The Da Vinci Code

User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 489 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

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

User Reviews

  1. Apr 12, 2016
    2
    So want to hear a conspiracy theory?

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

    Here it is.

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

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

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

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

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

    The capital error is that the movie focuses on the wrong thing. In movies like North by Northwest it is the characters that are the focus and not the conspiracy. Here it is exactly the other way around. In this movie the conspiracy takes precedence and is shoved right into your face: look how smart this is you can hear the writer/director say! The characters, who should have been at the center, remain in the shadows because they can not be allowed to stand out with all the fake history being revealed at nausea.
    The movie should have taken it's cues from the likes of North by Northwest, The Name of The Rose, Casablanca or Gone with the wind. Make sure you have some interesting people with captivating conversations. And perhaps then the mystery would have been the icing on the cake. Not the other way around.
    Expand
  2. Mar 27, 2016
    5
    Pulpy page-turner has become a stodgy, grim thing in its exceedingly literal-minded film version. 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.

    Sitting
    Pulpy page-turner has become a stodgy, grim thing in its exceedingly literal-minded film version. 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.

    Sitting through all the verbose explanations and speculations about symbols, codes, secret cults, religious history and covert messages in art, it is impossible to believe that, had the novel never existed, such a script would ever have been considered by a Hollywood studio. It’s esoteric, heady stuff, made compelling only by the fact that what it’s proposing undermines the fundamental tenets of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, and, by extension, Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years.

    The irony in the film’s inadequacy is that the novel was widely found to be so cinematic. Although pretty dismal as prose, the tome fairly rips along, courtesy of a strong story hook, very short chapters that seem like movie scenes, constant movement by the principal characters in a series of conveyances, periodic eruptions of violent action and a compressed 24-hour time frame.

    The appearance of its easy adaptability may have been deceptive, however, as what went down easily on the page becomes laborious onscreen, even with the huge visual plus of fabulous French and English locations, fine actors and the ability to scrutinize works of Da Vinci in detail.

    What one is left with is high-minded lurid material sucked dry by a desperately solemn approach. Some nifty scene-setting, with strong images amplifying a Paris lecture delivered by Harvard symbology professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) intercut with the Louvre murder of curator Sauniere by albino monk Silas (Paul Bettany), spurs hope that Howard might be on track to find a visual way to communicate the book’s content.

    Part of the quick deflation is due to a palpable lack of chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, an odd thing in itself given their genial accessibility in many previous roles. Howard, normally a generous director of actors, makes them both look stiff, pasty and inexpressive in material that provides them little opportunity to express basic human nature; unlike in the book, they are never allowed to even suggest their fatigue after a full night and day of non-stop running, nor to say anything that doesn’t relate directly to narrative forward movement. It’s a film so overloaded with plot that there’s no room for anything else, from emotion to stylistic grace notes.

    The pursuit of a man and a woman barely known to one another was a favorite premise of Alfred Hitchcock, and one need only think of the mileage the director got out of such a set-up in films from “The 39 Steps” to “North by Northwest” to realize some of the missed opportunities here.

    Temporary relief comes, an hour in, with the arrival of Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an immensely wealthy Holy Grail fanatic to whom it falls to explain, in unavoidably fascinating monologues, the alternate history the story advances. It is Teabing’s thesis that the early Church, beginning with the Emperor Constantine, suppressed the feminine aspects of religion both stemming from pagan times as well as from the prominent role in spreading the faith he insists was played by Mary Magdalene, a role underlined by a close look at Da Vinci’s celebrated “The Last Supper.”

    More than that, however, Teabing insists that Mary Magdalene, far from having been a prostitute, was actually Jesus’ wife and that they had a daughter whose bloodline has persisted. McKellen seems to relish every moment and line, which can scarcely be said of the other thesps.

    Given the widespread readership the book has enjoyed and the howls of protest from Christian entities beginning with the Vatican, it is hardly spoiling things to point out that the baddies here are members of the strict Catholic sect Opus Dei, including Silas and Alfred Molina’s Bishop Aringarosa, defenders of doctrine determined to eliminate the threat to the established order posed by the so-called Priory of Sion, an organization secretly holding the “knowledge” that could cripple the church.

    Even after the action moves from France to England, there’s still a long way to go, and the final dramatic revelations, however mind-boggling from a content p.o.v., come off as particularly flat.

    The darkly burnished stylings cinematographer Salvatore Totino brought to Howard’s previous two films, “The Missing” and “Cinderella Man,” prove rather less seductive in the largely nocturnal realms of “The Da Vinci Code.” Hans Zimmer’s ever-present score is at times dramatic to the point of over-insistence.
    Expand
  3. Jan 30, 2016
    0
    I give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere in the western world, leave the body unattended so that the clever clever character played by Tom Hanks can examine it. The french police, as depicted inI give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere in the western world, leave the body unattended so that the clever clever character played by Tom Hanks can examine it. The french police, as depicted in this silly silly excuse for a movie, leave only one cop at the Louvre to watch the body and he apparently is also charged with patrolling the entire Louvre, so when he goes off on patrol the Tom Hanks character enters stage right

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

    But the real crime here is that the french police are made to look like idiots. I mean, probably the most basic lesson all cops learn at cop academy is PROTECT THE CRIME SCENE. Even the police in most Sherlock Holmes episodes know this. And this is approximately where I stopped watching. If I want this level of sheer idiocy I'll watch The Three Stooges.
    Expand
  4. Jan 28, 2016
    6
    A perfect example of why writers shouldn't worry about getting novel-to-film adaptations to feel "just like the book." For God's sakes, movies and novels are different mediums. Tidal waves of expository dialogue and heavy-handed flashbacks do not make for good filmic storytelling techniques. I don't really care how much of a bestseller the book is. Some things just can't translate fromA perfect example of why writers shouldn't worry about getting novel-to-film adaptations to feel "just like the book." For God's sakes, movies and novels are different mediums. Tidal waves of expository dialogue and heavy-handed flashbacks do not make for good filmic storytelling techniques. I don't really care how much of a bestseller the book is. Some things just can't translate from book to screen. That being said, this is a movie made watchable by the impressive expertise of nearly every other department at work. From Ron Howard's stylish vision, to Salvatore Totino's brilliant imagery, to Hans Zimmer's undeniably kick-ass score, and the cast members' worthy performances, "The Da Vinci Code" is a seemingly enjoyable-looking Christmas Tree with all the trimmings and decorations in order. It just so happens that, underneath all the ornaments and garland, lies a narrative trunk molded out of pure garbage. Expand
  5. Dec 24, 2015
    4
    "The Da Vinci Code" was a very disturbing film about the clearest and most sinister mysteries of Leonardo Da Vinci , good performance from Tom Hanks in this amazing adaptation of Dan Brown's book .
  6. Nov 28, 2015
    10
    I'm beginning to feel like I have no taste when it comes to movies. I really liked this movie and yet it got such low scores from both critics and the Users. It's a mystery movie, a who done it, with many more twists along the way. Solving each puzzle leads to the next. Reminded me of a Sherlock Holmes story. This does deal with the Catholic church, ancient orders of Knights, the HolyI'm beginning to feel like I have no taste when it comes to movies. I really liked this movie and yet it got such low scores from both critics and the Users. It's a mystery movie, a who done it, with many more twists along the way. Solving each puzzle leads to the next. Reminded me of a Sherlock Holmes story. This does deal with the Catholic church, ancient orders of Knights, the Holy Grail, maybe some people really tuned out on this movie because of that. Looking at the User scores, you will love it or hate it. I don't have many DVDs but this one is in my collection. Expand
  7. May 5, 2015
    4
    The Da Vinci Code has some interesting historical factoids and theories to impart about religion. It also has a whole bunch of non-nonsensical fantasy drivel to impart. Most importantly however, it has a long, meandering, unexciting and butt-numbingly long snooze-fest of a cinematic experience to impart. Dull times.
  8. Nov 4, 2013
    5
    "The Da Vinci Code" is a dull and overlong adaptation of Dan Brown's novel. Director Ron Howard has taken a decent thoughtful book and turned it into a talky and silly film.
  9. 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!!!
  10. Feb 23, 2013
    8
    As I said in my review of Angels Demons, The Da Vinci Code was great, but it was ruined for me by having just seen National Treasure. They may have been searching for different things and in different situations, but to me the movies are far too similar. I honestly felt like The Da Vinci Code, was a slower, less interesting version of National Treasure. Tom Hanks was amazing as always,As I said in my review of Angels Demons, The Da Vinci Code was great, but it was ruined for me by having just seen National Treasure. They may have been searching for different things and in different situations, but to me the movies are far too similar. I honestly felt like The Da Vinci Code, was a slower, less interesting version of National Treasure. Tom Hanks was amazing as always, but in general the movie was slower and far less interesting to me. It's unfair to compare it to something else, but based on its own merits, it was very entertaining, well acted, and well written, but it was also very slow at times, wordy, and somewhat confusing. Overall it's very good, if you plan on seeing it, don't watch National Treasure first! Collapse
  11. Nov 26, 2012
    3
    Boring. I'm required to write a much long review just to qualify as a metacritic review. But for this laborious snoozefest, one word would really suffice: boring. Tom Hanks: boring. Gandalf: boring. French people: boring. See something else.
  12. Nov 8, 2012
    7
    It was well acted, interesting from start to finish, and was a pretty entertaining mystery as well. I really enjoyed watching it and don't see how people can hate it so much.
  13. Mar 30, 2012
    8
    I loved the mystery to th Da Vinci Code. It is a smart and brillant film with thrills throughout. Add Hans Zimmer's powerful score and you have an excellent blockbuster summer movie.
  14. Feb 6, 2012
    9
    I enjoyed this movie. The story was fascinating if you ask me. The ones who disliked this movie are probably some fanatic christians who are blindly following the Catholic church, or maybe they really didnt like this one. I am a muslim and we believe Jesus too, but not as a god like Church people do, just as a prophet. So this movie was an interesting one.
  15. Dec 23, 2011
    7
    Though I haven't read the book, I just know the book is better and the movie is pretty silly, but it's as intelligent and suspenseful as the book and it takes the plot seriously. Despite the fact Ron Howard's work wasn't that good, it has a good movie picture of the Da Vinci Code and Italy and the characteristics of the characters are a good part of the story throughout the movie.
  16. 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"
  17. Aug 3, 2011
    4
    It suffers from blandness , boringness The Da Vinci code gets dorky in pace , and gets very flat with no emotions. I love History or any stuff related to Historic events, mysteries and question. But The Da Vinci Code does not pull me through the wonderings.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. NathanL
    Mar 26, 2008
    4
    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.
  23. 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
  24. AlisterL.
    Dec 30, 2007
    1
    I had plenty to say about this movie, but then read Anthony Lane's review from the New Yorker and found that it had all been said for me.
  25. Matt
    Dec 17, 2007
    1
    Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was better than the film. It has to be. Anything was better than that garbage. Storyline is way out in left field. I honestly tried to pay attention but it was Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was better than the film. It has to be. Anything was better than that garbage. Storyline is way out in left field. I honestly tried to pay attention but it was way too confusing. If you want to see a good movie with Tom Hanks, watch Saving Private Ryan. Expand
  26. 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.
  27. JerryB.
    Jun 25, 2007
    6
    I didn't read the book, so there were no spoilers for me. I thought it was a creditable movie: Hanks did his best but I was disappointed in Howard's direction. It should have been better edited IMO. Overall a 6
  28. LouisH
    Mar 21, 2007
    7
    Pretty good. I read the book, and the trailor caught my eye. I don't think Tom Hanks was the best actor to play as Robert Langdon, but he was okay. They cut out the 2nd cryptex, which dissapointed me, but the action/mystery was still very entertaining. I like how they encarnated the book into a movie. Good job Ron Howard!
  29. NateH
    Feb 13, 2007
    3
    Tom Hanks could have done a similarly effective acting job by telecommuting.
  30. 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
  31. DaleW.
    Jan 4, 2007
    4
    Waste of my time. Too complex and hard to hear the words. The entire plot was way out there.
  32. NathanG.
    Dec 29, 2006
    9
    One of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Anyone who hates this movie is either a religious wackjob or someone with no attention span.
  33. Rhea
    Dec 25, 2006
    4
    Too much detail in such a short time and yet too long of a movie! Followed the book rather carefully.
  34. 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"?
  35. EliC.
    Nov 30, 2006
    8
    A good film made from a truly awful book. Congrats to Ron Howard from retrieving a decent story from Dan Brown's exercise in how to abuse the english language.
  36. 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!
  37. MeghanR.
    Nov 29, 2006
    4
    Could have been a contender.... Hanks is terribly miscast and gives nothing more than a flat performance (where was Ralph Fiennes when they called for casting?!). No chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, who gives a performance too understated for this kind of movie (though I still lover her understatment). She also comes off as too awkward and uncomfortable with her English. Reno, however, Could have been a contender.... Hanks is terribly miscast and gives nothing more than a flat performance (where was Ralph Fiennes when they called for casting?!). No chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, who gives a performance too understated for this kind of movie (though I still lover her understatment). She also comes off as too awkward and uncomfortable with her English. Reno, however, never seems to disappoint (The Professional... so good!) Unless you have read the book, this movie will not make much sense. =( Ron Howards failure?? Expand
  38. JudyT.
    Nov 22, 2006
    5
    Tom Hanks is terribly miscast and Ron Howard does not make his characters engaging enough for us to care with the exception of Ian Mc Kellan and Jean Reno. Not very interesting film all in all. Did make me want to go out and read the book.
  39. ScottD
    Nov 20, 2006
    0
    Horrible movie. Im suprised it even got good reviews from anyone. Howard managed to turn lead into lead again. Horrible book, horrible movie.
  40. 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.
  41. DZ
    Nov 13, 2006
    4
    The movie is engaging. Its attempt to challenge and invigorate you with a diverse amount of philosophy works. The ending's belief of Christ, is a fascinating reference, it enables the audience to contemplate the intention of the entire movie. The objective position applied by the LA director is refreshing for such a provocative subject. The themes of the movie are worth glancing at The movie is engaging. Its attempt to challenge and invigorate you with a diverse amount of philosophy works. The ending's belief of Christ, is a fascinating reference, it enables the audience to contemplate the intention of the entire movie. The objective position applied by the LA director is refreshing for such a provocative subject. The themes of the movie are worth glancing at and further discussing. Those are the positive aspects of the movie. The DaVinci Code lacks in character development, from both of the two-protagonists, and the supplementary characters. Ciphers are all of what is presented to the audience, to allow us to resonate with the characters. The director never intends to explore either of the two pro-tagonists. They are just following the true intention of the movie: the controversial plot. The plot has no ability to captivate the audience with any major details; rather than twists, and betrayals of characters. The director has failed with basically every piece that needs a good director. However he was never provided with decent material, just a plot, and a dull one, followed by some engaging themes that never are explored. As explosive as Mr. McKellen is, and as engaging as the themes are, the movie is an illusion. This is an illusion for the audience to hand over two hours of work. Now that is a truly controversial issue. Labor, wage, and economy! Upsettingly, Ron Howard's next movie is a movie that will achieve an Oscar, nothing that will achieve criticism. Expand
  42. Daz
    Oct 27, 2006
    6
    I have read the book 3 times including the illustrated hardback edition. I was looking forward to seeing this film greatly but found it disappointing. I felt little excitement (which the book is full of) and did not get to know the characters (or care for them) at all. I'm glad I have seen it to see how Ron Howard portrayed it, but for the first time in many years I have to say my I have read the book 3 times including the illustrated hardback edition. I was looking forward to seeing this film greatly but found it disappointing. I felt little excitement (which the book is full of) and did not get to know the characters (or care for them) at all. I'm glad I have seen it to see how Ron Howard portrayed it, but for the first time in many years I have to say my (poor) imagination was much better and Dan Brown's book is WAY better. I can't remember the last time I saw Tom Hanks in a below par film. Oscar material this is not. Nuff said? Expand
  43. ScottB.
    Sep 7, 2006
    4
    A nearly completely tired translation of a good story.
  44. AaronM
    Aug 31, 2006
    5
    The book is a load of crap but at least it's exciting and really fun to read. The movie is boring, and way too long. Tom Hanks is too good of an actor to be in something like this. Trying to copy the book exactly makes this a huge borefest.
  45. BlakeK.
    Aug 17, 2006
    3
    This movie could be good, if you never looked at the book, at all. Other then the main plot, not much is the same. [***SPOILERS***] in the movie there is only 1 cryptex, in the book, there is 2. The end is also messed up, alot. Do yourself a favor and read the book if you haven't already.
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. HannahB.
    Jul 22, 2006
    10
    I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the book we don't know much about Langdon's personality anyway so I think Tom Hanks was fine as usual. Audrey Tautou was good especially for an I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the book we don't know much about Langdon's personality anyway so I think Tom Hanks was fine as usual. Audrey Tautou was good especially for an English speaking role which is not her native language. Paul Bettany, which I never heard of I actually thought he was French until I looked him up! Ian McKellen is always great, and just how Teabing should be. Jean Reno was fine and convincing. And Alfred Molina was okay for the Bishop although that role could have easily been dropped. The backgrounds and sets are amazing and spot on and the story is just how the book is. What gets me is that some people didn't enjoy the story but that should not be an issue because the movie should follow the story or else it wouldn't be a book adaptation! So people who didn't like the story I think shouldn't be reviewing this movie at all or else it would just be a contradiction! Great movie, Critics too harsh (as usual), not offensive because it's fiction remember. If it's not too late go and see it you shouldn't regret it and if you didn't like it come and complain to me! Expand
  50. MarilynZ.
    Jul 22, 2006
    8
    Totally engaging...I was sorry to see it end and I need to see it again.
  51. 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.
  52. JustinS.
    Jun 28, 2006
    2
    When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if this movie could have been done justice in a blockbuster summer movie. For this movie to be done right it would have to have been a 4 hour epic because When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if this movie could have been done justice in a blockbuster summer movie. For this movie to be done right it would have to have been a 4 hour epic because at 2 hours and 30 minute there was no chance to build up the drama or the mystery. I do blame Ron Howard however for the casting of Tom Hanks. Don't get me wrong I love Hanks, but I didn't buy Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon from minute 1. For this performance he should be put on an island with AIDS as a slow witted man and have a two "man" bachelor party with a volleyball. It receives a 2 because Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen were amazing in their roles. Expand
  53. BruceB.
    Jun 28, 2006
    10
    I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that it does take some original looks at the story, and manages, at times to add to the background of this now epic material! Despite the fact that all the I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that it does take some original looks at the story, and manages, at times to add to the background of this now epic material! Despite the fact that all the expected critics panned this film, as well as a large number of less well known critiques, the truth is that they ALL miss the point made perfectly clear by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct: That if you have a critical mass of "Suspension of Disbelief," you can lead the audience pretty much anywhere, and they WILL follow! Interestingly, I didn't read the novel, but that didn't seem to help or hurt my suspension of disbelief level... Ron Howard had me right from the start! Despite all deconstructive- cat out of the bag critiques of much of Dan Brown's material, the CENTRAL concept: That Jesus was married, had a child, and that her bloodline continues on through history... seems least burdened by all the complaints! It is covered material... as found in The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Mary. So, all that said... I like the film, I rate it as 10, and I think that it is quite possible it will win several Oscars! Expand
  54. LouisM.
    Jun 22, 2006
    5
    I read the book and did not find it as exciting as the rest of mankind. I find it far from controversial and believe if the story shakes Christian people's faith, their faith was not that strong to begin with. The movie itself was a replica of the book and did not ad anything. I expect movies to entertain on many levels by means of whichever emotions, and this one just didn't I read the book and did not find it as exciting as the rest of mankind. I find it far from controversial and believe if the story shakes Christian people's faith, their faith was not that strong to begin with. The movie itself was a replica of the book and did not ad anything. I expect movies to entertain on many levels by means of whichever emotions, and this one just didn't stir the emotions at all. Expand
  55. Rev.Rikard
    Jun 19, 2006
    7
    Though not the best acting we've seen from Hanks, or the best directing by Howard, I am impressed with their willingness to tackle a movie based on a radical theological premise that challenges the Christian Right. The novel was a good piece of writing. Dan Brown used the subjects that put many of us to sleep in college, art, history and theology, and fashioned a thriller. I wondered Though not the best acting we've seen from Hanks, or the best directing by Howard, I am impressed with their willingness to tackle a movie based on a radical theological premise that challenges the Christian Right. The novel was a good piece of writing. Dan Brown used the subjects that put many of us to sleep in college, art, history and theology, and fashioned a thriller. I wondered if Howard would be able to pull off the same on screen. It was good work, not great, just good. But again, look at the elements with which he had to work to create a thriller. I would not have wanted the job. Expand
  56. 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.
  57. Rich99
    Jun 15, 2006
    7
    I thought it was much better than most of the critics have been saying. As faithful to the book as you could get in a 2.5 hour movie. Although the movie seemed to fly by while watching it, I dd have a slightly empty feeling when it was over. After reading the book,which definitely made you think, the movie seemed....somwhat emtpy. I can only conclude that the movie could never live up to I thought it was much better than most of the critics have been saying. As faithful to the book as you could get in a 2.5 hour movie. Although the movie seemed to fly by while watching it, I dd have a slightly empty feeling when it was over. After reading the book,which definitely made you think, the movie seemed....somwhat emtpy. I can only conclude that the movie could never live up to the high expectations people have after reading the book. My main (mild) disagreement is the miscasting of Tom Hanks in the role of Robert Langdon. Not that he does a bad acting job, it's just hard to get past the fact that it's Tom Hanks! In spite of these observations, I was not disappointed. Definitely recommended. Expand
  58. JimG.
    Jun 12, 2006
    4
    I did not read the book. I enjoyed the movie. I didn't love the movie. I didn't hate the movie. I think the movie would have been MUCH better if they had cast unknowns. (You would think at least one producer would have watched the movie "The Player" and gotten the messsage.)
  59. Tonydannie
    Jun 11, 2006
    8
    Fairly faithfull to the book. Great Cast. Fantastic photography. And great music score!
  60. StellaS.
    Jun 11, 2006
    7
    I didn't look at my watch until the credits rolled. By my own personal definition, that makes it a good movie. Not great, but good. It held my attention, despite knowing what was going to happen since I'd read the book quite a while back. I felt the historical exposition was very well done.
  61. JA
    Jun 11, 2006
    6
    I totally agree with James Berardinelli. The film had strong points, especially Ian McKellen, but the film editing was just awful, especailly during the first car chase scene (Why would you play opera music during a car chase scene?). The actors seem intrigued by the movie, but the film itself isnt as good at interesting the audience with the controversial ideas and symbols of the movie. I totally agree with James Berardinelli. The film had strong points, especially Ian McKellen, but the film editing was just awful, especailly during the first car chase scene (Why would you play opera music during a car chase scene?). The actors seem intrigued by the movie, but the film itself isnt as good at interesting the audience with the controversial ideas and symbols of the movie. The visual aids/flashback scenes were stylishly made, as was the end of the movie, but this is still definitely an unexciting, uninspired movie. If you havent read the superior novel by Dan Brown, or even worse, dont know anything about it, then bring a pillow, because you wont last the whole movie long. Heck, just read the book instead. Expand
  62. LyleM.
    Jun 11, 2006
    2
    Tom Hanks needs to take off his plastic mask and get into the character. I was disappointed with both the acting and the script. Much harder to follow than the book.
  63. BillyS.
    Jun 8, 2006
    5
    "Sir...Sir... Wake up Sir, the movies over Sir. It's time to go home . Wake up now."
  64. 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.
  65. JackS.
    Jun 5, 2006
    7
    A genuine thriller set up to use facts as basis for a fun ride. Not film, but hey, what'd you expect. Audrey Tautou shows up, sassy, cute. The movie; well, it's not by any means terrible, but it's faithful yet cinematic, so it's a fun ride. A few quicker edits could've been had, but overall, a fun adventure. I kinda wished I _didn't_ read the book prior. Alas.
  66. ArtM.
    Jun 5, 2006
    8
    Not at all as the critics would have you believe. A smart, intelligent and thoughtful thriller. I liked it.
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. 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.
  70. 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
  71. C.B.B.
    Jun 1, 2006
    7
    A tough book to adapt. Would have been better as a mini-series...
  72. DanR.
    Jun 1, 2006
    3
    Not nearly as endlessly boring as Sideways, but that's not saying much. Da Vinci Code is supposed to be a thriller, and it completely misses on that note. Tom Hanks was handed a two dimensional boring character who hardly ever speaks, so he's not given an opportunity to save this flick. The only true ray of light was Ian McKlellen...
  73. 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
  74. JoeyK.
    May 31, 2006
    6
    Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But it's fun detective work, and questions the church, so how can it go wrong? As an adaptation, it suffers from the difference between movies and books. Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But it's fun detective work, and questions the church, so how can it go wrong? As an adaptation, it suffers from the difference between movies and books. While a book can afford to meander on and continue with multipleclimactic scenes, and expansive conclusions, that extended length doesn't fit so well int he constraints of a movie, and you get that feeling; the feeling that the movie is being true to the book, but it was a long book. Expand
  75. LindaA.
    May 30, 2006
    8
    My hubby and I really enjoyed this movie (neither of us had read the book). I had no problems with Hanks' acting and I thought the evil monk was a convincing villian. I like the brief flashback to the evil monk's past that gave you insight into the why he became who he is as it made him more credible. I think some of the super-low reviews are based on people either a) taking My hubby and I really enjoyed this movie (neither of us had read the book). I had no problems with Hanks' acting and I thought the evil monk was a convincing villian. I like the brief flashback to the evil monk's past that gave you insight into the why he became who he is as it made him more credible. I think some of the super-low reviews are based on people either a) taking offense due to their religious views or b) marking the movie down because it isn't 100% historically accurate. People need to remember this movie is fictional, meaning not real. Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter are both fictional creations too -- I wouldn't expect people to pan them for their bending of reality, just like they shouldn't pan this movie for doing the same. I recommend this movie be seen in the theatre, it's worth the cost of the ticket (and a babysitter). Expand
  76. 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.
  77. SteveA.
    May 30, 2006
    4
    First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, the movie doesn't seem to back up its revelations that well. All we get is an organization that is a hoax and another that is overhyped. And the First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, the movie doesn't seem to back up its revelations that well. All we get is an organization that is a hoax and another that is overhyped. And the theory of the Last Supper is somewhat ludricous--afterall, where is Apostle John if that's really Mary in his seat? On the plus side, I loved the historical flashback scenes. Also, the premise is a brilliant one. I can completely understand how people became interested in the book. Expand
  78. JeremyO.
    May 30, 2006
    9
    This was a terrific movie, absorbing, interesting, insightful. Much of the criticism of the movie stems from the fact that it was a subtle and inteligent mystery, not the emotional burlesque that many Americans except from films.
  79. 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.
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. AlanF.
    May 29, 2006
    10
    Terrific entertainment. The historical Chistianity angle makes the movie more than the typical thriller. Hanks is always fun to watch and acts the Langdon part well. I enjoyed seeing places that were referred to in the book.
  83. KevinD.
    May 29, 2006
    8
    Although there were many discrepincies from the book, which was incredible, this film still pulls off a good show. Ron Howard's second interpretation of this story is better than expected. And to all those who are offended, its only entertainment. Also, the music was excellent.
  84. SebastianD.
    May 29, 2006
    3
    Please do not discover that Budha is a fraud so as not to see this kind of movies again.
  85. 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.
  86. LaryC.
    May 28, 2006
    10
    I don't know what the early critics were talking about. After discovering my old buddy Roger Ebert liked it, my wife and I decided to give it a chance and we LOVED it.
  87. TiarS.
    May 28, 2006
    9
    As i personaly had not read the da vinci code prior to seeing the film i found the motion picture superb in direction,acting,music nd persona. people are only criticising it for being what it is, no matter how good it actualy is. it is not particularly difficult to follow, you simply have to pay attention. there are many superb twists and the film exposes the fact that the vatican keepsAs i personaly had not read the da vinci code prior to seeing the film i found the motion picture superb in direction,acting,music nd persona. people are only criticising it for being what it is, no matter how good it actualy is. it is not particularly difficult to follow, you simply have to pay attention. there are many superb twists and the film exposes the fact that the vatican keeps many secrets hidden form the world. they deny that mary magdelane wrote a gospel when i find it very hard to believe that someone so close to christ, and who was perfectly literate(she writes letters in the gospels) did not record anything about the life of jesus and his works. and what of the gospel of st. thomas, as shown in the film stigmata? the vatican is filled with dark secrets, and they will be exposed as time moves onward. Expand
  88. FrederickS.
    May 28, 2006
    2
    Completely absurd!
  89. JulieW.
    May 28, 2006
    2
    Forget the plot (convoluted); forget also the cinematography (half-decent); the key dud about this movie, and why I have thus rated it, is the acting. I no longer have high expectations of Tom Hanks (shame, as his earlier movies had showed promise) andIan McKellen, who appears to have sold out to blockbusters; but I was deeply disappointed in Audrey Tautou, whose acting here as Forget the plot (convoluted); forget also the cinematography (half-decent); the key dud about this movie, and why I have thus rated it, is the acting. I no longer have high expectations of Tom Hanks (shame, as his earlier movies had showed promise) andIan McKellen, who appears to have sold out to blockbusters; but I was deeply disappointed in Audrey Tautou, whose acting here as 'good-looking investigator' is simply going through the motions. Do not judge her on this movie - go see 'Amelie' and 'A Very Long Engagement' - no comparison. Expand
  90. 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.
  91. SarahF.
    May 27, 2006
    10
    The catholic relegion and Crhistianity are base on lies, crimes, power, money and politics. I hope people can see the thruth. Thank you for this movie.
  92. BrendanK.
    May 27, 2006
    1
    I didn't read the book and I was open minded about the movie when going to the cinema. But the awful script and the bad acting makes me never want to read the book again. Why oh why are there people who really like this movie?!? Beats me.
  93. JannaG.
    May 27, 2006
    8
    This movie is nowhere near the dog that the critics have made it out to be. It's a thoroughly engrossing, well-filmed, well-acted and well-directed fiilm. It certainly keeps your interest. It may not be an action movie with a lot of noisy special effects, but I thought the fade-in, fade-out historical scenes were very good and a different way to handle the past. I'd recommend This movie is nowhere near the dog that the critics have made it out to be. It's a thoroughly engrossing, well-filmed, well-acted and well-directed fiilm. It certainly keeps your interest. It may not be an action movie with a lot of noisy special effects, but I thought the fade-in, fade-out historical scenes were very good and a different way to handle the past. I'd recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see an intelligent thriller. Plus, the scenes of Paris and the French countryside are beautiful. Expand
  94. Erin
    May 27, 2006
    6
    I felt the same way about the film as I did the book. No, not a great piece of literature or a great film- but it was a fun ride with an interesting story, set in a beautiful place. No, Da Vinci isn't going to make it's way into the literature or movie halls of fame, but if you're willing to suspend disbelief and take it at face value its certainly worth the trip to the theatre.
  95. WarrenI.
    May 26, 2006
    10
    Great fun. Critics are afraid to rate it properly because of topic.
  96. KentS.
    May 26, 2006
    8
    Interesting and thought provoking.
  97. GregM.
    May 26, 2006
    2
    Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Bettany's horrendous spanglotalian hack-cent, Molina's marvelously crooked shnozz, and Jean Reno's-- well-- his Bezu Fache as all we have Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Bettany's horrendous spanglotalian hack-cent, Molina's marvelously crooked shnozz, and Jean Reno's-- well-- his Bezu Fache as all we have at the end of this whirlwind (as in throwing rubbish around real fast) ride. Expand
  98. MartinL.
    May 26, 2006
    4
    The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a movie based on this book. You gotta grab some gravitas from inside and dare to offend. Let go of any self restraint tackle the project unconcern of the The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a movie based on this book. You gotta grab some gravitas from inside and dare to offend. Let go of any self restraint tackle the project unconcern of the outcome. Or else you will miss your mark completely! Expand
  99. Torque
    May 26, 2006
    1
    A boring and pompous work. Brown has issues with The Son of God and Man, and furthermore tries to pass off fiction as history. I suggest any seeker of the truth look to more than one source as the be all and end all of their search. Not even Hanks and Howard can pull off this one.
  100. 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.
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.