The Da Vinci Code
Columbia Pictures | Release Date: May 19, 2006
6.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 607 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
309
Mixed:
149
Negative:
149
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
8
EdC.May 21, 2006
I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think I'm puzzled that critical reaction wasn't more favorable than it was. Both my wife and I found it a well-made, engaging thriller, which kept us interested, even though we'd listened to the book on disk. I don't think it's just that the critics are reacting negatively to the film's anticlericalism. Maybe the problem is that people who haven't read the book may find the movie hard to follow, whereas those who have read the book may not feel the suspense we expect from a thriller. My only real disappointment was that the filmmakers didn't take the opportunity to correct some of Brown's historical errors (nicely documented in Bart Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code"). They could have made the basic story work - what if Jesus had been married and had a child, whose descendants survive to this day? - without compromising that historical speculation with so many demonstrable errors.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChrisF.May 21, 2006
One of the most mind-expanding experiences I've ever had. I have begun to question the very foundations of my beliefs and it is all thanks to that movie. I loved the chemistry between the two leads, and Ian M did a GREAT job. 10/10 Awesome.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LaresaV.May 21, 2006
Having not read the book, I didn't really know what exactly I was looking for plotwise. I found the movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable. The plot was interesting without being terribly confusing, the acting was (for the most Having not read the book, I didn't really know what exactly I was looking for plotwise. I found the movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable. The plot was interesting without being terribly confusing, the acting was (for the most part) fabulous, and it was overall a visual beauty.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
10
RaptormanMay 21, 2006
Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who Surprise, surprise, surprise! 50 percent of the people loved it. 50 % hated it... and about 50% of the populous consider themselves devout Christians. Hmmm. could this explain the middle of the road critical score(48). Of the 50% who didn't like it, my guess is that most of them had opposing religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is... the Da Vinci Code, whether you agree with the research behind it or not is a wonderful onscreen adaptation of a wonderful book. Do not trust the bad reviews! Howard gives a thoughful, intelligent, and "true to the book" directing job. The acting is good for the most part with some truly amazing performances. The character who plays Silas was downright spooky, Teabing was awesome! Hanks who played Langdon started off a bit wooden, but that was the character and he had to play him that way. Many scenes were deeply disturbing, but well done. If a 2.5 hour movie is not your cup of tea, if you are catholic, or if you like straight action or romance films you will probably dislike the film. If you have an open mind, like a little intellectual exploration and you are not a slave to the powers that be, definately see this film. You will not be disappointed.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
WillieG.May 21, 2006
I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so I have never fallen asleep during a film in the theater...until now. I hold both Hanks and McKellen in high regard as superb actors, but they could not salvage this ambien-esque borefest. I read the book a couple years ago, but not so recently that I could hold the book up as some measuring stick by which the film should be measured. I had very humble expectations for this flick, I wished only to be mildly entertained. Instead, I was literally sedated upon several occations. This is truly one of the most forgettable films I've ever seen. I'll award 1 for the popcorn, it was less stale than usual.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
0
AlfredNB.May 20, 2006
Cannot understand why Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church are portrayed with so little factual truth. What is the point?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SusanW.May 20, 2006
This movie is definitely not into the movie searchingas bad as critics say it is. Not mind-blowing fabulous like we were all expecting, but still an entertaining movie. If you go in to the theatres searching for the meaning of religion and This movie is definitely not into the movie searchingas bad as critics say it is. Not mind-blowing fabulous like we were all expecting, but still an entertaining movie. If you go in to the theatres searching for the meaning of religion and life, sure, you may be disappointed (as you will by all movies), but as a night out with friends, its definitely very entertaining.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JohnF.May 20, 2006
The critics are wrong. The movie moved at a good pace and it was a good piece of fiction. Just sit back and enjoy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
7
WaqasK.May 21, 2006
Great representation of all the pieces of puzzles that are associated with each other. The topic is little controversial but overall the movie was a blast. Ron Howard kept the thrill from start to the end. The movie is kind of long but you Great representation of all the pieces of puzzles that are associated with each other. The topic is little controversial but overall the movie was a blast. Ron Howard kept the thrill from start to the end. The movie is kind of long but you dont notice while watching it. I can see this movie another couple of times without any breaking a sweat.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChrisG.May 21, 2006
I didn't read the book, so expectations were non-existent. It is a slow, talky, film - but entertaining and suspenseful. An excellent movie I highly recommend for those who like think.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TracyB.May 20, 2006
Such a good book- not a good movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SammyMay 20, 2006
The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize The book was one of the most outstanding works of literature to ever surface the earth. The movie is a Hollywood appeal to everybody movie. Many crucial parts are left out, the end is somewhat changed, and Robert Langdon seems to realize that he may be offending people. Instead of a fascinating theory about the foundations of Christianity, the movie basically shows a simple guess.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
9
StanE.May 22, 2006
I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making I wondered if I was watching the same movie so universally slammed! My wife and I enjoyed it, the people we went with enjoyed it (we had all read the book) and the sold-out theatre applauded at the end. It presented a good mystery, making you think a little. The way they highlighted the important parts of each picture was very helpful and the ghostly images of the crusades was done well. I thought Hanks and Tautou played well against each other (she was nothing like Amelie). I don… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
mOJ.May 22, 2006
I thought the movie did not emphasize the main points in the book. I know I shouldn't compare it to the book but I was just so disappointed. Tom Hanks was not a good Robert Langdon.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
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
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
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
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
EricS.May 20, 2006
There are some movies that are so provocative and controversial that professional reviews can't be taken seriously. As much as critics know about films, personal views can still interfere with providing a fair judgment. The Da Vinci There are some movies that are so provocative and controversial that professional reviews can't be taken seriously. As much as critics know about films, personal views can still interfere with providing a fair judgment. The Da Vinci Code is one such example. While no masterpiece, it is a well-made, exciting film. It even brings up some valid points involving the history of Christianity. Dan Brown didn't come up with these ideas himself; they have been debated for a long time. However, he and the directors of this film deserve credit for bringing them out into the mainstream. It is a pity that these theories are dismissed by most people, including the critics, who are coincidentally Christians. All talk of truth aside, the De Vinci Code is the perfect example of a great intellectual thriller, even if its reputation is marred by hype and controversy.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RedragonGreenMay 20, 2006
OK Andy, the movie sucked. Yes the acting is "wooden," directing is sloppy, if not lazy. On a religious note, yes Da VInci was no saint, was very much a naturalist in his religious beliefs, maybe even neo-pagan, maybe even gay (hey, it was OK Andy, the movie sucked. Yes the acting is "wooden," directing is sloppy, if not lazy. On a religious note, yes Da VInci was no saint, was very much a naturalist in his religious beliefs, maybe even neo-pagan, maybe even gay (hey, it was the renaissance for crying out loud) but there is no proof by any historian that Da Vinci was putting anything anti-catholic in his artwork. In regards to the Priory of Sion, that is a fabricated organization created by a neo-nazi in 1956. His name is Pierre Plantard, and a recent 60 Minutes episode exposed Plantard as a mentally deranged anti-Semite. He was even arrested for being a con-man in the mid 1950s. All the documents about the secrets of the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar were proven to be false becasue the script used never existed in the time period that Brown and Plantard said the documents were from. Also, the person who the Priory of Sion gave their "historical" documents too for safe keeping stated they were forgeries. So what gives people? The movie and the book are offensive and based on anti-catholic lies. and it seems that for all the people who say it is just entertainment and fiction, why do some people, like you Andy, seem to feel if this movie is rated low, or if catholics are pissed off, that your anti-catholic reliigious beliefs are somehow being criticised???? Its all fiction Andy, why are you so upset?? How does it feel to have your religion criticised, since thats all this piece of trash is, a smear campaign against the Catholic Church and the divinty of Christ. Oh, can someone please provide proof that Opus Dei is involved in murder? I mean if they are so secretive and deadly, how does Dan Brown know so much, and live to tell about it? Why is it that those who defend Brown and his work, defend him and his work as if its the truth? Well, the DA Vinci Code will now go down in history just like the Protocols of Zion: bad and hateful fiction that only provides bigots with more ammunition to hate those who believe in a religion and set of morals that are different than their hateful bigotry. PS why does Dan Brown on his website say all his evidence is fact, such as the Priory of Sion, if this is just a work of fiction? Why is it that historians, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Agnostic, who have written biographies about various characters that Dan Brown says were part of the Priory of Sion, never ever mentioned they were in the Priory? Because the Priory never existed. Also, the Romans and Jews both knew Jesus was never married. and there never was any occurance of Jesus ever being married. So a long dead French royal blood line is actually alive? I bet the French are rolling in their seats over that. I bet the french never knew that one, at least I have never read that in history books. Oh, but I forgot, DAn Brown knows the real actual history...but wait...arent we talking about a work of fiction??? And if Dan Brown all of a sudden knows the real meaning of the bible, than how come all of the various christian and jewish denominations, with ministers both male and female, have never found any meaning in the bible to support this whole "goddess" religion that Brown seems to think that Newton and Da vinci were following. makes one wonder...Dan Brown...author, historian , or con-man??? I guess some would say all of them, but if he is a con-man, how can you trust him with what he says? I thought we were talking about fiction in the first place? How is it that the Da Vinci code has become a religious work of belief? So, what do we now call those who believe the Da Vinci Code is fact and not fiction? Do we call them Brownites, Danites, or Davincians?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DevinC.May 22, 2006
I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have I admit the beginning started off kinda dry but the story eventually got better and I found myself agreeing to buy it when it comes on dvd. As for the complaint about Tom Hanks acting, there wasn't much to do for the character to have life since Dan Brown didn't make him out that way. The idea was to focus on the surroundings of "Robert Langdon" and not his character. So Tom Hanks may have seemed kinda dry b/c of how Langdon was created. I also recommend reading the book before seeing the film b/c with all honesty we all know films never really do a book justice but I give Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman an 8 for their somewhat acconmplished portrayal of a good book. Hope to see what they do with Angels and Demons next.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelClarkMay 22, 2006
Come on, come on. The book is the literary equivalent of a Big Mac. You'll think it's "good" when you're eating it, but afterwards, you'll just feel bloated and stupid. No movie based on this garbage could possibly be good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LeonardoD.V.May 22, 2006
This is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll findThis is simply a boring film that will make a lot of money because of its so-called "contraversy". The book was good but ended with a huge "so what" just like the movie. :( And if you do serious research on the Da Vinci code, you'll find out that Dan Brown's "Facts" are based on fraudant documents and his claims about the church/Jesus are bogus too -- which really sucks the awe out of the book & movie. Anyone can publish comments against a religion in order to make a big seller.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ThomasMayerMay 22, 2006
Sorry.. but this was a sorely under-rated film by the critics. A great little murder mystery and some interesting talking points for future religious discussions.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JoeM.May 22, 2006
I almost missed going to see this movies because of the poor reviews, I'm glad I didn't. I went to see it with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. I never found it boring, it held my interest thoughout and even my son said it I almost missed going to see this movies because of the poor reviews, I'm glad I didn't. I went to see it with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. I never found it boring, it held my interest thoughout and even my son said it did not feel like a 2 1/2 hour movie. My wife read the book, I have not and we both thought this was a great movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2
AlO.May 25, 2006
This film is like the book, totally useless.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
8
TonydannieJun 11, 2006
Fairly faithfull to the book. Great Cast. Fantastic photography. And great music score!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DanR.Jun 1, 2006
Not nearly as endlessly boring as Sideways, but that's not saying much. Da Vinci Code is supposed to be a thriller, and it completely misses on that note. Tom Hanks was handed a two dimensional boring character who hardly ever speaks, Not nearly as endlessly boring as Sideways, but that's not saying much. Da Vinci Code is supposed to be a thriller, and it completely misses on that note. Tom Hanks was handed a two dimensional boring character who hardly ever speaks, so he's not given an opportunity to save this flick. The only true ray of light was Ian McKlellen...… 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
2
LyleM.Jun 11, 2006
Tom Hanks needs to take off his plastic mask and get into the character. I was disappointed with both the acting and the script. Much harder to follow than the book.
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
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
10
BruceB.Jun 28, 2006
I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that I found this film to be entertaining, entrigueing, engaging, and even insightful... The fact the film is a "faithful" adaptation of a VERY successful novel, is, i am sure, not a problem for the millions of fans of the book! I do think that it does take some original looks at the story, and manages, at times to add to the background of this now epic material! Despite the fact that all the expected critics panned this film, as well as a large number of less well known critiques, the truth is that they ALL miss the point made perfectly clear by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct: That if you have a critical mass of "Suspension of Disbelief," you can lead the audience pretty much anywhere, and they WILL follow! Interestingly, I didn't read the novel, but that didn't seem to help or hurt my suspension of disbelief level... Ron Howard had me right from the start! Despite all deconstructive- cat out of the bag critiques of much of Dan Brown's material, the CENTRAL concept: That Jesus was married, had a child, and that her bloodline continues on through history... seems least burdened by all the complaints! It is covered material... as found in The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Mary. So, all that said... I like the film, I rate it as 10, and I think that it is quite possible it will win several Oscars!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ArtM.Jun 5, 2006
Not at all as the critics would have you believe. A smart, intelligent and thoughtful thriller. I liked it.
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
10
HannahB.Jul 22, 2006
I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the I actually really liked this movie better than I expected, it's always hard to adapt a book into a movie and I think they did a fine job. Casting was pretty much good and Tom Hanks is fine as Robert Langdon. Given the fact that in the book we don't know much about Langdon's personality anyway so I think Tom Hanks was fine as usual. Audrey Tautou was good especially for an English speaking role which is not her native language. Paul Bettany, which I never heard of I actually thought he was French until I looked him up! Ian McKellen is always great, and just how Teabing should be. Jean Reno was fine and convincing. And Alfred Molina was okay for the Bishop although that role could have easily been dropped. The backgrounds and sets are amazing and spot on and the story is just how the book is. What gets me is that some people didn't enjoy the story but that should not be an issue because the movie should follow the story or else it wouldn't be a book adaptation! So people who didn't like the story I think shouldn't be reviewing this movie at all or else it would just be a contradiction! Great movie, Critics too harsh (as usual), not offensive because it's fiction remember. If it's not too late go and see it you shouldn't regret it and if you didn't like it come and complain to me!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
NateHFeb 13, 2007
Tom Hanks could have done a similarly effective acting job by telecommuting.
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
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
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
0
ScottDNov 20, 2006
Horrible movie. Im suprised it even got good reviews from anyone. Howard managed to turn lead into lead again. Horrible book, horrible movie.
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
8
EliC.Nov 30, 2006
A good film made from a truly awful book. Congrats to Ron Howard from retrieving a decent story from Dan Brown's exercise in how to abuse the english language.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
NathanG.Dec 29, 2006
One of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Anyone who hates this movie is either a religious wackjob or someone with no attention span.
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
2
CinemeisterMay 18, 2006
i am from Manila, i saw the movie premiere Thursday here (blame it to the Greenwhich Time), as a Dan Brown buff, ive read Da Vinci Code thrice and swear to be open minded not with the religious matters but with film, in short, i leaved the i am from Manila, i saw the movie premiere Thursday here (blame it to the Greenwhich Time), as a Dan Brown buff, ive read Da Vinci Code thrice and swear to be open minded not with the religious matters but with film, in short, i leaved the words in the book and opened my eyes with the car chases, Robert Langdon as Tom Hanks, yeah the Priory maniac Teabing played by Sir Ian and how will Ron Howard weave Browns words into pictures. Everyone knows about the story so here is the verdict: the film is not a masterpiece, it lacks chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, what made it amazing are the locations in Europe, the revelations became interesting thanks to Sir Ian, while Hanks and Tautou are the shadows of new tourist guides in Europe. The Da Vinci Code is Hollywood's National Geographic Channel shown in big screen.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JamesMay 18, 2006
Faithful adaptation of the novel, but simplified some of the more complex elements. Fans of the book should enjoy while those who have not read the book might get lost in the dialogue.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
CoriMay 19, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JanY.May 19, 2006
It's a fiction and should be seen as a fiction. Does it compliment Dan Brown's book? Yes, in the visual sense and it does include cleverly concocted clues and riddles to keep me glued to the screen. As a thriller, it succeeds to It's a fiction and should be seen as a fiction. Does it compliment Dan Brown's book? Yes, in the visual sense and it does include cleverly concocted clues and riddles to keep me glued to the screen. As a thriller, it succeeds to keep my eyes, ears and brain cells ticking from beginning to end.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BobbyW.May 19, 2006
I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. I personally didnt think much of the book: it is only a so-so thriller, the writing is poor, the plot absurd, and the characters cut-out cardboards. The only reason why it is so popular is the usage of biblical figures and real places. Saying that, any conversion from book to film is always very difficult: those that loved the book will never be satisfied becuase they themsleves have already made their own movies in ther mind. However, the movie seen on its own its not too bad given the difficulty of bringing some of Brown's theories into a visual form. The plot moves along at a pretty decent clip with the clever use of computer imaging to tell some parts, the acting can be better but I guess Tom Hanks was just being loyal to his character created by Brown which is card board like. But at least its only 2 hrs plus long instead of four hours - which would be that long if the director had followed too closely to the book. And I am glad he didnt.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AmberH.May 19, 2006
Excellent work. In the light of fiction. Well casted. Tom Hanks was perfect for the role and very believable. A little drawn out in the beginning but overall a very entertaining watch! Must see for all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PatB.May 21, 2006
I feel as though the critics were reviewing a different movie. Howard did a great job following the book without making the movie too long. The movie moved at a good pace and the cast did a great job with their characters.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BillW.May 21, 2006
I've never read the book and entered the movie without much in the way of expectations. I found it an enjoyable, entertaining, suspenseful movie. I had fun with it. A good, not great, fun, summer flick.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
3
JeffD.May 21, 2006
The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it The book is better than the film, which is plodding, awkward in many parts, laborious in telling the story. I found myself looking at my watch several times...and yawning. It's rather boring in comparison to the novel. I also find it interesting how people are not only rating the quality of this story, but are so invested in the content. A bit of research will reveal that the key points of the story are somewhat (though not really) accurate. I seriously don't see this shaking my faith at all. It's a hodge-podge of legends.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ShawnS.May 21, 2006
I enjoyed it ...however bad casting of Tom Hanks.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
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
3
VictorV.May 22, 2006
How could Ron Howard screw-up TDC? He is so over-rated!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Page:
More From This Movie

46 Critic Reviews

6.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL