The Da Vinci Code

9

JeremyO.May 30, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

B.BrandMay 30, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

MobiusMay 30, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

KyleM.May 30, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AlanF.May 29, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

KevinD.May 29, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

SebastianD.May 29, 2006

Please do not discover that Budha is a fraud so as not to see this kind of movies again.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TedB.May 28, 2006

Yawwwnnnn... An utter waste of my time and money. I'd like the past 2 hours of my life back. What a joke.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LaryC.May 28, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

TiarS.May 28, 2006

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 notAs 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

FrederickS.May 28, 2006

Completely absurd!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

JulieW.May 28, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

RMMay 27, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

SarahF.May 27, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

BrendanK.May 27, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JannaG.May 27, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ErinMay 27, 2006

I felt the same way about the film as I did the book. No, not a great piece of literature or a great film- but it was a fun ride with an interesting story, set in a beautiful place. No, Da Vinci isn't going to make it's way into I felt the same way about the film as I did the book. No, not a great piece of literature or a great film- but it was a fun ride with an interesting story, set in a beautiful place. No, Da Vinci isn't going to make it's way into the literature or movie halls of fame, but if you're willing to suspend disbelief and take it at face value its certainly worth the trip to the theatre.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

WarrenI.May 26, 2006

Great fun. Critics are afraid to rate it properly because of topic.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

KentS.May 26, 2006

Interesting and thought provoking.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

GregM.May 26, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MartinL.May 26, 2006

The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a The book was fascinating and daring. The movie was the opposite. It's fast and slow in the wrong places, felt like 30 minutes too long, AND its too grim to appeal to all ages or even its target demographic. Look, if you gotta make a movie based on this book. You gotta grab some gravitas from inside and dare to offend. Let go of any self restraint tackle the project unconcern of the outcome. Or else you will miss your mark completely!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

TorqueMay 26, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

NooraB.May 26, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DarrenS.May 26, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DennisL.May 25, 2006

Boring.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

TwelvefieldMay 25, 2006

The story is certainly comparable to that other Da Vinci conspiracy epic: Hudson Hawk.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

AlO.May 25, 2006

This film is like the book, totally useless.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

RiccardoT.May 25, 2006

Very good film. The church have been fear, because, now the people can open their eyes, on the fable of the church.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

JoseU.May 24, 2006

A movie can be either entertaining or interesting. It can even boring AND interesting. The worst is when a movie is boring and uniteresting, such as this one. The storyline and script were predictable and pompous, and towards the end, I A movie can be either entertaining or interesting. It can even boring AND interesting. The worst is when a movie is boring and uniteresting, such as this one. The storyline and script were predictable and pompous, and towards the end, I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. I give it three points for the visuals.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BryceG.May 24, 2006

This movie is amazing. If you enjoy movies like National Treasure where all the clues fall together you will enjoy this movie which takes you on an adventure back in time in search of the holy grail. This movie is intense, slow at some This movie is amazing. If you enjoy movies like National Treasure where all the clues fall together you will enjoy this movie which takes you on an adventure back in time in search of the holy grail. This movie is intense, slow at some parts, fast-moving in others with twists and puzzles all about.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

DeeA.May 24, 2006

Tom Hanks is a great actor but he didn't fit the role of Langdon & that goofy hairdo is very distracting & no chemistry between him & Sophie. (Russell Crowe would have made the perfect Robt Langdon) It does follow the book pretty close Tom Hanks is a great actor but he didn't fit the role of Langdon & that goofy hairdo is very distracting & no chemistry between him & Sophie. (Russell Crowe would have made the perfect Robt Langdon) It does follow the book pretty close though so it's worth going to see.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MaseMay 24, 2006

I have never read the book, saying that I'm shocked this is the story that has captivated a nation of book readers. Maybe it just plays better on the page than on the screen. This movie was not poorly made and I admit i wasn't I have never read the book, saying that I'm shocked this is the story that has captivated a nation of book readers. Maybe it just plays better on the page than on the screen. This movie was not poorly made and I admit i wasn't bored through the long playing time. However there was not especially intriguing or original or really anything at all the recommend about this movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

AlanT.May 24, 2006

Totally forgettable. It chose neither to have FUN with its subject matter nor to deliver serious suspense.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

NickM.May 24, 2006

An award-worthy movie: After all, anyone who can equal Dan Brown as a bad writer needs to be recognized! Well done, Akiva. Though, of course, he's not to blame alone: Everyone here deserves some, aside, perhaps from Ian McKellan and An award-worthy movie: After all, anyone who can equal Dan Brown as a bad writer needs to be recognized! Well done, Akiva. Though, of course, he's not to blame alone: Everyone here deserves some, aside, perhaps from Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany. This has to be one of the most lackluster and utterly forgettable flicks I've seen in ages.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

SpencerN.May 24, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KathyN.May 24, 2006

Flat and forgettable. For a suspense thriller, there were no thrills and very little suspense. Tom Hanks just seemed to be going through the motions. Maybe I expected too much.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

R.H.May 24, 2006

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!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DanaM.May 24, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MitchO.May 23, 2006

Don't understand the bad rap this movie is getting. Especially those who say they liked the book but didn't like the movie. Ron Howard seemed particularly faithful to the book. Where he made changes it was definitely for the Don't understand the bad rap this movie is getting. Especially those who say they liked the book but didn't like the movie. Ron Howard seemed particularly faithful to the book. Where he made changes it was definitely for the better. In many ways, the movie makes all of it seem much more plausible than Dan Brown's book did. Really nicely done. Don't believe the hype. Go see it for yourself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

DennisL.May 23, 2006

Boring.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

MarkB.May 23, 2006

Why didn't all those Catholics and evangelicals who objected to the thesis propounded in Dan Brown's novel (that Jesus Christ was a lot more human than divine, and had a wife and kids) raise a big stink BEFORE the movie was Why didn't all those Catholics and evangelicals who objected to the thesis propounded in Dan Brown's novel (that Jesus Christ was a lot more human than divine, and had a wife and kids) raise a big stink BEFORE the movie was scheduled? It's not like the book suddenly became a blip on the pop-culture screen just last month or anything; the thing's been ruling the best-seller charts for what's seemed like forever and TWO days! And though director Ron Howard has grown far more subversive in the decades since he was nursing orphaned baby birds on The Andy Griffith Show (Ransom and The Missing were far bloodier than you'd expect from mainstream R-rated studio action thrillers; Parenthood featured Mommy doing something to Daddy that's not often seen in a PG-13 family comedy; the theme of Night Shift seemed to be that it's great to be a prostitute if you have really nice pimps; and Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas essentially turned Who-ville into South Park), his impish tendencies are nowhere to be found in this way-too-respectful, stultifyingly leaden and butt-achingly dull adaptation. Howard's movie (his worst ever except for The Grinch and his first effort, the Roger Corman-produced Grand Theft Auto, which shouldn't even count) is bound to frustrate and displease Brown's devotees AND his nonreaders alike--there's far too little action and far, far too much woodenly talky exposition to engage the former group, and the clues and anagrams are piled on too haphazardly to make sense to the latter. (I DID read the book by the way. It's pure hackwork, but it kept me turning the pages partially due to Brown's breathless, Indiana Jones-like pacing, which in turn is somewhat artificially augmented by his tendency to write very, very short chapters.) Even as a cinematic tour of some of the greatest pieces of art and architecture in Europe, the movie fails almost completely: other than maybe to create a false illusion of Old Worldliness, why light everything so dimly and pastily that visually the film makes Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, with its deliberately candle-lit cinematography by John Alcott, look like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory by comparison? And as far as the lead performances are concerned, it's mystifying enough that Howard managed to completely drain off all the exquisite charm, vulnerability and delicate wistfulness that made Audrey Tautou so universally beloved in Amelie and A Very Long Engagement--his sole direction to her appeared to be "Here. Suck this lemon"--but since Howard has worked well with Hanks before, what's the excuse for Hanks giving such a flat, humorless and utterly waxen performance here? (The fleshiness that Hanks has displayed in his recent films due to the natural progression of age serves as a major liability here: he looks, sounds and moves as though encased in paraffin.) At least the supporting cast is a huge improvement: Paul Bettany (Master and Commander, A Beautiful Mind) makes his fanatical hit man, a monastery-created Frankenstein's monster, equally frightening and pathetic, and the great Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters, the Lord of the Rings movies) displays more charisma in the opening scene, when we just hear his voice over an intercom, than Hanks and Tautou manage to muster up for the entire movie. Perhaps this is what makes the climactic discovery scene, in which McKellen acts as mouthpiece for Brown's theories about the nature of Jesus Christ, so frightening for certain religious people: McKellen explains it all with so much twinkly wit and charm that he not only gets the audience to pay attention, he actually wakes some of them up. The enormous $77 million box office that The Da Vinci Code picked up in its first weekend (some of it undoubtedly based on the "This is the movie that THEY don't want you to see!!!" factor) shouldn't bother the Catholic Church too much; after all, if it survived the altar-boy scandals of the last several years, to say nothing of 2003's The Magdalene Sisters, it can survive anything...but this thriller's absolute inability or refusal to thrill will create a word-of-mouth backlash that will earn The Da Vinci Code a place in end-of-year history as one of 2006's biggest underachievers. There's no need to bring back the Legion of Decency: Howard, Brown, Hanks, Tautou and screen adapter Akiva Goldsman have proven to be their own worst enemies.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MargaretF.May 23, 2006

I absolutely loved this movie! Although it left out some parts or rearranged them from the book, the movie challenges the Catholic faith and makes me think more deeply and intuitively about my own faith.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

LarryF.May 23, 2006

Well the code is broken and can't be fixed. I enjoyed the book, although I never took it for more than light escapist fiction. I found it to be fast paced and enjoyed following the clues. However, the film version does no justice to the Well the code is broken and can't be fixed. I enjoyed the book, although I never took it for more than light escapist fiction. I found it to be fast paced and enjoyed following the clues. However, the film version does no justice to the novel. The problem starts with Tom Hanks. I, along with many other fans of the book were very surprised by this casting choice. But then I thought, "ok he's a terrific actor. maybe he can pull it off". Sad to say, he can't. Hanks is very miscast. He's wooden, has ridiculous facial expressions, and no chemistry with Audrey Tautou. He, along with chunks of exposition, slow the film down to a crawl. Tautou is lovely in all of her French films but acting in an English-speaking role seems to rob her of her natural charm. Jean Reno is well cast as the police inspector (although his character does a vanishing act late in the film) and only Ian McKellen really makes the most of his role. McKellen could read a phone book and make it interesting. The script does it's best to follow the novel but ends up trying too hard to explain everything constantly to the viewer which robs the film of any sustained suspense. Even the action scenes miss the mark. For example, the car chase in Paris is very poorly filmed and edited. Ron Howard is a fine director, but unfortunately, he just doesn't solve "The Da Vinci Code".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

BillMay 23, 2006

There's nothing wrong with this film! It's true to the book and the charactors/actors do the job. If I hadn't read the book already twice, I'm not sure I could have followed the story line.Not so much action based, but There's nothing wrong with this film! It's true to the book and the charactors/actors do the job. If I hadn't read the book already twice, I'm not sure I could have followed the story line.Not so much action based, but the pace of the story is fast. Bill C.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

CablesMay 23, 2006

I'll admit that my expectations were incredibly low going into this movie and that may have somewhat effected my score. I didn't think it was that bad at all. Not the best movie in the world, but was everyone honestly expecting it I'll admit that my expectations were incredibly low going into this movie and that may have somewhat effected my score. I didn't think it was that bad at all. Not the best movie in the world, but was everyone honestly expecting it to be? It's a Ron Howard film people. Please.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

RachelMay 23, 2006

The DaVinci Code really held my attention and played to it's strenghths. I thought the film was outstanding!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BlakeR.May 23, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

GeorgeB.May 23, 2006

For the life of me I can't figure out why the critical response to the film was so negative. I don't buy into conspiracy theories about religion nor do I think that the studio paid off the NY Post. My best guess is that critics For the life of me I can't figure out why the critical response to the film was so negative. I don't buy into conspiracy theories about religion nor do I think that the studio paid off the NY Post. My best guess is that critics were mad that they were not allowed to pre-screen the film and when they saw it, they were agast that it was not a typical summer blockbuster. Kudos to Howard and Goldsman for crafting a subtle Htichcockesque thriller willing to rely on people talking rather than people running and driving through a series of rapid edits and loud explosions. Perhaps if the film had been released in the fall or early winter the reviews would have been kinder. After all, we have been conditioned to believe that movies releaswed between May and September must be more MTV and less thought provoking.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

VIllyD.May 23, 2006

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!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

M.AustinMay 23, 2006

A total waste of 2.5 hrs. I have to admit the novel was a guilty pleasure, which I enjoyed. The movie however was a mess. The movie might be worth a discounted rental fee in three months, but it surely isn't worth $13.00 right now.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MissyMay 23, 2006

The Acting was good but the movie was HORRIBLE. it was too long and boring. and down right pointless...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

DanielT.May 23, 2006

Dan Brown - The new Michael Moore. Why ? This film deliberately sets out to challenge your sense of justice, to make you go "Oh no, that can't be right, we've got to do something about these organisations that lie and cheat" You Dan Brown - The new Michael Moore. Why ? This film deliberately sets out to challenge your sense of justice, to make you go "Oh no, that can't be right, we've got to do something about these organisations that lie and cheat" You buy into it, you feel empathy with the characters then ...uh oh ... You bother to dig a little deeper (something Ron / Dan etc must have hoped you wouldn't do) and find it's all based on rumour and lies and quickness-of-hand trickery. You leave feeling foolish to have believed it all. I call that the "Michael Moore" syndrome. Tom Hanks acts like he genuinely doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Tautou is GORGEOUS !! and the one reason to see this film IMO PS I'm not in any way religious.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LawrenceF.May 22, 2006

Many professional critics are wrong! This is a fun, fast pased movie. The cast are terrific and the cinematography stunning. Opus Dei is not bashed - only manipulated by unscrupulus clergy (not a big problem in the contempary church, but Many professional critics are wrong! This is a fun, fast pased movie. The cast are terrific and the cinematography stunning. Opus Dei is not bashed - only manipulated by unscrupulus clergy (not a big problem in the contempary church, but there, none the less). Fiction is supposed to be entertaining, and this is.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

LarryL.May 22, 2006

Hanks was somewhat better than expected; rest of cast was excellent. Dialogue was spotty - that's why this is lower than it would normally be.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

GaryM.May 22, 2006

I ain't here to con anyone into seeing this movie. However, I went expecting the most boring movie EVER. I saw the trailer and read the reviews before seeing this movie and was not really happy about having to see this movie (I was I ain't here to con anyone into seeing this movie. However, I went expecting the most boring movie EVER. I saw the trailer and read the reviews before seeing this movie and was not really happy about having to see this movie (I was asked to accompany someone). But, this movie was really good and extremely entertaining. I didn't read the book, so I was like "Tell me more!" as if it were a story being read to me. I truly recommend people to go see this movie. It may not be worth watching twice or more, but it is worth seeing at least once. Acting was good all around and felt Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen did a good job. Oh, and I just LOVE Audrey Tautou.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

SeanR.May 22, 2006

The book was a poorly written waste of time, but going into a movie adapted from a book You! Can! Not! Compare! It! With! The! Book! When viewing an adapted movie (none the less a ficticious one) you have to go into it with the mindset of The book was a poorly written waste of time, but going into a movie adapted from a book You! Can! Not! Compare! It! With! The! Book! When viewing an adapted movie (none the less a ficticious one) you have to go into it with the mindset of being it's own work. Im am tired of people being stupid about not even giving films a chance because they were a book first. The acting for the most part was well done and the script wasn't much more poorly written than the book was. It was entertaining...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CoreyMay 22, 2006

I thought Ron Howard's version of The Da Vinci Code was absolutley breathe taking. With a story like that, an actor like Tom Hanks and free publicity from the catholic church, we couldn't ask for more. For the record however half I thought Ron Howard's version of The Da Vinci Code was absolutley breathe taking. With a story like that, an actor like Tom Hanks and free publicity from the catholic church, we couldn't ask for more. For the record however half of the critics bad mouthing this movie and/or book probably don't have the attention span or the brain capacity to truely appreciate such a fine work of art. Overall I give tha movie a 9.7.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TomH.May 22, 2006

One would have to be very smart, or very dull to see the movie for the cult classic it will become.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TigrisV.May 22, 2006

Ugh! I'm so sick of "controversy films" that drum up all kinds of media attention to get people out to spend their money, only to be disappointed by a big flop of a film. It's also very tiresome to read all these reviews of people Ugh! I'm so sick of "controversy films" that drum up all kinds of media attention to get people out to spend their money, only to be disappointed by a big flop of a film. It's also very tiresome to read all these reviews of people who loved the film (scores of 10!) attacking those who object to the poor script, uninspired directing, and lousy adaptation of the book. Just because someone didn't like a film doesn't make them (a) stupid or (b) a mindless conservative Christian. Au contraire, anyone with a critical mind should avoid this clap-trap. It's a very poor quality film adapted from a novel of very poor scholarship. It's only a fictious story people! Don't take it so seriously! As a totally fictious story loosely based on some myths and symbols, it's entertaining in the book, but fails to entertain on the screen. Don't waste your money in the theatre. Rent it later if you have to satisfy your curiosity.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TottoMay 22, 2006

Dont be afraid friends!, its only a movie, good actings, and script, I still believe in God, this doesnt change anything.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

stuartMay 22, 2006

This movie is like watching a documentary... slow and toytally alcking drama, save for about 15 minutes. Hanks and the female lwead could put you to sleep... both performances totally without emotion.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JuliusC.May 22, 2006

The film was pretty damn good, a great adaptation of the novel. I don't understand the critics. I heard they were afraid of the reaction of the religious right. They missed big time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

VictorV.May 22, 2006

How could Ron Howard screw-up TDC? He is so over-rated!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

mOJ.May 22, 2006

I thought the movie did not emphasize the main points in the book. I know I shouldn't compare it to the book but I was just so disappointed. Tom Hanks was not a good Robert Langdon.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

StanE.May 22, 2006

I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making you think a little. The way they highlighted the important parts of each picture was very helpful and the ghostly images of the crusades was done well. I thought Hanks and Tautou played well against each other (she was nothing like Amelie). I don… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PaulF.May 22, 2006

Overall this was a positve movie going experience. I think this movie had a lot of things to say outside of strict entertainment that frankly needed to be said. Though this movie and book are not 100 percen historically accurate they do pose Overall this was a positve movie going experience. I think this movie had a lot of things to say outside of strict entertainment that frankly needed to be said. Though this movie and book are not 100 percen historically accurate they do pose questions as to what has been saved throughout history and what as been surpressed/destroyed and or forgotten or lost. A half of a million cathars were killed for heresy between the years of 1209 and 1241 and who know what knowledge has been lost from that genocide alone. Though all the facts from the movie don't add up in history the underlining premise is an interesting one that seems at least a possibility if not a probability. On an entertainment level I think this movie was above average. I do not think it will win any oscars but certainly it will not earn any razzberries either. Ron Howard directing and Tom Hanks lead acting has always been a good combination and still holds true to form.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JorgeP.May 22, 2006

I was cautious going in to the theatre because of all the criticisms I'd heard about the film, but I found that it was a much better movie than the critics thought. I even realized that one critic *misquoted* a line from the movie to I was cautious going in to the theatre because of all the criticisms I'd heard about the film, but I found that it was a much better movie than the critics thought. I even realized that one critic *misquoted* a line from the movie to make his point. The revelations -- whether true or not -- that made the book such a topic for discussion is obviously not going to have as much of an impact anymore. Those revelations have already been revealed, and the movie had to just go back to basics and tell the story. And lastly, the soundtrack is nothing short of brilliant.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

LinksterMay 22, 2006

Yawnoramapaloozaa I read the book ... a laborious yawnfest. The only reason I went to see the movie was because of Hanks/Howard and their previous efforts. The movie was even more of a yawnfest! If you enjoy sleeping in theaters this is the Yawnoramapaloozaa I read the book ... a laborious yawnfest. The only reason I went to see the movie was because of Hanks/Howard and their previous efforts. The movie was even more of a yawnfest! If you enjoy sleeping in theaters this is the flick for you.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

PopsMay 22, 2006

Boooooring. Long periods of slow moving dialogue and introspective pauses, broken by horrific, sudden violence.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

KelliD.May 22, 2006

Like others have said before, the rating reflects more on personal views than the review of a great movie. The movie is very true to the book and the actors to their characters. If you enjoyed the book, you will enjoy the movie. It is just Like others have said before, the rating reflects more on personal views than the review of a great movie. The movie is very true to the book and the actors to their characters. If you enjoyed the book, you will enjoy the movie. It is just as fast paced as the book and the two and a half hours will be gone before you know it. Don't let your personal convictions stop you from truely enjoying a great story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JoeM.May 22, 2006

I almost missed going to see this movies because of the poor reviews, I'm glad I didn't. I went to see it with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. I never found it boring, it held my interest thoughout and even my son said it I almost missed going to see this movies because of the poor reviews, I'm glad I didn't. I went to see it with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. I never found it boring, it held my interest thoughout and even my son said it did not feel like a 2 1/2 hour movie. My wife read the book, I have not and we both thought this was a great movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

ThomasMayerMay 22, 2006

Sorry.. but this was a sorely under-rated film by the critics. A great little murder mystery and some interesting talking points for future religious discussions.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

LeonardoD.V.May 22, 2006

This is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll findThis is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll find out that Dan Brown's "Facts" are based on fraudant documents and his claims about the church/Jesus are bogus too -- which really sucks the awe out of the book & movie. Anyone can publish comments against a religion in order to make a big seller.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

MichaelClarkMay 22, 2006

Come on, come on. The book is the literary equivalent of a Big Mac. You'll think it's "good" when you're eating it, but afterwards, you'll just feel bloated and stupid. No movie based on this garbage could possibly be good.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DevinC.May 22, 2006

I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have life since Dan Brown didn't make him out that way. The idea was to focus on the surroundings of "Robert Langdon" and not his character. So Tom Hanks may have seemed kinda dry b/c of how Langdon was created. I also recommend reading the book before seeing the film b/c with all honesty we all know films never really do a book justice but I give Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman an 8 for their somewhat acconmplished portrayal of a good book. Hope to see what they do with Angels and Demons next.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MarioW.May 22, 2006

Not the best film you will see, but definately not the worst. Pacing is slow in parts and the acting is a little wooden, but overall an interesting film that deserves more recognition than it is receiving. Don't believe all the poor Not the best film you will see, but definately not the worst. Pacing is slow in parts and the acting is a little wooden, but overall an interesting film that deserves more recognition than it is receiving. Don't believe all the poor reviews and go judge it for yourself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

JesusMay 22, 2006

Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious Cant realy see how a Catholic like me would be offended by the story of this film, problem here is that there isnt anything going on to keep the viewer busy. just found it incredibily boring, on the other hand if your some non religious person who likes to see the downfall of some hooky faith then your still gonna find this a boring film nothing aint gonna change that. I just feel sorry for the people that actually think this is a good adaptation of the book. my advice is go and read the book then go see the film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

GiovanniMay 22, 2006

Too-safe adaptation of the book. No mistery, no suspense...Hanks and Tatou just ridiculous.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MickMay 22, 2006

It entertained me and the people I went to see it with... also I don't remember such an out cry out the factual inaccuracies in Troy, or in Braveheart!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

MichaelL.May 22, 2006

This was a fine, cerebral telling of an interesting story. Critics hate it, which signals "good film" to me. To a population raised on M:I:3 and Spiderman, yes, this is talky and slow in parts. It actually, God forbid, requires some thought. This was a fine, cerebral telling of an interesting story. Critics hate it, which signals "good film" to me. To a population raised on M:I:3 and Spiderman, yes, this is talky and slow in parts. It actually, God forbid, requires some thought. If you go to this movie expecting explosions, unlikely romance, and non-stop impossible missions, you'll side with the critics. If you want a movie that is based in historic facts, plays with religious beliefs, and still manages to keep the educated viewer on the edge of his/her seat, you'll appreciate The DaVinci Code. Most telling comment regarding the mental capacity of today's audiences...overheard leaving the theater: "Man, one mediocre car chase. Other than that, I was asleep..." 'Nuff said... Ian McKellan has a field day,and should win an Oscar (but won't), Tom Hanks was good (though I'd have preferred George Clooney), and Audrey Tatou did a fine job. Ron Howard was faithful to the novel. The cinematography, music and editing were top-notch. But, hey, it's no "Saw 2", so most viewers will find it boring.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ShawnS.May 21, 2006

I enjoyed it ...however bad casting of Tom Hanks.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

JeffD.May 21, 2006

The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it interesting how people are not only rating the quality of this story, but are so invested in the content. A bit of research will reveal that the key points of the story are somewhat (though not really) accurate. I seriously don't see this shaking my faith at all. It's a hodge-podge of legends.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

WillieG.May 21, 2006

I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so recently that I could hold the book up as some measuring stick by which the film should be measured. I had very humble expectations for this flick, I wished only to be mildly entertained. Instead, I was literally sedated upon several occations. This is truly one of the most forgettable films I've ever seen. I'll award 1 for the popcorn, it was less stale than usual.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

RaptormanMay 21, 2006

Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who didn't like it, my guess is that most of them had opposing religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is... the Da Vinci Code, whether you agree with the research behind it or not is a wonderful onscreen adaptation of a wonderful book. Do not trust the bad reviews! Howard gives a thoughful, intelligent, and "true to the book" directing job. The acting is good for the most part with some truly amazing performances. The character who plays Silas was downright spooky, Teabing was awesome! Hanks who played Langdon started off a bit wooden, but that was the character and he had to play him that way. Many scenes were deeply disturbing, but well done. If a 2.5 hour movie is not your cup of tea, if you are catholic, or if you like straight action or romance films you will probably dislike the film. If you have an open mind, like a little intellectual exploration and you are not a slave to the powers that be, definately see this film. You will not be disappointed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MartyA.May 21, 2006

Loved the book, hated the movie. I urge you to stay away or at least wait till it is on TV.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

PeterP.May 21, 2006

Great movie based on a great story based on a fiction. Don't forget it !!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KenV.May 21, 2006

It was long, boring and choppy! It was historical jibberish that had me waiting for it to end so I could politey leave the theater. Dan Brown clearly has demonstrated that Catholics are this generation's Jews.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

LaresaV.May 21, 2006

Having not read the book, I didn't really know what exactly I was looking for plotwise. I found the movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable. The plot was interesting without being terribly confusing, the acting was (for the most Having not read the book, I didn't really know what exactly I was looking for plotwise. I found the movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable. The plot was interesting without being terribly confusing, the acting was (for the most part) fabulous, and it was overall a visual beauty.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ChrisF.May 21, 2006

One of the most mind-expanding experiences I've ever had. I have begun to question the very foundations of my beliefs and it is all thanks to that movie. I loved the chemistry between the two leads, and Ian M did a GREAT job. 10/10 Awesome.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

EdC.May 21, 2006

I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think it's just that the critics are reacting negatively to the film's anticlericalism. Maybe the problem is that people who haven't read the book may find the movie hard to follow, whereas those who have read the book may not feel the suspense we expect from a thriller. My only real disappointment was that the filmmakers didn't take the opportunity to correct some of Brown's historical errors (nicely documented in Bart Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code"). They could have made the basic story work - what if Jesus had been married and had a child, whose descendants survive to this day? - without compromising that historical speculation with so many demonstrable errors.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DocMay 21, 2006

Never read the book, but I've read the critics reviews and was expecting to be disappointed...seriously, if you want to see this film, go see it, because it is a classic in the making. What's up with the acting? Tom Hanks? Never read the book, but I've read the critics reviews and was expecting to be disappointed...seriously, if you want to see this film, go see it, because it is a classic in the making. What's up with the acting? Tom Hanks? he's just his usual self again in this film, on form. I think the response from the media is bizarre to say the least, maybe other powers are at work here... heh. I dont think the critics are really helping by giving away key parts of the film in their reviews, I knew the big bombshell before even seeing it, just because of the spoilers their giving away. Basically I think this film has been hyped so much that it was on the cards that it would get slated... Just too many people have read this book, its not a fantasy film were adaptation can be based around alot of creative elements which most people can not envisage, but a story which every individual has their own perception of what it should be.. and looks like the critics had a collective image of what this should have been, what that is I dont know....… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

BillW.May 21, 2006

I've never read the book and entered the movie without much in the way of expectations. I found it an enjoyable, entertaining, suspenseful movie. I had fun with it. A good, not great, fun, summer flick.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PatB.May 21, 2006

I feel as though the critics were reviewing a different movie. Howard did a great job following the book without making the movie too long. The movie moved at a good pace and the cast did a great job with their characters.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

AshleyH.May 21, 2006

I thought the movie was fantastic! I enjoyed it visually as wel as the acting, I don't understand why people are giving it bad reviews?

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

JoshuaW.May 21, 2006

The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character The 2 is for casting, which I thought was inspired. The changes made to this movie from the book served no other purpose than to simply be different. OK. It's a movie, not a book. But for almost 45 minutes there isn't any character interaction for any of the superb cast members to play with. Its all aout getting from A to B as quickly as possible. And if they had been a little more faithful to the book, there would have been some serious acting going on in this film. Also, some of the changes made to characters deprived them of their depth, and once again a chance to shine in their roles. There was also an overabundance of cheesy film effects to help us, the viewer follow what really wasn't a difficult story line along. This is the first movie in I don't remember how long that I kept wanting to actually leave while it was playing. If my girlfriend, who also hated it, hadn't been so determined to stick it out, I would have left the theater and salvaged some of my time. I had high expectations and they were brutally not met.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

ChrisG.May 21, 2006

I didn't read the book, so expectations were non-existent. It is a slow, talky, film - but entertaining and suspenseful. An excellent movie I highly recommend for those who like think.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

WaqasK.May 21, 2006

Great representation of all the pieces of puzzles that are associated with each other. The topic is little controversial but overall the movie was a blast. Ron Howard kept the thrill from start to the end. The movie is kind of long but you Great representation of all the pieces of puzzles that are associated with each other. The topic is little controversial but overall the movie was a blast. Ron Howard kept the thrill from start to the end. The movie is kind of long but you dont notice while watching it. I can see this movie another couple of times without any breaking a sweat.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

AlanS.May 21, 2006

After reading the critical reviews i was ready to be disappointed. But I found this a surprisingly good film and very true to the book. Don't believe the hype - there are a lot of agendas out there (anti-populist, right wing Christian After reading the critical reviews i was ready to be disappointed. But I found this a surprisingly good film and very true to the book. Don't believe the hype - there are a lot of agendas out there (anti-populist, right wing Christian etc) that want to see this film fail. If you want to see an entertaining film with some good ideas, see the Da Vinci Code.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

8

VickiH.May 21, 2006

I did not get around to reading the Da Vinci Code, although my family did and I knew the premise and a little of the controversy that surrounded it. I was hesitant about seeing the movie after reading the reviews. I thought that it may be a I did not get around to reading the Da Vinci Code, although my family did and I knew the premise and a little of the controversy that surrounded it. I was hesitant about seeing the movie after reading the reviews. I thought that it may be a waste of time and money. I generally agree with critics, but this time is an exception. I found the movie thought provoking and entertaining. I am somewhat baffled by the religious zealots, as this is obviously a work of fiction that simply may get you thinking. Nothing wrong with a little thinking! I am glad I ignored the reviews and went to see this film. I thought maybe I enjoyed the film because I had not read the book, often the book is much better than the film, but my husband having read the book enjoyed it as much as I. I invite movie goers to go see The Da Vinci Code with an open mind and they should find it is time well spent.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

SamanthaB.May 21, 2006

I loved the musical score. paul bettany is masterful, as was sir ian. i was surprised that they deviated from the book so much, and i really wanted to see Robert Langdon look at his Mickey Mouse watch at least once. I Loved the flash backs, iI loved the musical score. paul bettany is masterful, as was sir ian. i was surprised that they deviated from the book so much, and i really wanted to see Robert Langdon look at his Mickey Mouse watch at least once. I Loved the flash backs, i thought that was brilliant the way they added that dimension of history. the end actually moved me to tears. it was a beatiful film, dan brown is one of my heroes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

The Da Vinci Code

User Reviews