The Da Vinci Code

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

8

Tss5078Feb 23, 2013

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 farAs 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!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

csw12Mar 30, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

MichaelBeatchSep 12, 2019

Thrilling, visceral and involving. No matter how absurd you find the subtext based on its daring novel, Da Vinci is stirring on screen. A challenging film that we all comprehend differently. For me it is stellar cinema.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

AldrinC.May 18, 2006

Dear Mr. Howard ("The Da Vinci Code" director) and Mr. Goldsman ("The Da Vinci Code" screenwriter): Where have all the suspense gone?

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

AndyMay 20, 2006

Alfred N B: It is a movie for entertainment purposes. Quit bringing in your religious pontification to the discussion. It is not a documentary, doesn't say it is fact. It isn't a great MOVIE by any means, the pacing is bad, the Alfred N B: It is a movie for entertainment purposes. Quit bringing in your religious pontification to the discussion. It is not a documentary, doesn't say it is fact. It isn't a great MOVIE by any means, the pacing is bad, the acting a bit wooden. But don't decry it for going against your religious beliefs. And don't get me started on your complaint that they Catholic church, Jesus, et al are portrayed "with so little factual truth." If you have factual truth about all of this, and I'm not talking about the Bible, please, let's all see it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

7

KenG.Jun 17, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

GregP.Jun 2, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

WilsonMay 20, 2006

People have a high expectation on this film way too much. They need to cool it down. The movie was okay. Tom Hanks' acting is not that great, but still enjoyable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

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

7

StellaS.Jun 11, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

C.B.B.Jun 1, 2006

A tough book to adapt. Would have been better as a mini-series...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

Rich99Jun 15, 2006

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. 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

Rev.RikardJun 19, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JackS.Jun 5, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

LouisHMar 21, 2007

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 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!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

BobbyW.May 19, 2006

I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. Saying that, any conversion from book to film is always very difficult: those that loved the book will never be satisfied becuase they themsleves have already made their own movies in ther mind. However, the movie seen on its own its not too bad given the difficulty of bringing some of Brown's theories into a visual form. The plot moves along at a pretty decent clip with the clever use of computer imaging to tell some parts, the acting can be better but I guess Tom Hanks was just being loyal to his character created by Brown which is card board like. But at least its only 2 hrs plus long instead of four hours - which would be that long if the director had followed too closely to the book. And I am glad he didnt.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

7

Jedi_JettsonDec 23, 2011

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 aThough 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

imthenoobNov 8, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MovieGuysAug 23, 2016

The Da VInci Code is preposterous, but its preposterous fun. It stays faithful to Dan Brown's novel, while at the same time injecting enough movie effects to keep the audience entertained. Also, the theories and storyline is very clever, ifThe Da VInci Code is preposterous, but its preposterous fun. It stays faithful to Dan Brown's novel, while at the same time injecting enough movie effects to keep the audience entertained. Also, the theories and storyline is very clever, if historically flawed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

sachineldhoJan 20, 2021

The movie is okay. But the book was definitely better. But I am glad I could watch this movie a decade after I read the book. Helped me refresh my memory.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

mikesgold2KJan 11, 2023

Fajna zabawa motywami i symbolami jednak trwa to zdecydowanie za długo bo zaczyna już w połowie filmu nudzić. Szkoda też obsady i niewykorzystanego potencjału

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

JJ2FAS4UJan 4, 2022

----------------------------------7.4/10-----------------------------------

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DanS.May 20, 2006

Never read the book, but the movie wasn't a total failure. The plot twists kept me entertained and there was just enough action to both reatin the film's propsed heady status and restrict it from falling into an explosion fest. The Never read the book, but the movie wasn't a total failure. The plot twists kept me entertained and there was just enough action to both reatin the film's propsed heady status and restrict it from falling into an explosion fest. The dialogue was pretty uninspiring and Tom Hanks was kind of dull (for a lead role, he only really did something a few times). The movie became more predictable towards the end, but it was entertaining and considerably better than National Treasure (which DVC reminded me of with the artifact hunting). For what it's worth, I don't think I wasted my money seeing it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MarkS.May 20, 2006

Good mystery.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

BillM.May 20, 2006

An OK mystery with too many endings. The hype around it, made me expect it to be great. It fell far short of the hype.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChadS.Jun 1, 2006

Fine. Attack "The DaVinci Code". If I was a Christian, I'd probably be mortified if my faith was turned into disposable entertainment. What annoys me is when Christians go after serious works like "The Last Temptation of Christ", or Fine. Attack "The DaVinci Code". If I was a Christian, I'd probably be mortified if my faith was turned into disposable entertainment. What annoys me is when Christians go after serious works like "The Last Temptation of Christ", or Michael Tolkien's "The Rapture". The film(and book) is not to be taken seriously, but I believe more in the church's conspiracy than the ability of Audrey Tautou's character to manuever her vehicle backwards and find the negative space of a moving truck. "The DaVinci Code" is a competent film that makes me understand why the American public made the Dan Brown novel the "Thriller" of contemporary fiction.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AaronF.Jun 1, 2006

Overall it was good. It entertained me through it and was an okay watch, but it really wasn't up to the hype around it. It was just an average "B" movie. Detective works don't always transfer over well and this is the case here. It Overall it was good. It entertained me through it and was an okay watch, but it really wasn't up to the hype around it. It was just an average "B" movie. Detective works don't always transfer over well and this is the case here. It just never has that suprise or climactic moment of discovery or the tension involved. It's more like we know what's going to happen, we're just waiting for the characters to get there. The twist ending was fairly predictable too. An okay movie to see, just don't expect anything revolutionary. (In movie making or religion...It's a fictional movie. There's no reason to fight over it either way.)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

6

MaseMay 24, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

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

6

JerryB.Jun 25, 2007

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DazOct 27, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

OCuculizaMay 18, 2006

A disappointment. It's sort of entertaining but after 2 hours of flashbacks, bad dialogue and stupid scenes with Tom Hanks totally miscast, it gets awful. Sir Ian McKellen is def. the best thing about htis, all the scenes where he A disappointment. It's sort of entertaining but after 2 hours of flashbacks, bad dialogue and stupid scenes with Tom Hanks totally miscast, it gets awful. Sir Ian McKellen is def. the best thing about htis, all the scenes where he appears are great just because of him.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ShawnS.May 21, 2006

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

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

6

JoeyK.May 31, 2006

Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But Pretty good. An interesting, insightful movie. If you like clue chasing thrillers, then this is a good one. It reminds me of National Treasure in that respect. Like that movie, it's entertaining, but not really a great movie. But it's fun detective work, and questions the church, so how can it go wrong? As an adaptation, it suffers from the difference between movies and books. While a book can afford to meander on and continue with multipleclimactic scenes, and expansive conclusions, that extended length doesn't fit so well int he constraints of a movie, and you get that feeling; the feeling that the movie is being true to the book, but it was a long book.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JAJun 11, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MovieLonely94Oct 29, 2010

never read the book, and never seen this before until now. I heard that it was a bad movie, but according to the Wikipedia article of films in 2006, it was one of the grossing movies of the year. so, why a 6/10? well, its not my favoritenever read the book, and never seen this before until now. I heard that it was a bad movie, but according to the Wikipedia article of films in 2006, it was one of the grossing movies of the year. so, why a 6/10? well, its not my favorite movie, but good thing it had Tom Hanks and Ian Mckellen in it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Compi24Jan 28, 2016

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 doA 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Voodoo123Sep 17, 2019

I expected little and got more! Da vinci code is an interesting if dilute mystery/thriller with a fantastic cast delivering superb performances... The production here is exceptional... It is the story which suffers the most from a fewI expected little and got more! Da vinci code is an interesting if dilute mystery/thriller with a fantastic cast delivering superb performances... The production here is exceptional... It is the story which suffers the most from a few pacing/screenplay issues as a result of attempting too much in the movie format than the idea can allow for good storytelling AND thrilling tension. Good for a lazy afternoon viewing!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

FuturedirectorMay 27, 2017

The Da Vinci Code may erase some of Dan Brown's most important ingredients (that would have saved this unsatisfying and fundamentally flawed picture). Anyway, a strong cast and an intense storytelling can mean redemption for it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

PeterH.May 20, 2006

I found that by the half way point my concentration was wandering. Perhaps too much talking and explaining. Perhaps I was just confused as to where the movie was going. I actually thought the movie had ended ... well, at least four times. I found that by the half way point my concentration was wandering. Perhaps too much talking and explaining. Perhaps I was just confused as to where the movie was going. I actually thought the movie had ended ... well, at least four times. Finally when the end did arrive I didn't see the point. So what?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SeamusM.Jun 6, 2006

Not as bad as the crtitcs' reviews make out. It is too long and not very exciting to watch. Towards the end there is about half an hour of boring stuff. Maybe better for those who haven't read the book.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

BillyS.Jun 8, 2006

"Sir...Sir... Wake up Sir, the movies over Sir. It's time to go home . Wake up now."

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JahanB.Aug 9, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

CassianJ.Jan 4, 2008

I came to this movie with very low expectations. I have not read the book upon which it is based, and had read and heard only bad things about this movie. To add to this I have never been a great fan of Ron Howard

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SammyMay 20, 2006

The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize that he may be offending people. Instead of a fascinating theory about the foundations of Christianity, the movie basically shows a simple guess.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

5

LouisM.Jun 22, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

AaronMAug 31, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JudyT.Nov 22, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

drlowdonOct 16, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based on the bestselling Dan Brown novel the central idea, regarding a religious conflict surrounding the living descendants of Jesus Christ, is a potentially interesting one but it is largely squandered in this movie adaptation. The film has its moments but is weighed down but scene after scene of exposition and situations where the main characters only escape through sheer luck or the complete incompetence of their enemies. Even usually reliable performers like Tom Hanks, Ian Mckellen, Paul Bettany and the lovely Audrey Tautou can’t save The Da Vinci Code from mediocrity and seem to be just going through the motions much of the time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TyranianMay 23, 2019

While reasonably engaging and well-acted, the story buys into its own fantasy too much.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

OfficialNov 4, 2013

"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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ShadowUApr 27, 2023

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I had to sum it up, I'd say that The Da Vinci Code is a child's idea of a mystery film. I haven't read the books, so I can't comment if those are better, but it's amazing to me that Tom Hanks, a terrific actor, was attached to this much of a dud.

There's a whole lot wrong in this film and not all that much that's right. The puzzles are laughable, you'd need to be on some serious drugs to come up with them. The story kept going in random directions, with pointless twists that didn't make sense at all.

For instance, Teabing (played superbly by Ian McKellen, I have to admit) turns out to a villain, for dumb reasons. Sure, why not, it was peculiar but let's accept it. But, why did he double cross the good guys before they had solved the riddle? Or at all for the matter? They both wanted the same thing, the location / identity of the Holy Grail, so why'd he just not... join up with them normally? It was such a pointless twist that I had major whiplash after seeing it, realizing the writers / director thought this would be some shocking reveal.

But really, this film's biggest crime is that it wastes all of its characters. Robert (Tom Hanks) does virtually nothing for 90% of the movie. Sophie (Audrey Tautou) does nothing for 100% of the movie, despite supposedly being a cryptographer and having partially been trained by the grand master of the secret order -- she's just there for the ride, being confused the entire team. Silas (Paul Bettany), the film's primary antagonist, just shows up as a nuisance then gets captured, going dormant for most of the film, and then just dies anticlimactically. Policeman Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) also does nothing, despite several scenes hinting he might.

In truth, this movie wasn't the worst watch ever. The pace was pretty fast and it was just entertaining enough that I didn't hate my time watching it. It's just a bit of a waste, and at times it was legitimately kind of funny how seriously the characters in the movie were taking these riddles when their answer may as well have come straight from the producer's 10 year old kid's brain. It made for some pretty funny unintentional comedy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

CineAutoctonoDec 24, 2015

"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 .

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

FilmClubMar 27, 2016

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 audiencesPulpy 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ErikTheCriticSep 25, 2018

Director Ron Howard has taken a decent thoughtful book and turned it into a talky and silly film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DawdlingPoetNov 28, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For a start, this is note a movie for the particularly squeamish, as there is flagellation shown (someone inflicts pain through whipping etc. on themselves), even in the beginning of the movie, which I did find quie off-putting, although I was aware such scenes would be present as it was noted on the back of the DVD box. There aren't too many of such scenes but they were still very much 'look away moments' to me.
The movie has a very dark feel to it, obviously with the story based alot on religion and a sort of 'deep dark past' sense and with folklore and conspiracy theory aspects featuring. This is a movie I imagine those interested in conspiracy theories (esp. those relating to the Bible and/or Christ) would enjoy. Like I say, most people will have heard of the novel by Dan Brown, which was a best seller a few years ago, though I haven't read it myself, so I can't comment on how similar the movie is to the novel.

The movie, though it may sound a bit stuffy, subject-wise, it does feature some decent action in it, in terms of a few car chase senses and other scenes where Robert and Sophie are on the run. There's a particularly good one of Sophie reversing along French streets in a Smart car, which is pretty hair raising!.
Along with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou, Sir Ian McKellen (possibly more well known for his appearance in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy) also appears in the movie as a rich man who is a real fanatic on the Holy Grail. Other actors in this movie include Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany.

In the movie, there are flashback scenes, showing a characters past and from Bible scenes, which are drained of alot of colour and have an 'aged' look about them and in that way, they are quite atmospheric, I suppose.
Also be aware of the fact that there are quite alot of subtitles, French subtitles to be exact, as the movie is set, at the start, in France (and the Captain who is always trying to track Robert and Sophie down, is, of course, French), so this might put some put some off watching it.

I would also say that, incase this isn't already clear, the story is quite complicated, as well as fast paced, so you have to pay close attention to the movie, to whats said (ie the dialogue) as well as to the subtitles, to properly follow it, so with a running time of just over two hours and twenty minutes, its neither the shortest movie nor the easiest one to follow.
As far as the cast are concerned, I thought that generally the performances given were pretty good. There was something about Tom Hanks' performances in this role which I felt was a bit 'off' though. It almost seemed as if he was in a role that was a bit too much for him and he was perhaps struggling a bit. I know that the character would seem as if he's struggling, given the plot and what goes on but I couldn't help but feel as if there was something slightly amiss with his performance somehow and considering I generally only ever say that performances are good, I thought I might as well mention this here, to prove im not too biased when commenting about actors performances, so make of that what you will!.

I also felt that Audrey Tautou gave a particularly good performance and Sir Ian McKellen was also quite convincing in his role and played the somewhat stereotyped English religious, or religious conspiracy theory, fanatic quite well too. Paul Bettany as Silas was really quite spooky too, I think thats about the only word I can think to use for that character!.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

ScottB.Sep 7, 2006

A nearly completely tired translation of a good story.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

paulwebsterJun 2, 2006

The book was not that good, but at least it had rythm, totally lost in this totally missed movie. The story is badly told, perhaps the film makers assumed that the public would have already read the book anyway.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

shawno.Dec 2, 2006

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 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"?… 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

4

M.AustinMay 23, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KathyN.May 24, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

BethHintonAug 9, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MattO.Jan 28, 2007

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DaleW.Jan 4, 2007

Waste of my time. Too complex and hard to hear the words. The entire plot was way out there.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

SteveA.May 30, 2006

First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, First, I thought Tom Hanks played the character well. Unfortunately, the character was a huge wimp. He sniffles, cringes, and shudders throughout the whole movie. Secondly, the movie was too long. Third, the twist ending was corny. Fourth, the movie doesn't seem to back up its revelations that well. All we get is an organization that is a hoax and another that is overhyped. And the theory of the Last Supper is somewhat ludricous--afterall, where is Apostle John if that's really Mary in his seat? On the plus side, I loved the historical flashback scenes. Also, the premise is a brilliant one. I can completely understand how people became interested in the book.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

NathanLMar 26, 2008

This movie moves likea snail, and the actors were probably actually robots that replaced their counterparts. stoid, boring. The only good actor is the men who plays teabing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MeghanR.Nov 29, 2006

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 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

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

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

4

LarryF.May 23, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

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

4

DennisL.May 25, 2006

Boring.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MartinL.May 26, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JimG.Jun 12, 2006

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 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.)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DZNov 13, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

RheaDec 25, 2006

Too much detail in such a short time and yet too long of a movie! Followed the book rather carefully.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

TokyochuchuMay 5, 2015

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 andThe 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Watermelon789Aug 3, 2011

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 throughIt 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Gamzguy17Aug 21, 2021

While the subject matter kept me engaged in thought from beginning to end, the ridiculous plot, the jaw-dropping use of painful clichés, and the piss poor pay-off from the long build-up make The Da Vinci Code an eye-rolling film experienceWhile the subject matter kept me engaged in thought from beginning to end, the ridiculous plot, the jaw-dropping use of painful clichés, and the piss poor pay-off from the long build-up make The Da Vinci Code an eye-rolling film experience that should be forgotten by the sands of time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

JuantagMay 20, 2006

I read the book; I've got advanced degrees in history and theology; this movie was a real dud. Tedious to the extreme, muddled and academically laughable (like the book), it doesn't do its actors justice at all. Don't bother; I read the book; I've got advanced degrees in history and theology; this movie was a real dud. Tedious to the extreme, muddled and academically laughable (like the book), it doesn't do its actors justice at all. Don't bother; see Gigli instead.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

MichaelB.May 20, 2006

I understand that story elements often get changed or condensed in the book-to-movie transition, but this is way out of line. The book is ten times better.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

DavidC.May 19, 2006

If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled If plot holes bother you, don't see this film. I went and saw this movie just to spite everyone protesting it, and I came away with quite a few laughs. It's not a comedy, but Da Vinci Code is so poorly thought out and assembled that you'll find humor in several of the lines and shots. I didn't read the book, but I can't imagine it being as bad as this film. At the end of the day, the creators walk away with fat checks, so congrats on marketing an awful film. The unintended comedic scenes.bring my score up to a 3.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

JoelL.May 19, 2006

Awful. The book is gripping. The movie is not; it's a dud.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

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

3

LuisMay 18, 2006

I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most I have lowered down my expectations to this movie after reading bad reviews from Cannes critics but yet it's disappoints me. Ron Howard failed me and so are the other fans of this bestselling book. Da Vinci Code is one of the most exciting book of all times but I didn't feel it in the movie. The screenplay and approach simply just did not work. I am also disappointed with the actors except for Jean Reno (who played the character of Bezu Fache exactly the way I imagined it). It's a lousy adaptation. I am so disappointed because I was hoping that it is a good movie after the awful Poseidon but it's not.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

TracyB.May 20, 2006

Such a good book- not a good movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

The Da Vinci Code

User Reviews