Columbia Pictures | Release Date: May 19, 2006
5.9
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 509 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
264
Mixed:
106
Negative:
139
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
MovieLonely94Oct 29, 2010
never read the book, and never seen this before until now. I heard that it was a bad movie, but according to the Wikipedia article of films in 2006, it was one of the grossing movies of the year. so, why a 6/10? well, its not my favoritenever read the book, and never seen this before until now. I heard that it was a bad movie, but according to the Wikipedia article of films in 2006, it was one of the grossing movies of the year. so, why a 6/10? well, its not my favorite movie, but good thing it had Tom Hanks and Ian Mckellen in it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
CassianJ.Jan 4, 2008
I came to this movie with very low expectations. I have not read the book upon which it is based, and had read and heard only bad things about this movie. To add to this I have never been a great fan of Ron Howard
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
NathanLMar 26, 2008
This movie moves likea snail, and the actors were probably actually robots that replaced their counterparts. stoid, boring. The only good actor is the men who plays teabing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
OCuculizaMay 18, 2006
A disappointment. It's sort of entertaining but after 2 hours of flashbacks, bad dialogue and stupid scenes with Tom Hanks totally miscast, it gets awful. Sir Ian McKellen is def. the best thing about htis, all the scenes where he A disappointment. It's sort of entertaining but after 2 hours of flashbacks, bad dialogue and stupid scenes with Tom Hanks totally miscast, it gets awful. Sir Ian McKellen is def. the best thing about htis, all the scenes where he appears are great just because of him. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanS.May 20, 2006
Never read the book, but the movie wasn't a total failure. The plot twists kept me entertained and there was just enough action to both reatin the film's propsed heady status and restrict it from falling into an explosion fest. The Never read the book, but the movie wasn't a total failure. The plot twists kept me entertained and there was just enough action to both reatin the film's propsed heady status and restrict it from falling into an explosion fest. The dialogue was pretty uninspiring and Tom Hanks was kind of dull (for a lead role, he only really did something a few times). The movie became more predictable towards the end, but it was entertaining and considerably better than National Treasure (which DVC reminded me of with the artifact hunting). For what it's worth, I don't think I wasted my money seeing it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarkS.May 20, 2006
Good mystery.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillM.May 20, 2006
An OK mystery with too many endings. The hype around it, made me expect it to be great. It fell far short of the hype.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PeterH.May 20, 2006
I found that by the half way point my concentration was wandering. Perhaps too much talking and explaining. Perhaps I was just confused as to where the movie was going. I actually thought the movie had ended ... well, at least four times. I found that by the half way point my concentration was wandering. Perhaps too much talking and explaining. Perhaps I was just confused as to where the movie was going. I actually thought the movie had ended ... well, at least four times. Finally when the end did arrive I didn't see the point. So what? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SammyMay 20, 2006
The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize that he may be offending people. Instead of a fascinating theory about the foundations of Christianity, the movie basically shows a simple guess. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KenV.May 21, 2006
It was long, boring and choppy! It was historical jibberish that had me waiting for it to end so I could politey leave the theater. Dan Brown clearly has demonstrated that Catholics are this generation's Jews.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ShawnS.May 21, 2006
I enjoyed it ...however bad casting of Tom Hanks.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GiovanniMay 22, 2006
Too-safe adaptation of the book. No mistery, no suspense...Hanks and Tatou just ridiculous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
mOJ.May 22, 2006
I thought the movie did not emphasize the main points in the book. I know I shouldn't compare it to the book but I was just so disappointed. Tom Hanks was not a good Robert Langdon.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
stuartMay 22, 2006
This movie is like watching a documentary... slow and toytally alcking drama, save for about 15 minutes. Hanks and the female lwead could put you to sleep... both performances totally without emotion.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SeanR.May 22, 2006
The book was a poorly written waste of time, but going into a movie adapted from a book You! Can! Not! Compare! It! With! The! Book! When viewing an adapted movie (none the less a ficticious one) you have to go into it with the mindset of The book was a poorly written waste of time, but going into a movie adapted from a book You! Can! Not! Compare! It! With! The! Book! When viewing an adapted movie (none the less a ficticious one) you have to go into it with the mindset of being it's own work. Im am tired of people being stupid about not even giving films a chance because they were a book first. The acting for the most part was well done and the script wasn't much more poorly written than the book was. It was entertaining... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
M.AustinMay 23, 2006
A total waste of 2.5 hrs. I have to admit the novel was a guilty pleasure, which I enjoyed. The movie however was a mess. The movie might be worth a discounted rental fee in three months, but it surely isn't worth $13.00 right now.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LarryF.May 23, 2006
Well the code is broken and can't be fixed. I enjoyed the book, although I never took it for more than light escapist fiction. I found it to be fast paced and enjoyed following the clues. However, the film version does no justice to the Well the code is broken and can't be fixed. I enjoyed the book, although I never took it for more than light escapist fiction. I found it to be fast paced and enjoyed following the clues. However, the film version does no justice to the novel. The problem starts with Tom Hanks. I, along with many other fans of the book were very surprised by this casting choice. But then I thought, "ok he's a terrific actor. maybe he can pull it off". Sad to say, he can't. Hanks is very miscast. He's wooden, has ridiculous facial expressions, and no chemistry with Audrey Tautou. He, along with chunks of exposition, slow the film down to a crawl. Tautou is lovely in all of her French films but acting in an English-speaking role seems to rob her of her natural charm. Jean Reno is well cast as the police inspector (although his character does a vanishing act late in the film) and only Ian McKellen really makes the most of his role. McKellen could read a phone book and make it interesting. The script does it's best to follow the novel but ends up trying too hard to explain everything constantly to the viewer which robs the film of any sustained suspense. Even the action scenes miss the mark. For example, the car chase in Paris is very poorly filmed and edited. Ron Howard is a fine director, but unfortunately, he just doesn't solve "The Da Vinci Code". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KathyN.May 24, 2006
Flat and forgettable. For a suspense thriller, there were no thrills and very little suspense. Tom Hanks just seemed to be going through the motions. Maybe I expected too much.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlanT.May 24, 2006
Totally forgettable. It chose neither to have FUN with its subject matter nor to deliver serious suspense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MaseMay 24, 2006
I have never read the book, saying that I'm shocked this is the story that has captivated a nation of book readers. Maybe it just plays better on the page than on the screen. This movie was not poorly made and I admit i wasn't I have never read the book, saying that I'm shocked this is the story that has captivated a nation of book readers. Maybe it just plays better on the page than on the screen. This movie was not poorly made and I admit i wasn't bored through the long playing time. However there was not especially intriguing or original or really anything at all the recommend about this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TwelvefieldMay 25, 2006
The story is certainly comparable to that other Da Vinci conspiracy epic: Hudson Hawk.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DennisL.May 25, 2006
Boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MartinL.May 26, 2006
The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a movie based on this book. You gotta grab some gravitas from inside and dare to offend. Let go of any self restraint tackle the project unconcern of the outcome. Or else you will miss your mark completely! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ErinMay 27, 2006
I felt the same way about the film as I did the book. No, not a great piece of literature or a great film- but it was a fun ride with an interesting story, set in a beautiful place. No, Da Vinci isn't going to make it's way into I felt the same way about the film as I did the book. No, not a great piece of literature or a great film- but it was a fun ride with an interesting story, set in a beautiful place. No, Da Vinci isn't going to make it's way into the literature or movie halls of fame, but if you're willing to suspend disbelief and take it at face value its certainly worth the trip to the theatre. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SteveA.May 30, 2006
First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, the movie doesn't seem to back up its revelations that well. All we get is an organization that is a hoax and another that is overhyped. And the theory of the Last Supper is somewhat ludricous--afterall, where is Apostle John if that's really Mary in his seat? On the plus side, I loved the historical flashback scenes. Also, the premise is a brilliant one. I can completely understand how people became interested in the book. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeyK.May 31, 2006
Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But it's fun detective work, and questions the church, so how can it go wrong? As an adaptation, it suffers from the difference between movies and books. While a book can afford to meander on and continue with multipleclimactic scenes, and expansive conclusions, that extended length doesn't fit so well int he constraints of a movie, and you get that feeling; the feeling that the movie is being true to the book, but it was a long book. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadS.Jun 1, 2006
Fine. Attack "The DaVinci Code". If I was a Christian, I'd probably be mortified if my faith was turned into disposable entertainment. What annoys me is when Christians go after serious works like "The Last Temptation of Christ", or Fine. Attack "The DaVinci Code". If I was a Christian, I'd probably be mortified if my faith was turned into disposable entertainment. What annoys me is when Christians go after serious works like "The Last Temptation of Christ", or Michael Tolkien's "The Rapture". The film(and book) is not to be taken seriously, but I believe more in the church's conspiracy than the ability of Audrey Tautou's character to manuever her vehicle backwards and find the negative space of a moving truck. "The DaVinci Code" is a competent film that makes me understand why the American public made the Dan Brown novel the "Thriller" of contemporary fiction. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AaronF.Jun 1, 2006
Overall it was good. It entertained me through it and was an okay watch, but it really wasn't up to the hype around it. It was just an average "B" movie. Detective works don't always transfer over well and this is the case here. It Overall it was good. It entertained me through it and was an okay watch, but it really wasn't up to the hype around it. It was just an average "B" movie. Detective works don't always transfer over well and this is the case here. It just never has that suprise or climactic moment of discovery or the tension involved. It's more like we know what's going to happen, we're just waiting for the characters to get there. The twist ending was fairly predictable too. An okay movie to see, just don't expect anything revolutionary. (In movie making or religion...It's a fictional movie. There's no reason to fight over it either way.) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
paulwebsterJun 2, 2006
The book was not that good, but at least it had rythm, totally lost in this totally missed movie. The story is badly told, perhaps the film makers assumed that the public would have already read the book anyway.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SeamusM.Jun 6, 2006
Not as bad as the crtitcs' reviews make out. It is too long and not very exciting to watch. Towards the end there is about half an hour of boring stuff. Maybe better for those who haven't read the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful