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)
10
kittyJul 6, 2008
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 of 2 users found this helpful
8
AlanS.May 21, 2006
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 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
Darren17Aug 1, 2011
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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
MadDadNov 23, 2011
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"
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
JohnnyStephensAug 30, 2013
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!!!
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
JuantagMay 20, 2006
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; 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
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
1
MattDec 17, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AlisterL.Dec 30, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
10
R.LopezJun 6, 2009
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 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
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
7
AldrinC.May 18, 2006
Dear Mr. Howard ("The Da Vinci Code" director) and Mr. Goldsman ("The Da Vinci Code" screenwriter): Where have all the suspense gone?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LuisMay 18, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
CinemeisterMay 18, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JamesMay 18, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
EzequielB.May 18, 2006
Great movie like a religious X-Files, full of conspirations and secrets to solve. Best actor: Sir Ian Mackelen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JoelL.May 19, 2006
Awful. The book is gripping. The movie is not; it's a dud.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohMay 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SteveC.May 19, 2006
[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 [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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarioD.May 19, 2006
The film and its actors must be inmediatly considered as front runners for the Raspberry awards... they are the sure winners.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredD.May 19, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KennethD.May 19, 2006
The problem is before you see the movie you think well it can
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LeeF.May 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MikeJ.May 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LouisB.May 19, 2006
The critics were wrong.The movie was entertaining and fast paced.The actors were good and were faithful to the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
CoriMay 19, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
KevinS.May 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
NatS.May 19, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DaveW.May 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JanY.May 19, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DavidC.May 19, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BobbyW.May 19, 2006
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AmberH.May 19, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MichaelB.May 20, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
GodComplexMay 20, 2006
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:: 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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
EdmundB.May 20, 2006
Boring, sacriligeous. Poor concept and worse acting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
FrankieA.May 20, 2006
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 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. ^.^ Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
[Anonymous]May 20, 2006
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.
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
9
StanR.May 20, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarkS.May 20, 2006
Good mystery.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TimG.May 20, 2006
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 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? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WilsonMay 20, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AlfredNB.May 20, 2006
Cannot understand why Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church are portrayed with so little factual truth. What is the point?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SusanW.May 20, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JohnF.May 20, 2006
The critics are wrong. The movie moved at a good pace and it was a good piece of fiction. Just sit back and enjoy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AndyMay 20, 2006
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 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
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
8
JeffSMay 20, 2006
Under-rated, over-hyped and a darn-fun great translation of a good book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TracyB.May 20, 2006
Such a good book- not a good movie.
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
8
DaleM.May 20, 2006
Exciting. Critics at Cannes seem to be getting better and better at picking bad movies and missing good ones.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ClaranneL.May 20, 2006
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...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
HelenB.May 20, 2006
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RickyQ.May 20, 2006
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LiamHuangMay 20, 2006
A pleasant surprise!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
EricS.May 20, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SteveK.May 20, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RedragonGreenMay 20, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JoshuaM.May 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RossA.R.May 21, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SamanthaB.May 21, 2006
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, iI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
VickiH.May 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WaqasK.May 21, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChrisG.May 21, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JoshuaW.May 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AshleyH.May 21, 2006
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?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PatB.May 21, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BillW.May 21, 2006
I've never read the book and entered the movie without much in the way of expectations. I found it an enjoyable, entertaining, suspenseful movie. I had fun with it. A good, not great, fun, summer flick.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DocMay 21, 2006
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? 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
EdC.May 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChrisF.May 21, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LaresaV.May 21, 2006
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 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. 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
10
PeterP.May 21, 2006
Great movie based on a great story based on a fiction. Don't forget it !!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MartyA.May 21, 2006
Loved the book, hated the movie. I urge you to stay away or at least wait till it is on TV.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RaptormanMay 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
WillieG.May 21, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeffD.May 21, 2006
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 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
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
8
MichaelL.May 22, 2006
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MickMay 22, 2006
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!!
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
2
JesusMay 22, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarioW.May 22, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DevinC.May 22, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelClarkMay 22, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LeonardoD.V.May 22, 2006
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 findThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ThomasMayerMay 22, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JoeM.May 22, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KelliD.May 22, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PopsMay 22, 2006
Boooooring. Long periods of slow moving dialogue and introspective pauses, broken by horrific, sudden violence.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LinksterMay 22, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JorgeP.May 22, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PaulF.May 22, 2006
Overall this was a positve movie going experience. I think this movie had a lot of things to say outside of strict entertainment that frankly needed to be said. Though this movie and book are not 100 percen historically accurate they do pose Overall this was a positve movie going experience. I think this movie had a lot of things to say outside of strict entertainment that frankly needed to be said. Though this movie and book are not 100 percen historically accurate they do pose questions as to what has been saved throughout history and what as been surpressed/destroyed and or forgotten or lost. A half of a million cathars were killed for heresy between the years of 1209 and 1241 and who know what knowledge has been lost from that genocide alone. Though all the facts from the movie don't add up in history the underlining premise is an interesting one that seems at least a possibility if not a probability. On an entertainment level I think this movie was above average. I do not think it will win any oscars but certainly it will not earn any razzberries either. Ron Howard directing and Tom Hanks lead acting has always been a good combination and still holds true to form. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
StanE.May 22, 2006
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 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
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