, requires some thought. If you go to this movie expecting explosions, unlikely romance, and non-stop impossible missions, you'll side with the critics. If you want a This was a fine, cerebral telling of an interesting story. Critics hate it, which signals "good film" to me. To a population raised on M:I:3 and Spiderman, yes, this is talky and slow in parts. It actually, God forbid, requires some thought. If you go to this movie expecting explosions, unlikely romance, and non-stop impossible missions, you'll side with the critics. If you want a movie that is based in historic facts, plays with religious beliefs, and still manages to keep the educated viewer on the edge of his/her seat, you'll appreciate The DaVinci Code. Most telling comment regarding the mental capacity of today's audiences...overheard leaving the theater: "Man, one mediocre car chase. Other than that, I was asleep..." 'Nuff said... Ian McKellan has a field day,and should win an Oscar (but won't), Tom Hanks was good (though I'd have preferred George Clooney), and Audrey Tatou did a fine job. Ron Howard was faithful to the novel. The cinematography, music and editing were top-notch. But, hey, it's no "Saw 2", so most viewers will find it boring. Expand
  15. DanaM.
    May 24, 2006
    8
    Enjoyable movie. After all isn't that what it's all about? Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor( one of my favorites), but may not have been my first choice in this role. There is little connection between Hanks and Tautoo, no sexual energy as in the book (Hanks is unfortunately much older than Tautoo).Those who read the book know Brown spent much time explaining his characters and Enjoyable movie. After all isn't that what it's all about? Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor( one of my favorites), but may not have been my first choice in this role. There is little connection between Hanks and Tautoo, no sexual energy as in the book (Hanks is unfortunately much older than Tautoo).Those who read the book know Brown spent much time explaining his characters and society backgrounds. It would be impossible to spend the time necessary to go into the detail that Dan Brown did and keep the movie to under five hours. I think Howard did a good job in trying to bring up the salient points and keep the movie flowing. Tautoos accent is very heavy at times and difficult to understand during critical scenes. (A comment by my wife was that she ran through the whole movie with high heels and no limping at the end). Without revealing the plot, I was amazed that the Knights Templar would allow Tautoo to work as a law officer knowing her background. A very entertaining movie and worth seeing on the big screen versus DVD. Go see it! Expand
  16. FrankieA.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Great movie. I can understand why some people wouldn't like it (or understand it). The end stretches itself out a little too much and some important aspects of the novel are absent from the film. However, these negative aspects of the film are insignificant, as the movie is awesome. But the book's better. ^.^
  17. LindaA.
    May 30, 2006
    8
    My hubby and I really enjoyed this movie (neither of us had read the book). I had no problems with Hanks' acting and I thought the evil monk was a convincing villian. I like the brief flashback to the evil monk's past that gave you insight into the why he became who he is as it made him more credible. I think some of the super-low reviews are based on people either a) taking My hubby and I really enjoyed this movie (neither of us had read the book). I had no problems with Hanks' acting and I thought the evil monk was a convincing villian. I like the brief flashback to the evil monk's past that gave you insight into the why he became who he is as it made him more credible. I think some of the super-low reviews are based on people either a) taking offense due to their religious views or b) marking the movie down because it isn't 100% historically accurate. People need to remember this movie is fictional, meaning not real. Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter are both fictional creations too -- I wouldn't expect people to pan them for their bending of reality, just like they shouldn't pan this movie for doing the same. I recommend this movie be seen in the theatre, it's worth the cost of the ticket (and a babysitter). Expand
  18. SteveJ.
    Jun 3, 2006
    8
    An excellent adaptation of the book - faithful, but modified appropriately to ensure a deeper understanding of the plot. A bit of perspective, perhaps, would help in realizing that the book was not a textbook and neither is the movie. Rather both are designed to entertain first and foremost. Not Hanks's best performance, but this is not an Academy Award kind of movie! This is a fun An excellent adaptation of the book - faithful, but modified appropriately to ensure a deeper understanding of the plot. A bit of perspective, perhaps, would help in realizing that the book was not a textbook and neither is the movie. Rather both are designed to entertain first and foremost. Not Hanks's best performance, but this is not an Academy Award kind of movie! This is a fun blockbuster with stimulating ideas. Dan Brown is not the first to advance some of the Templar/Mary/Grail ideas, but he is certainly the first to make a fun, exciting story from it. Expand
  19. SuzanneR.
    Jul 26, 2006
    10
    Excellent movie. It is well worth your money to see this film. Usually after reading a book, the movie is such a let down, but not this time. Again, this is a great movie.
  20. AldrinC.
    May 18, 2006
    7
    Dear Mr. Howard ("The Da Vinci Code" director) and Mr. Goldsman ("The Da Vinci Code" screenwriter): Where have all the suspense gone?
  21. MikeJ.
    May 19, 2006
    9
    Much better than the book! But that's not saying much. I rate it high because I think it is a very tough book to make into a good movie, especially a big summer movie, and I think they pulled it off. Entertaining and interesting.
  22. LouisB.
    May 19, 2006
    9
    The critics were wrong.The movie was entertaining and fast paced.The actors were good and were faithful to the book.
  23. KevinS.
    May 19, 2006
    8
    A great book to film adaptation. I think you have to read the book to really get what is going on, but even if you havent you still may catch on. Good film, but the reading book was better and more fun.
  24. Doc
    May 21, 2006
    9
    Never read the book, but I've read the critics reviews and was expecting to be disappointed...seriously, if you want to see this film, go see it, because it is a classic in the making. What's up with the acting? Tom Hanks? he's just his usual self again in this film, on form. I think the response from the media is bizarre to say the least, maybe other powers are at work Never read the book, but I've read the critics reviews and was expecting to be disappointed...seriously, if you want to see this film, go see it, because it is a classic in the making. What's up with the acting? Tom Hanks? he's just his usual self again in this film, on form. I think the response from the media is bizarre to say the least, maybe other powers are at work here... heh. I dont think the critics are really helping by giving away key parts of the film in their reviews, I knew the big bombshell before even seeing it, just because of the spoilers their giving away. Basically I think this film has been hyped so much that it was on the cards that it would get slated... Just too many people have read this book, its not a fantasy film were adaptation can be based around alot of creative elements which most people can not envisage, but a story which every individual has their own perception of what it should be.. and looks like the critics had a collective image of what this should have been, what that is I dont know.... Expand
  25. Andy
    May 20, 2006
    7
    Alfred N B: It is a movie for entertainment purposes. Quit bringing in your religious pontification to the discussion. It is not a documentary, doesn't say it is fact. It isn't a great MOVIE by any means, the pacing is bad, the acting a bit wooden. But don't decry it for going against your religious beliefs. And don't get me started on your complaint that they Catholic Alfred N B: It is a movie for entertainment purposes. Quit bringing in your religious pontification to the discussion. It is not a documentary, doesn't say it is fact. It isn't a great MOVIE by any means, the pacing is bad, the acting a bit wooden. But don't decry it for going against your religious beliefs. And don't get me started on your complaint that they Catholic church, Jesus, et al are portrayed "with so little factual truth." If you have factual truth about all of this, and I'm not talking about the Bible, please, let's all see it. Expand
  26. VickiH.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    I did not get around to reading the Da Vinci Code, although my family did and I knew the premise and a little of the controversy that surrounded it. I was hesitant about seeing the movie after reading the reviews. I thought that it may be a waste of time and money. I generally agree with critics, but this time is an exception. I found the movie thought provoking and entertaining. I am I did not get around to reading the Da Vinci Code, although my family did and I knew the premise and a little of the controversy that surrounded it. I was hesitant about seeing the movie after reading the reviews. I thought that it may be a waste of time and money. I generally agree with critics, but this time is an exception. I found the movie thought provoking and entertaining. I am somewhat baffled by the religious zealots, as this is obviously a work of fiction that simply may get you thinking. Nothing wrong with a little thinking! I am glad I ignored the reviews and went to see this film. I thought maybe I enjoyed the film because I had not read the book, often the book is much better than the film, but my husband having read the book enjoyed it as much as I. I invite movie goers to go see The Da Vinci Code with an open mind and they should find it is time well spent. Expand
  27. Mick
    May 22, 2006
    7
    It entertained me and the people I went to see it with... also I don't remember such an out cry out the factual inaccuracies in Troy, or in Braveheart!!
  28. DaleM.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Exciting. Critics at Cannes seem to be getting better and better at picking bad movies and missing good ones.
  29. RickyQ.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    This is a great compliment to the book. There are some parts missing but overall it is nothing major. The movie seemed to move a little to quickly in the first half but later finds a perfect pace in the middle. Enjoy the book, enjoy the movie!
  30. LiamHuang
    May 20, 2006
    10
    A pleasant surprise!
  31. SteveK.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    I am completely baffled at how wrong the majority of critics got it. This is an entertaining movie. Everyone I saw the movie with enjoyed it and there were even some people clapping in our theater at the end of the movie. Don't have huge expectations... movies based on books are NEVER as good as the books, they can never jam in as much info as a book can. Ron Howard did a good job of I am completely baffled at how wrong the majority of critics got it. This is an entertaining movie. Everyone I saw the movie with enjoyed it and there were even some people clapping in our theater at the end of the movie. Don't have huge expectations... movies based on books are NEVER as good as the books, they can never jam in as much info as a book can. Ron Howard did a good job of making the movie interesting and suspenseful throughout. I really think critics wanted to hate this one so bad that they didn't allow themselves to have a good time. It won't win any Oscars but it was all I wanted it to be. I go to movies to be entertained, take it for what it is. Expand
  32. MarioW.
    May 22, 2006
    7
    Not the best film you will see, but definately not the worst. Pacing is slow in parts and the acting is a little wooden, but overall an interesting film that deserves more recognition than it is receiving. Don't believe all the poor reviews and go judge it for yourself.
  33. KelliD.
    May 22, 2006
    10
    Like others have said before, the rating reflects more on personal views than the review of a great movie. The movie is very true to the book and the actors to their characters. If you enjoyed the book, you will enjoy the movie. It is just as fast paced as the book and the two and a half hours will be gone before you know it. Don't let your personal convictions stop you from truely Like others have said before, the rating reflects more on personal views than the review of a great movie. The movie is very true to the book and the actors to their characters. If you enjoyed the book, you will enjoy the movie. It is just as fast paced as the book and the two and a half hours will be gone before you know it. Don't let your personal convictions stop you from truely enjoying a great story. Expand
  34. VIllyD.
    May 23, 2006
    9
    Don't read the critics. It's just a very very good movie. True to the book and with a great cast. It's a must see!
  35. SpencerN.
    May 24, 2006
    8
    There have been better movies and there have been worse movies. It was entertaining and an enjoyable. Please note that this is an adaptation of a novel. It's entertainment. For all those praying for a direct salvo against the Catholic Church, well, forget it and just shut up! Who cares what Da Vinci and his buddies were doing for fun before Nintendo and the other distractions we have There have been better movies and there have been worse movies. It was entertaining and an enjoyable. Please note that this is an adaptation of a novel. It's entertainment. For all those praying for a direct salvo against the Catholic Church, well, forget it and just shut up! Who cares what Da Vinci and his buddies were doing for fun before Nintendo and the other distractions we have these days. The guy wasn't even born till the middle 13th Century, and no one at the last supper had a polaroid to leave much evidence. Let yourself be entertained and "can't we all just get along?"..... Expand
  36. DarrenS.
    May 26, 2006
    9
    Absolutely superb, a real compliment to the book. Hanks really won me over as Robert Langdon, and Ian McEllan is a show stealer. One of the best movies i have seen in years, Dan Brown should be happy.
  37. [Anonymous]
    May 20, 2006
    10
    I did not read the book. I thought it was a very well done screenplay. The plot was interesting and had a good amount of twists. It's based on enough fact to make it believable fiction. It is fiction nonetheless.
  38. B.Brand
    May 30, 2006
    9
    A little more academic information than in your usual film -- sort of like a Nat'l Geographic or Discovery Channel-type film -- but that's entertaining to me. Even knowing the story, I was never bored. Good direction. Ian McKellen is fantastic. Paul Bettany, Jean Reno show great talent. Hanks plays a button-downed cynic prof. Tatou is engaging to watch.
  39. KenG.
    Jun 17, 2006
    7
    Definately a flawed film, (and also one that kind of wimps out at the end with a long-winded speech by Hanks that only seems to be in movie to appease those christians who might be offended by this movie. Considering that it is no secret what this story is about, I doubt many of those christians will see this.) but also an intriguing, provacative, and well-acted one.
  40. GregP.
    Jun 2, 2006
    7
    Haven't read the book, but have heard all the hype, and my curiosity got to me knowing this was based on a fictional book. Well, I enjoyed it. It was intriguing and the pace was quite fast. Tom was okay, Audrey good and Paul really good as the fanatical monk. Ian was really good also. Now that I've seen, I am surprised by the low ratings by both critics and viewers. Off to see X-men.
  41. MarilynZ.
    Jul 22, 2006
    8
    Totally engaging...I was sorry to see it end and I need to see it again.
  42. R.Lopez
    Jun 6, 2009
    10
    When the book was released in 2003 following the huge success of Dan Brown's other novel Angels & Demons. No one not even Dan Brown himself could have Imagined what a huge global phenomenon The DaVinci Code would be, the book has been translated into almost every language it's old out millions of copies all over the world, and I happen to have a copy at that. SO when I heard When the book was released in 2003 following the huge success of Dan Brown's other novel Angels & Demons. No one not even Dan Brown himself could have Imagined what a huge global phenomenon The DaVinci Code would be, the book has been translated into almost every language it's old out millions of copies all over the world, and I happen to have a copy at that. SO when I heard they were making one of the greatest books in modern history into a film to tell you the truth I wasn't real all that optimistic, so when I went to go see the DaVinci Code in theaters during it's opening weekend I was floored and utterly stunned by how amazing and accurate this film was to the book, albeit they changed some things but that's the film industry for you. Now seeing it again after four years and it's still amazing. Tom Hanks turns in an amazing performance as Robert Langdon who will soon be considered one of the greatest literature characters of all time, Langdon is soemthing of an enigma, he follows no code or by no means any standards and he always puts everything of himself to save lives at no cost to his own. Tom Hanks brings to life a character that people have come to love and admire. And he's done it with his own style and grace, Langdon isn't just some character on a page anymore no he;s been brought to life in an exceptional way the only the likes of Ron Howard and Hanks could. The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown was a global literary phenomenon but now it's also a global film phenomenon as well. I know allot of of fans put down this movie due to some minor changes that were made but if you look past that this movie will not disappoint. Unlike most books brought to the silver screen, this one is faithful and very thought out. It's not some half baked movie like Kiss the girls or it's sequel.No the DaVinci Code was made to be exactly like the book as much as possible and they did very well in my opinion, this movie is not prefect and it doesn't pretend to be, this movie is well thought out and made but at some parts it falls a little short of overwhelming. But if you see the bright side to this film and if you look at it for the great movie that it is, you definitely won't be disappointed. All in all The DaVinci Code delivers great any day entertainment. Expand
  43. EricaJ.
    Nov 17, 2006
    10
    Very Good, Even though I am ignorant to religion It described background info enough that I undertstood what was going on. I was kept interested and excited about what would happen next.
  44. EzequielB.
    May 18, 2006
    9
    Great movie like a religious X-Files, full of conspirations and secrets to solve. Best actor: Sir Ian Mackelen.
  45. LeeF.
    May 19, 2006
    8
    Tons better than I expected -- much better than any critic said it was. Go see it for yourself -- it's a lot of fun and exciting even if you've read the book and know the story.
  46. NatS.
    May 19, 2006
    9
    I can't believe this is getting such bad/poor reviews. The only people who would not like this movie are either devout Christians who are offended (not saying they shouldn't be), or people who read the book and were disappointed. I went in expecting to be disappointed but I was completely wrong. I read the book, too, and there was nothing even wrong or left out. Part of me is I can't believe this is getting such bad/poor reviews. The only people who would not like this movie are either devout Christians who are offended (not saying they shouldn't be), or people who read the book and were disappointed. I went in expecting to be disappointed but I was completely wrong. I read the book, too, and there was nothing even wrong or left out. Part of me is thinking that these bad user reviews are Christians who just hate the book, and who haven't even read it, and are just trying to discourage people from seeing a great movie. Otherwise, there is no reason to give it a 0 or a 1. That is how I know, a movie with Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard can't be a 0 or 1, even if it is below average. Trust me, see this movie, don't let reviews prevent you from seeing it. If you're interested in seeing it, then see it, and then you can hate it later. But in my opinion seeing the most controversial movie for the next ten years is worth 10 bucks in itself, even if you don't like it. Expand
  47. DaveW.
    May 19, 2006
    8
    Good Summer Movie, Don't believe the bad critics they just scared of offending the church. If in doubt check there ratings on the Passion inwhich should have gotten about a 3 out of 10.
  48. Joh
    May 19, 2006
    9
    Great movie, very close to the book, misses some details but this is to be expected in the film version. It's the novel come to life on the screen.
  49. AshleyH.
    May 21, 2006
    9
    I thought the movie was fantastic! I enjoyed it visually as wel as the acting, I don't understand why people are giving it bad reviews?
  50. Wilson
    May 20, 2006
    7
    People have a high expectation on this film way too much. They need to cool it down. The movie was okay. Tom Hanks' acting is not that great, but still enjoyable.
  51. EdC.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think it's just that the critics are reacting negatively to the film's anticlericalism. Maybe the problem is that people who haven't read the I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think it's just that the critics are reacting negatively to the film's anticlericalism. Maybe the problem is that people who haven't read the book may find the movie hard to follow, whereas those who have read the book may not feel the suspense we expect from a thriller. My only real disappointment was that the filmmakers didn't take the opportunity to correct some of Brown's historical errors (nicely documented in Bart Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code"). They could have made the basic story work - what if Jesus had been married and had a child, whose descendants survive to this day? - without compromising that historical speculation with so many demonstrable errors. Expand
  52. ChrisF.
    May 21, 2006
    10
    One of the most mind-expanding experiences I've ever had. I have begun to question the very foundations of my beliefs and it is all thanks to that movie. I loved the chemistry between the two leads, and Ian M did a GREAT job. 10/10 Awesome.
  53. LaresaV.
    May 21, 2006
    9
    Having not read the book, I didn't really know what exactly I was looking for plotwise. I found the movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable. The plot was interesting without being terribly confusing, the acting was (for the most part) fabulous, and it was overall a visual beauty.
  54. PeterP.
    May 21, 2006
    10
    Great movie based on a great story based on a fiction. Don't forget it !!!
  55. Raptorman
    May 21, 2006
    10
    Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who didn't like it, my guess is that most of them had opposing religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is... the Da Vinci Code, whether you agree with the Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who didn't like it, my guess is that most of them had opposing religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is... the Da Vinci Code, whether you agree with the research behind it or not is a wonderful onscreen adaptation of a wonderful book. Do not trust the bad reviews! Howard gives a thoughful, intelligent, and "true to the book" directing job. The acting is good for the most part with some truly amazing performances. The character who plays Silas was downright spooky, Teabing was awesome! Hanks who played Langdon started off a bit wooden, but that was the character and he had to play him that way. Many scenes were deeply disturbing, but well done. If a 2.5 hour movie is not your cup of tea, if you are catholic, or if you like straight action or romance films you will probably dislike the film. If you have an open mind, like a little intellectual exploration and you are not a slave to the powers that be, definately see this film. You will not be disappointed. Expand
  56. SusanW.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    This movie is definitely not into the movie searchingas bad as critics say it is. Not mind-blowing fabulous like we were all expecting, but still an entertaining movie. If you go in to the theatres searching for the meaning of religion and life, sure, you may be disappointed (as you will by all movies), but as a night out with friends, its definitely very entertaining.
  57. JohnF.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    The critics are wrong. The movie moved at a good pace and it was a good piece of fiction. Just sit back and enjoy.
  58. SamanthaB.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    I loved the musical score. paul bettany is masterful, as was sir ian. i was surprised that they deviated from the book so much, and i really wanted to see Robert Langdon look at his Mickey Mouse watch at least once. I Loved the flash backs, i thought that was brilliant the way they added that dimension of history. the end actually moved me to tears. it was a beatiful film, dan brown is oneI loved the musical score. paul bettany is masterful, as was sir ian. i was surprised that they deviated from the book so much, and i really wanted to see Robert Langdon look at his Mickey Mouse watch at least once. I Loved the flash backs, i thought that was brilliant the way they added that dimension of history. the end actually moved me to tears. it was a beatiful film, dan brown is one of my heroes. Expand
  59. WaqasK.
    May 21, 2006
    7
    Great representation of all the pieces of puzzles that are associated with each other. The topic is little controversial but overall the movie was a blast. Ron Howard kept the thrill from start to the end. The movie is kind of long but you dont notice while watching it. I can see this movie another couple of times without any breaking a sweat.
  60. ChrisG.
    May 21, 2006
    9
    I didn't read the book, so expectations were non-existent. It is a slow, talky, film - but entertaining and suspenseful. An excellent movie I highly recommend for those who like think.
  61. JorgeP.
    May 22, 2006
    7
    I was cautious going in to the theatre because of all the criticisms I'd heard about the film, but I found that it was a much better movie than the critics thought. I even realized that one critic *misquoted* a line from the movie to make his point. The revelations -- whether true or not -- that made the book such a topic for discussion is obviously not going to have as much of an I was cautious going in to the theatre because of all the criticisms I'd heard about the film, but I found that it was a much better movie than the critics thought. I even realized that one critic *misquoted* a line from the movie to make his point. The revelations -- whether true or not -- that made the book such a topic for discussion is obviously not going to have as much of an impact anymore. Those revelations have already been revealed, and the movie had to just go back to basics and tell the story. And lastly, the soundtrack is nothing short of brilliant. Expand
  62. StanE.
    May 22, 2006
    9
    I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making you think a little. The way they highlighted the important parts of each picture was very helpful and the ghostly images of the crusades was done well. I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making you think a little. The way they highlighted the important parts of each picture was very helpful and the ghostly images of the crusades was done well. I thought Hanks and Tautou played well against each other (she was nothing like Amelie). I don Expand
  63. JuliusC.
    May 22, 2006
    9
    The film was pretty damn good, a great adaptation of the novel. I don't understand the critics. I heard they were afraid of the reaction of the religious right. They missed big time.
  64. Totto
    May 22, 2006
    10
    Dont be afraid friends!, its only a movie, good actings, and script, I still believe in God, this doesnt change anything.
  65. Corey
    May 22, 2006
    10
    I thought Ron Howard's version of The Da Vinci Code was absolutley breathe taking. With a story like that, an actor like Tom Hanks and free publicity from the catholic church, we couldn't ask for more. For the record however half of the critics bad mouthing this movie and/or book probably don't have the attention span or the brain capacity to truely appreciate such a fine I thought Ron Howard's version of The Da Vinci Code was absolutley breathe taking. With a story like that, an actor like Tom Hanks and free publicity from the catholic church, we couldn't ask for more. For the record however half of the critics bad mouthing this movie and/or book probably don't have the attention span or the brain capacity to truely appreciate such a fine work of art. Overall I give tha movie a 9.7. Expand
  66. LarryL.
    May 22, 2006
    8
    Hanks was somewhat better than expected; rest of cast was excellent. Dialogue was spotty - that's why this is lower than it would normally be.
  67. EricS.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    There are some movies that are so provocative and controversial that professional reviews can't be taken seriously. As much as critics know about films, personal views can still interfere with providing a fair judgment. The Da Vinci Code is one such example. While no masterpiece, it is a well-made, exciting film. It even brings up some valid points involving the history of There are some movies that are so provocative and controversial that professional reviews can't be taken seriously. As much as critics know about films, personal views can still interfere with providing a fair judgment. The Da Vinci Code is one such example. While no masterpiece, it is a well-made, exciting film. It even brings up some valid points involving the history of Christianity. Dan Brown didn't come up with these ideas himself; they have been debated for a long time. However, he and the directors of this film deserve credit for bringing them out into the mainstream. It is a pity that these theories are dismissed by most people, including the critics, who are coincidentally Christians. All talk of truth aside, the De Vinci Code is the perfect example of a great intellectual thriller, even if its reputation is marred by hype and controversy. Expand
  68. DevinC.
    May 22, 2006
    8
    I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have life since Dan Brown didn't make him out that way. The idea was to focus on the surroundings of "Robert Langdon" and not his character. So Tom I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have life since Dan Brown didn't make him out that way. The idea was to focus on the surroundings of "Robert Langdon" and not his character. So Tom Hanks may have seemed kinda dry b/c of how Langdon was created. I also recommend reading the book before seeing the film b/c with all honesty we all know films never really do a book justice but I give Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman an 8 for their somewhat acconmplished portrayal of a good book. Hope to see what they do with Angels and Demons next. Expand
  69. ThomasMayer
    May 22, 2006
    9
    Sorry.. but this was a sorely under-rated film by the critics. A great little murder mystery and some interesting talking points for future religious discussions.
  70. JoeM.
    May 22, 2006
    9
    I almost missed going to see this movies because of the poor reviews, I'm glad I didn't. I went to see it with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. I never found it boring, it held my interest thoughout and even my son said it did not feel like a 2 1/2 hour movie. My wife read the book, I have not and we both thought this was a great movie.
  71. Rachel
    May 23, 2006
    10
    The DaVinci Code really held my attention and played to it's strenghths. I thought the film was outstanding!
  72. Cables
    May 23, 2006
    7
    I'll admit that my expectations were incredibly low going into this movie and that may have somewhat effected my score. I didn't think it was that bad at all. Not the best movie in the world, but was everyone honestly expecting it to be? It's a Ron Howard film people. Please.
  73. GeorgeB.
    May 23, 2006
    9
    For the life of me I can't figure out why the critical response to the film was so negative. I don't buy into conspiracy theories about religion nor do I think that the studio paid off the NY Post. My best guess is that critics were mad that they were not allowed to pre-screen the film and when they saw it, they were agast that it was not a typical summer blockbuster. Kudos to For the life of me I can't figure out why the critical response to the film was so negative. I don't buy into conspiracy theories about religion nor do I think that the studio paid off the NY Post. My best guess is that critics were mad that they were not allowed to pre-screen the film and when they saw it, they were agast that it was not a typical summer blockbuster. Kudos to Howard and Goldsman for crafting a subtle Htichcockesque thriller willing to rely on people talking rather than people running and driving through a series of rapid edits and loud explosions. Perhaps if the film had been released in the fall or early winter the reviews would have been kinder. After all, we have been conditioned to believe that movies releaswed between May and September must be more MTV and less thought provoking. Expand
  74. BryceG.
    May 24, 2006
    9
    This movie is amazing. If you enjoy movies like National Treasure where all the clues fall together you will enjoy this movie which takes you on an adventure back in time in search of the holy grail. This movie is intense, slow at some parts, fast-moving in others with twists and puzzles all about.
  75. WarrenI.
    May 26, 2006
    10
    Great fun. Critics are afraid to rate it properly because of topic.
  76. KentS.
    May 26, 2006
    8
    Interesting and thought provoking.
  77. SarahF.
    May 27, 2006
    10
    The catholic relegion and Crhistianity are base on lies, crimes, power, money and politics. I hope people can see the thruth. Thank you for this movie.
  78. JannaG.
    May 27, 2006
    8
    This movie is nowhere near the dog that the critics have made it out to be. It's a thoroughly engrossing, well-filmed, well-acted and well-directed fiilm. It certainly keeps your interest. It may not be an action movie with a lot of noisy special effects, but I thought the fade-in, fade-out historical scenes were very good and a different way to handle the past. I'd recommend This movie is nowhere near the dog that the critics have made it out to be. It's a thoroughly engrossing, well-filmed, well-acted and well-directed fiilm. It certainly keeps your interest. It may not be an action movie with a lot of noisy special effects, but I thought the fade-in, fade-out historical scenes were very good and a different way to handle the past. I'd recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see an intelligent thriller. Plus, the scenes of Paris and the French countryside are beautiful. Expand
  79. TiarS.
    May 28, 2006
    9
    As i personaly had not read the da vinci code prior to seeing the film i found the motion picture superb in direction,acting,music nd persona. people are only criticising it for being what it is, no matter how good it actualy is. it is not particularly difficult to follow, you simply have to pay attention. there are many superb twists and the film exposes the fact that the vatican keepsAs i personaly had not read the da vinci code prior to seeing the film i found the motion picture superb in direction,acting,music nd persona. people are only criticising it for being what it is, no matter how good it actualy is. it is not particularly difficult to follow, you simply have to pay attention. there are many superb twists and the film exposes the fact that the vatican keeps many secrets hidden form the world. they deny that mary magdelane wrote a gospel when i find it very hard to believe that someone so close to christ, and who was perfectly literate(she writes letters in the gospels) did not record anything about the life of jesus and his works. and what of the gospel of st. thomas, as shown in the film stigmata? the vatican is filled with dark secrets, and they will be exposed as time moves onward. Expand
  80. LaryC.
    May 28, 2006
    10
    I don't know what the early critics were talking about. After discovering my old buddy Roger Ebert liked it, my wife and I decided to give it a chance and we LOVED it.
  81. KevinD.
    May 29, 2006
    8
    Although there were many discrepincies from the book, which was incredible, this film still pulls off a good show. Ron Howard's second interpretation of this story is better than expected. And to all those who are offended, its only entertainment. Also, the music was excellent.
  82. JeremyO.
    May 30, 2006
    9
    This was a terrific movie, absorbing, interesting, insightful. Much of the criticism of the movie stems from the fact that it was a subtle and inteligent mystery, not the emotional burlesque that many Americans except from films.
  83. StellaS.
    Jun 11, 2006
    7
    I didn't look at my watch until the credits rolled. By my own personal definition, that makes it a good movie. Not great, but good. It held my attention, despite knowing what was going to happen since I'd read the book quite a while back. I felt the historical exposition was very well done.
  84. Tonydannie
    Jun 11, 2006
    8
    Fairly faithfull to the book. Great Cast. Fantastic photography. And great music score!
  85. C.B.B.
    Jun 1, 2006
    7
    A tough book to adapt. Would have been better as a mini-series...
  86. Rich99
    Jun 15, 2006
    7
    I thought it was much better than most of the critics have been saying. As faithful to the book as you could get in a 2.5 hour movie. Although the movie seemed to fly by while watching it, I dd have a slightly empty feeling when it was over. After reading the book,which definitely made you think, the movie seemed....somwhat emtpy. I can only conclude that the movie could never live up to I thought it was much better than most of the critics have been saying. As faithful to the book as you could get in a 2.5 hour movie. Although the movie seemed to fly by while watching it, I dd have a slightly empty feeling when it was over. After reading the book,which definitely made you think, the movie seemed....somwhat emtpy. I can only conclude that the movie could never live up to the high expectations people have after reading the book. My main (mild) disagreement is the miscasting of Tom Hanks in the role of Robert Langdon. Not that he does a bad acting job, it's just hard to get past the fact that it's Tom Hanks! In spite of these observations, I was not disappointed. Definitely recommended. Expand
  87. Rev.Rikard
    Jun 19, 2006
    7
    Though not the best acting we've seen from Hanks, or the best directing by Howard, I am impressed with their willingness to tackle a movie based on a radical theological premise that challenges the Christian Right. The novel was a good piece of writing. Dan Brown used the subjects that put many of us to sleep in college, art, history and theology, and fashioned a thriller. I wondered Though not the best acting we've seen from Hanks, or the best directing by Howard, I am impressed with their willingness to tackle a movie based on a radical theological premise that challenges the Christian Right. The novel was a good piece of writing. Dan Brown used the subjects that put many of us to sleep in college, art, history and theology, and fashioned a thriller. I wondered if Howard would be able to pull off the same on screen. It was good work, not great, just good. But again, look at the elements with which he had to work to create a thriller. I would not have wanted the job. Expand
  88. BruceB.
    Jun 28, 2006
    10
    I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that it does take some original looks at the story, and manages, at times to add to the background of this now epic material! Despite the fact that all the I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that it does take some original looks at the story, and manages, at times to add to the background of this now epic material! Despite the fact that all the expected critics panned this film, as well as a large number of less well known critiques, the truth is that they ALL miss the point made perfectly clear by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct: That if you have a critical mass of "Suspension of Disbelief," you can lead the audience pretty much anywhere, and they WILL follow! Interestingly, I didn't read the novel, but that didn't seem to help or hurt my suspension of disbelief level... Ron Howard had me right from the start! Despite all deconstructive- cat out of the bag critiques of much of Dan Brown's material, the CENTRAL concept: That Jesus was married, had a child, and that her bloodline continues on through history... seems least burdened by all the complaints! It is covered material... as found in The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Mary. So, all that said... I like the film, I rate it as 10, and I think that it is quite possible it will win several Oscars! Expand
  89. ArtM.
    Jun 5, 2006
    8
    Not at all as the critics would have you believe. A smart, intelligent and thoughtful thriller. I liked it.
  90. JackS.
    Jun 5, 2006
    7
    A genuine thriller set up to use facts as basis for a fun ride. Not film, but hey, what'd you expect. Audrey Tautou shows up, sassy, cute. The movie; well, it's not by any means terrible, but it's faithful yet cinematic, so it's a fun ride. A few quicker edits could've been had, but overall, a fun adventure. I kinda wished I _didn't_ read the book prior. Alas.
  91. HannahB.
    Jul 22, 2006
    10
    I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the book we don't know much about Langdon's personality anyway so I think Tom Hanks was fine as usual. Audrey Tautou was good especially for an I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the book we don't know much about Langdon's personality anyway so I think Tom Hanks was fine as usual. Audrey Tautou was good especially for an English speaking role which is not her native language. Paul Bettany, which I never heard of I actually thought he was French until I looked him up! Ian McKellen is always great, and just how Teabing should be. Jean Reno was fine and convincing. And Alfred Molina was okay for the Bishop although that role could have easily been dropped. The backgrounds and sets are amazing and spot on and the story is just how the book is. What gets me is that some people didn't enjoy the story but that should not be an issue because the movie should follow the story or else it wouldn't be a book adaptation! So people who didn't like the story I think shouldn't be reviewing this movie at all or else it would just be a contradiction! Great movie, Critics too harsh (as usual), not offensive because it's fiction remember. If it's not too late go and see it you shouldn't regret it and if you didn't like it come and complain to me! Expand
  92. LouisH
    Mar 21, 2007
    7
    Pretty good. I read the book, and the trailor caught my eye. I don't think Tom Hanks was the best actor to play as Robert Langdon, but he was okay. They cut out the 2nd cryptex, which dissapointed me, but the action/mystery was still very entertaining. I like how they encarnated the book into a movie. Good job Ron Howard!
  93. EliC.
    Nov 30, 2006
    8
    A good film made from a truly awful book. Congrats to Ron Howard from retrieving a decent story from Dan Brown's exercise in how to abuse the english language.
  94. NathanG.
    Dec 29, 2006
    9
    One of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Anyone who hates this movie is either a religious wackjob or someone with no attention span.
  95. James
    May 18, 2006
    9
    Faithful adaptation of the novel, but simplified some of the more complex elements. Fans of the book should enjoy while those who have not read the book might get lost in the dialogue.
  96. Cori
    May 19, 2006
    9
    The Da Vinci Code
  97. JanY.
    May 19, 2006
    9
    It's a fiction and should be seen as a fiction. Does it compliment Dan Brown's book? Yes, in the visual sense and it does include cleverly concocted clues and riddles to keep me glued to the screen. As a thriller, it succeeds to keep my eyes, ears and brain cells ticking from beginning to end.
  98. BobbyW.
    May 19, 2006
    7
    I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. Saying that, any conversion from book to film is always very difficult: those that loved the book will never be satisfied becuase they themsleves have I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. Saying that, any conversion from book to film is always very difficult: those that loved the book will never be satisfied becuase they themsleves have already made their own movies in ther mind. However, the movie seen on its own its not too bad given the difficulty of bringing some of Brown's theories into a visual form. The plot moves along at a pretty decent clip with the clever use of computer imaging to tell some parts, the acting can be better but I guess Tom Hanks was just being loyal to his character created by Brown which is card board like. But at least its only 2 hrs plus long instead of four hours - which would be that long if the director had followed too closely to the book. And I am glad he didnt. Expand
  99. AmberH.
    May 19, 2006
    9
    Excellent work. In the light of fiction. Well casted. Tom Hanks was perfect for the role and very believable. A little drawn out in the beginning but overall a very entertaining watch! Must see for all.
  100. PatB.
    May 21, 2006
    8
    I feel as though the critics were reviewing a different movie. Howard did a great job following the book without making the movie too long. The movie moved at a good pace and the cast did a great job with their characters.
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.