User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 460 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  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. Juantag
    May 20, 2006
    3
    I read the book; I've got advanced degrees in history and theology; this movie was a real dud. Tedious to the extreme, muddled and academically laughable (like the book), it doesn't do its actors justice at all. Don't bother; see Gigli instead.
  7. Oct 29, 2010
    6
    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 favorite movie, but good thing it had Tom Hanks and Ian Mckellen in it.
  8. MichaelB.
    May 20, 2006
    3
    I understand that story elements often get changed or condensed in the book-to-movie transition, but this is way out of line. The book is ten times better.
  9. 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...
  10. 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
  11. ScottB.
    Sep 7, 2006
    4
    A nearly completely tired translation of a good story.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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
  16. JeffS
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Under-rated, over-hyped and a darn-fun great translation of a good book.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. BlakeR.
    May 23, 2006
    0
    This movie was a sorry excuse for a book adaptation. Howard, Hanks and the rest of the gang had a real opportunity to really make some noise in the world with a controversial best seller that is sure to be a hit. Instead, they are so afraid to test the boundaries that they are stuck in their own bubble of boredom and solemn. The character development prunes rather then ripens, the story This movie was a sorry excuse for a book adaptation. Howard, Hanks and the rest of the gang had a real opportunity to really make some noise in the world with a controversial best seller that is sure to be a hit. Instead, they are so afraid to test the boundaries that they are stuck in their own bubble of boredom and solemn. The character development prunes rather then ripens, the story "for what it's worth", is cut to peices and Howard has shown once again that he would rather be the family man then make a controversial movie worth waking up to. Next time I want to see a visionless rendition of a story, I'll just go to sparknotes. Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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. ^.^
  22. DanS.
    May 20, 2006
    6
    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 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
  23. 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). Collapse
  24. KyleM.
    May 30, 2006
    3
    This film's treatment of history was very clumsy: outright untruths are heralded as great "secrets" kept from the world by the utterly evil Catholic church. Not only that, but Tom Hanks' performance was mediocre at best. The plotline was moderately entertaining for the first half-hour or so, but then the wild goose chase just drones on and on. Had Brown taken a few more history This film's treatment of history was very clumsy: outright untruths are heralded as great "secrets" kept from the world by the utterly evil Catholic church. Not only that, but Tom Hanks' performance was mediocre at best. The plotline was moderately entertaining for the first half-hour or so, but then the wild goose chase just drones on and on. Had Brown taken a few more history courses, and had the director dropped another hour or so onto the cutting room floor, this may have been worthwhile. Expand
  25. Mobius
    May 30, 2006
    3
    Ive never read the book and to be honest i wasnt really looking foward to seeing it but the wife wanted to see it anyway. normally im pretty good at following plots but as ive never read the book i came out of the cinema having to ask questions even the wife couldnt answer, im sure the book covers why the Opus Dei wants loads of money from the churchand why the bank manager wants to kill Ive never read the book and to be honest i wasnt really looking foward to seeing it but the wife wanted to see it anyway. normally im pretty good at following plots but as ive never read the book i came out of the cinema having to ask questions even the wife couldnt answer, im sure the book covers why the Opus Dei wants loads of money from the churchand why the bank manager wants to kill them and why there is 50 burly blokes and one grandma at the end of the film, This Movie would have been 10 times better if we had left it to indiana Jones to find out as he done a better job of it in the last crusade. Expand
  26. Ryencoke
    May 30, 2006
    0
    I went to this movie expecting it to be an "okay" movie. And, it was about the opposite. This was the first movie that I actually walked out of. I was bored to death, boring story line, cheesy and just lame. I left an hour in. This was the worst movie (from what I saw) that I have ever seen. It seemed like an 'Uwe Boll' movie. Really it's that bad. Avoid at all costs.
  27. paulwebster
    Jun 2, 2006
    4
    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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. MichaelG.
    Jul 9, 2006
    0
    The Da Vinci Code is one of the most predictable and nebulous movies I've seen in quite a while.
  31. shawno.
    Dec 2, 2006
    4
    It seems it solves puzzles to solve puzzles. not worth the hype. Plus out of hudreds of years of having the decoder and knowing its related to Issac Newton and the bible, and needs a 5 letter word to decode, it sure seems somebody would of guessed APPLE. Maybe were all just idiots and not supposed to think that "complexed"?
  32. 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?
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. DavidC.
    May 19, 2006
    3
    If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled that you'll find humor in several of the lines and shots. I didn't read the book, but I can't imagine it being as bad as this film. At the If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled that you'll find humor in several of the lines and shots. I didn't read the book, but I can't imagine it being as bad as this film. At the end of the day, the creators walk away with fat checks, so congrats on marketing an awful film. The unintended comedic scenes.bring my score up to a 3. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. JoelL.
    May 19, 2006
    3
    Awful. The book is gripping. The movie is not; it's a dud.
  38. MarioD.
    May 19, 2006
    0
    The film and its actors must be inmediatly considered as front runners for the Raspberry awards... they are the sure winners.
  39. MarkS.
    May 20, 2006
    6
    Good mystery.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. BillM.
    May 20, 2006
    6
    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.
  43. 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
  44. PeterH.
    May 20, 2006
    5
    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?
  45. 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!!
  46. DaleM.
    May 20, 2006
    8
    Exciting. Critics at Cannes seem to be getting better and better at picking bad movies and missing good ones.
  47. 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!
  48. Giovanni
    May 22, 2006
    4
    Too-safe adaptation of the book. No mistery, no suspense...Hanks and Tatou just ridiculous.
  49. LiamHuang
    May 20, 2006
    10
    A pleasant surprise!
  50. Jesus
    May 22, 2006
    2
    Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious person who likes to see the downfall of some hooky faith then your still gonna find this a boring film nothing aint gonna change that. I just feel sorry Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious person who likes to see the downfall of some hooky faith then your still gonna find this a boring film nothing aint gonna change that. I just feel sorry for the people that actually think this is a good adaptation of the book. my advice is go and read the book then go see the film. Expand
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. Pops
    May 22, 2006
    3
    Boooooring. Long periods of slow moving dialogue and introspective pauses, broken by horrific, sudden violence.
  55. Linkster
    May 22, 2006
    2
    Yawnoramapaloozaa I read the book ... a laborious yawnfest. The only reason I went to see the movie was because of Hanks/Howard and their previous efforts. The movie was even more of a yawnfest! If you enjoy sleeping in theaters this is the flick for you.
  56. DennisL.
    May 23, 2006
    2
    Boring.
  57. M.Austin
    May 23, 2006
    4
    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.
  58. 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!
  59. 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
  60. EdmundB.
    May 20, 2006
    0
    Boring, sacriligeous. Poor concept and worse acting.
  61. R.H.
    May 24, 2006
    0
    It's a perfect match! One of the most soulless and poorly written books is now a movie directed by the least visually engaging director in Hollywood (Ron Howard) and the least exciting actor in Hollywood (Tom Hanks). May the hacks unite!
  62. KathyN.
    May 24, 2006
    4
    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.
  63. NooraB.
    May 26, 2006
    3
    Usually I want to at least finish movies I'm watching. But during the first half an hour I completely lost any interest even though enjoyed reading the book. The plot follows the book too carefully, Audrey Tautou can't act in English as well as she does in French, and Ian McKellen is really trying to be funny but with that director it really doesn't help.
  64. 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.
  65. RM
    May 27, 2006
    2
    Even more dreadful and corny as the book, which I am embarrased to have been persuaded into reading. I am far from religious, and welcome attacks on Christianity, but the way the book does it is cringeworthy, and the way this film does it is just tame and pathetic. Poor effort.
  66. [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.
  67. TedB.
    May 28, 2006
    0
    Yawwwnnnn... An utter waste of my time and money. I'd like the past 2 hours of my life back. What a joke.
  68. FrederickS.
    May 28, 2006
    2
    Completely absurd!
  69. SebastianD.
    May 29, 2006
    3
    Please do not discover that Budha is a fraud so as not to see this kind of movies again.
  70. 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.
  71. ChadS.
    Jun 1, 2006
    6
    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 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
  72. AaronF.
    Jun 1, 2006
    6
    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, 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
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. SeamusM.
    Jun 6, 2006
    5
    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.
  76. BillyS.
    Jun 8, 2006
    5
    "Sir...Sir... Wake up Sir, the movies over Sir. It's time to go home . Wake up now."
  77. MarilynZ.
    Jul 22, 2006
    8
    Totally engaging...I was sorry to see it end and I need to see it again.
  78. JahanB.
    Aug 9, 2006
    5
    Ron Howard's much hyped and rather unnecessarily over-marketed The Da Vinci Code had most critics carping after its Cannes premiere. Who cared? The excitement was at an all time high, there was controversy, the Da Vinci craze was in fever pitch mode, there were huge promotional events, posters were strewn all across the globe, the promos looked fantastic- what more could one ask for? Ron Howard's much hyped and rather unnecessarily over-marketed The Da Vinci Code had most critics carping after its Cannes premiere. Who cared? The excitement was at an all time high, there was controversy, the Da Vinci craze was in fever pitch mode, there were huge promotional events, posters were strewn all across the globe, the promos looked fantastic- what more could one ask for? Critics? Who cares about them, that sore bunch of losers? The problem here is, they aren't very wrong in their assessment of the film. Mr. Howard couldn't quite crack the code. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is surely no classic. It is, however- despite the flaws and certain inaccuracies- one helluva entertaining and riveting ride. Sadly, director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman don't quite manage to crack the code. What they achieve, nevertheless, is nothing short of stupendous- it's an absolute movie-making miracle. For they have actually managed to rob the thrilling novel of almost every bit of thrill, pace and punch it has. Don't get me wrong. The Da Vinci Code is certainly not a bad film. It is eminently watchable, and I admit it does have some good moments. But when it's an adaptation of a book as explosive as The Da Vinci Code, one expects nothing less than total blockbuster perfection. The film falls way too short of that. Okay, the good bit first- the monuments and locations look absolutely gorgeous and magnificent on screen, the cinematography is glorious- quite dark and moody, the camera angles are awesome. The actors are wonderfully cast and play their parts rather well. Though the book likens Langdon's appearance to that of Harrison Ford, I somehow always pictured Tom Hanks in this role. Whether it be Forrest Gump, the AIDS affected lawyer in Philadelphia, or Viktor Navorski in The Terminal- there is this warm, humane quality that Hanks brings to all his characters. Hanks has a purity, an almost childlike innocence that is so vital to Langdon's character. I can't think of an actor who could play Langdon better- his presence illuminates the film. Audrey Tautou is perfectly cast as Sophie Neveu- she pitches in a good act, complimenting Hanks perfectly with her demure, yet dynamic presence. The other actors' roles are understandably not too fleshed out- with maybe the sole exception of Ian Mckellen who gives a wicked performance as the witty and eccentric Sir Leigh Teabing. However, the other actors- Alfred Molina, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany- are suitably competent in the limited scope that they get. Now for the quirks- and believe me, they are many. Howard turns Code- which is essentially a fast paced thriller- into profound, serious drama, utterly boring and ultimately pretentious. It's his scholarly, austere, even almost religious approach to the story that pulls it down. This is a film that takes itself a bit too seriously. I mean- all those flashback sequences, the long sepia-toned historical explanations- were they really so neccessary? The first one hour is fair enough, moving on pretty smoothly. It's the remainder of the film in which things begin to get really dreary- the excitement and pace is all missing.I can't say if Code begins with a bang, but it does end with a whimper. Goldsman's script lets the book down terribly- there are hardly any clever, inventive touches- instead, he robs the book of some of its best moments. Much of Teabing's best lines are lost- I especially missed one in which he threatens the police that unless they'd let him go, he'd have his lawyers 'scramble their testicles for breakfast.' Langdon's Mickey Mouse watch is missing- I know it's trivial, but then these are those little touches that make any book or film special. Much of the film is spent in boring conversation and silly, juvenile arguments between Langdon and Teabing. By the time the 'climax' appears, you're too bored to even care. And then Goldsman delivers the worst blow of all- just when you thought that there was some romance brewing between Langdon and Neveu, he has Hanks plant a true-blue Bollywood style fatherly kiss on Tautou's forehead. Ouch, and ugh. One last grouse- the whole mystique of the Holy Grail lies in its ambiguous form and nature- in the book, we never know how it exactly is, except that it consists of the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and some documents. Howard, in the end, actually zooms down into the depths of the earth to show us the remains- as if to tell us- look, it's here! We know, Mr Howard, we know. The Da Vinci Code, I repeat, is not a bad film at all. Fact is, it could have been explosive on celluloid. After watching Code, the thought that hurts most is that of what it could have been. Expand
  79. BethHinton
    Aug 9, 2006
    4
    So much more could have been done with this film. It seems the director Ron howard wanted to play it safe, stick to the formula. This movie is critic proof. It is not good or bad, it is medium.
  80. PabloE.
    Oct 13, 2007
    0
    This was simply one of the worse movie ever. The book was at least a page turner. This time, from a mediocre book a even worse film.
  81. MattO.
    Jan 28, 2007
    4
    The book, great. The flim bad. It shows you how hard it truly is to transmit from pages to screens. This film could have been done so much better. The fact it drags on, tries to force you with some action to just keep you looking for another 3 seconds that doesn't grip no attention at all. The locations and the plot is interesting, but the cimemtography was poor. The only reason to The book, great. The flim bad. It shows you how hard it truly is to transmit from pages to screens. This film could have been done so much better. The fact it drags on, tries to force you with some action to just keep you looking for another 3 seconds that doesn't grip no attention at all. The locations and the plot is interesting, but the cimemtography was poor. The only reason to go see this movie is because to say you have seen it, but no worth a purchase or a second look. Also, dont see this movie if you havent read the book, because you will think the book will be disappointing becasue the film consequently was. This review is based solely off the cinemitography and other mechanics of the film. And in no way am I judging this film with relgious based critizism, and am just saying the movie was a disappointed and lacking the high expectations given to the film. Expand
  82. DaleW.
    Jan 4, 2007
    4
    Waste of my time. Too complex and hard to hear the words. The entire plot was way out there.
  83. CassianJ.
    Jan 4, 2008
    5
    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
  84. 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
  85. 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.
  86. Mike
    Nov 30, 2006
    0
    Was this movie bad!!!! Its just so silly and unbelievable that I simply didnt want watch it after 1hr and 30mins. It seemed to drag on and on. What a bore!
  87. Luis
    May 18, 2006
    3
    I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most exciting book of all times but I didn't feel it in the movie. The screenplay and approach simply just did not work. I am also disappointed with the I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most exciting book of all times but I didn't feel it in the movie. The screenplay and approach simply just did not work. I am also disappointed with the actors except for Jean Reno (who played the character of Bezu Fache exactly the way I imagined it). It's a lousy adaptation. I am so disappointed because I was hoping that it is a good movie after the awful Poseidon but it's not. Expand
  88. EzequielB.
    May 18, 2006
    9
    Great movie like a religious X-Files, full of conspirations and secrets to solve. Best actor: Sir Ian Mackelen.
  89. 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.
  90. 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
  91. 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.
  92. 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.
  93. SteveC.
    May 19, 2006
    1
    [I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it.] I can't believe it! Discounting the visuals (which are not merit of the film), It is overall such a bad film on so many levels. Sure there are worse films, but heck these people are supposed to have gone to film and acting schools. It's absolutely obvious that the writing doesn't work! This is a film not the book! And with [I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it.] I can't believe it! Discounting the visuals (which are not merit of the film), It is overall such a bad film on so many levels. Sure there are worse films, but heck these people are supposed to have gone to film and acting schools. It's absolutely obvious that the writing doesn't work! This is a film not the book! And with such a script (recalls the last Star Wars films) what do the actors do...? No chemistry at all, just i blah, then he blahs, then the other guy blahs, like reading away mindlessly... Hanks' worst acting, as miscast as Tatou. So, just another hollywood megaproduction soon to be forgotten. Expand
  94. KennethD.
    May 19, 2006
    0
    The problem is before you see the movie you think well it can
  95. JoshuaW.
    May 21, 2006
    2
    The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character interaction for any of the superb cast members to play with. Its all aout getting from A to B as quickly as possible. And if they had been a little The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character interaction for any of the superb cast members to play with. Its all aout getting from A to B as quickly as possible. And if they had been a little more faithful to the book, there would have been some serious acting going on in this film. Also, some of the changes made to characters deprived them of their depth, and once again a chance to shine in their roles. There was also an overabundance of cheesy film effects to help us, the viewer follow what really wasn't a difficult story line along. This is the first movie in I don't remember how long that I kept wanting to actually leave while it was playing. If my girlfriend, who also hated it, hadn't been so determined to stick it out, I would have left the theater and salvaged some of my time. I had high expectations and they were brutally not met. Expand
  96. 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?
  97. TimG.
    May 20, 2006
    2
    Contains nearly as many examples of Deus ex Machina as the entire Harry Potter series, some of the most wooden dialouge outside of an Uwe Boll film, and multiple ridiculous "history lessons" where characters feel the need take a pit stop while being chased by the police so they can spout off lectures about ancient history. How could millions of readers be so dumb?
  98. 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.
  99. 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
  100. 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.
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.