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
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
4
DennisL.May 25, 2006
Boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TorqueMay 26, 2006
A boring and pompous work. Brown has issues with The Son of God and Man, and furthermore tries to pass off fiction as history. I suggest any seeker of the truth look to more than one source as the be all and end all of their search. Not even A boring and pompous work. Brown has issues with The Son of God and Man, and furthermore tries to pass off fiction as history. I suggest any seeker of the truth look to more than one source as the be all and end all of their search. Not even Hanks and Howard can pull off this one.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
2
GregM.May 26, 2006
Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Never have I met a movie as simultaneously predictable and ridiculous. Not entertaining, teeeedious, and Tom Hanks is more wrong for this part than the part in his hideous hair. Tautou is about as sexy as a french poodle, and that leaves Bettany's horrendous spanglotalian hack-cent, Molina's marvelously crooked shnozz, and Jean Reno's-- well-- his Bezu Fache as all we have at the end of this whirlwind (as in throwing rubbish around real fast) ride.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlanF.May 29, 2006
Terrific entertainment. The historical Chistianity angle makes the movie more than the typical thriller. Hanks is always fun to watch and acts the Langdon part well. I enjoyed seeing places that were referred to in the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
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
2
JustinS.Jun 28, 2006
When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if When I first came out of this movie I thought well that was all right, i mean nothing special but nothing awful. Upon further review I have decided that this movie was a disgrace. I don't blame Ron Howard because I don't know if this movie could have been done justice in a blockbuster summer movie. For this movie to be done right it would have to have been a 4 hour epic because at 2 hours and 30 minute there was no chance to build up the drama or the mystery. I do blame Ron Howard however for the casting of Tom Hanks. Don't get me wrong I love Hanks, but I didn't buy Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon from minute 1. For this performance he should be put on an island with AIDS as a slow witted man and have a two "man" bachelor party with a volleyball. It receives a 2 because Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen were amazing in their roles.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BlakeK.Aug 17, 2006
This movie could be good, if you never looked at the book, at all. Other then the main plot, not much is the same. [***SPOILERS***] in the movie there is only 1 cryptex, in the book, there is 2. The end is also messed up, alot. Do yourself a This movie could be good, if you never looked at the book, at all. Other then the main plot, not much is the same. [***SPOILERS***] in the movie there is only 1 cryptex, in the book, there is 2. The end is also messed up, alot. Do yourself a favor and read the book if you haven't already.… 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
1
MattDec 17, 2007
Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was Unfortunately I Was forced to watch this film in economics. Personally I would have rather taken a test and write 5 dbq's on the history of civil service reform. What a waste of time / money / resources. I'm sure the book was better than the film. It has to be. Anything was better than that garbage. Storyline is way out in left field. I honestly tried to pay attention but it was way too confusing. If you want to see a good movie with Tom Hanks, watch Saving Private Ryan.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AlisterL.Dec 30, 2007
I had plenty to say about this movie, but then read Anthony Lane's review from the New Yorker and found that it had all been said for me.
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
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
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
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
9
julian_zizzleFeb 6, 2012
I enjoyed this movie. The story was fascinating if you ask me. The ones who disliked this movie are probably some fanatic christians who are blindly following the Catholic church, or maybe they really didnt like this one. I am a muslim and weI enjoyed this movie. The story was fascinating if you ask me. The ones who disliked this movie are probably some fanatic christians who are blindly following the Catholic church, or maybe they really didnt like this one. I am a muslim and we believe Jesus too, but not as a god like Church people do, just as a prophet. So this movie was an interesting one.… 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
3
tallmanwritingNov 26, 2012
Boring. I'm required to write a much long review just to qualify as a metacritic review. But for this laborious snoozefest, one word would really suffice: boring. Tom Hanks: boring. Gandalf: boring. French people: boring. See something else.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
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
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
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
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
3
SpangleSep 16, 2016
Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code is the film equivalent of the annoying kid that read a book and came to the conclusion that the Bible is all nonsense. From beginning to end, the story line pokes all sorts of holes and comes to conclusions thatRon Howard's The Da Vinci Code is the film equivalent of the annoying kid that read a book and came to the conclusion that the Bible is all nonsense. From beginning to end, the story line pokes all sorts of holes and comes to conclusions that could best be described as conspiracy theories, but then again, conspiracy theories often contain less mental gymnastics. I get that this is based on a novel that I have no desire to read, but regardless, it does not stop the film from being tedious, overlong, and self-important. That said, it does have an interesting and mysterious premise that Howard captures quite well as Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou go around the globe searching for the "Holy Grail".

With far too much exposition for one man to handle, The Da Vinci Code's biggest sin is not going against Church doctrine. Though I may be Christian, I am not Catholic. Thus, the church's beliefs are not my own. Instead, the film's biggest sin is undeniably the sheer amount of exposition. Often told through flashback, the film tries to explain everything, but manages to explain absolutely nothing. it is incredible the number of questions I was left with. If Sophie (Tautou) is the last living descendant of Jesus Christ, would her brother not have also been a descendant of Christ? If so, why suggest the staging of the car accident and the cover-up over her? Why not just keep the family alive? Maybe I missed something, but Sophie being the last descendant of Christ feels far too fortunate to narratively make any sense. Also, why Robert Langdon (Hanks)? I get why Sophie's "grandfather" wanted his help, but I do not understand why the Church opted to frame Langdon for murders all over the place. He just studied religious symbols, who cares about him? Figured they would kill two birds with one stone or something?

I guess my questions drive home this point: the writing is terrible. Christopher Nolan would come away from this astonished that somebody included this much exposition. The problems with the writing often can be found in the dialogue, which is incredibly clunky and far too on-the-nose. However, the problems can also be found in the story. I get that the thriller elements are there to make things interesting. While they succeed, they are all so cliche. With a story about revealing cover-ups about Jesus Christ, the film managed to pull out every contrivance to be found in the thriller genre and include it in a cliched two and a half hour film, right down to the conclusion. Though well executed and oddly profound, the ending and Langdon's realization as to where the Mary Magdalene is, could not have been more cliche.

Essentially, the film relies of convenience at every turn. The film has a moment equivalent of Pawn Stars in this moment when Langdon just happens to know an expert on Priory of Scion, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen). More conveniently, Leigh also has a private plane to help Robert and Sophie escape from the police. Also, at the end, right before Leigh kills them both, boom in come the cops. How convenient. There are far more than I can think of, but I would be remiss without mentioning the worst. Police captain Fache (Jean Reno) is intent on catching Langdon because his Bishop told him that he is a murderer with a purely evil heart. Without any evidence or scene connecting things, Fache has seemingly learned the truth: the Bishop lied. What or who exactly clued this man into this fact? Was it divine intervention? Oh wait Jesus was not divine according to this film, so maybe not really any kind of miracle.

When it comes to The Da Vinci Code, there are many problems. The plot is outlandish and outright dumb. Though the scene with Langdon finding the "Holy Grail" is great, the rest is hogwash. People who believe in Bigfoot would laugh off many of the conclusions in this film. The way it tries to tie in Da Vinci as a method to make itself seem smarter is laughable at best. What, pray tell, does his art have to do with any of this nonsense? The film also tosses in thinkers and other historical scholars along the way as further evidence that Dan Brown apparently read a book and went to history class like the rest of us. Though its historical mentions can be interesting and informative, the conclusions it comes to are more than eyebrow raising. Even worse with these conclusions is that the film force feeds them to you and keeps shoveling in food. A few conclusions would have been enough, but instead, The Da Vinci Code is like a grandmother that assumes you are never full. Instead, you must keep eating long sections of wordy dialogue with nonsense about the paintings of Da Vinci, the lies told by the Church, and the truth behind the Crusades.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
2
MeritCobaApr 12, 2016
So want to hear a conspiracy theory?

Here it is. Maria Magdalene, the wife of Jesus was pregnant by him. She fled from Judea to France to give birth to a daughter and thus a bloodline descending from Jesus to the present day wasSo want to hear a conspiracy theory?

Here it is.

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

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

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

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

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

The capital error is that the movie focuses on the wrong thing. In movies like North by Northwest it is the characters that are the focus and not the conspiracy. Here it is exactly the other way around. In this movie the conspiracy takes precedence and is shoved right into your face: look how smart this is you can hear the writer/director say! The characters, who should have been at the center, remain in the shadows because they can not be allowed to stand out with all the fake history being revealed at nausea.
The movie should have taken it's cues from the likes of North by Northwest, The Name of The Rose, Casablanca or Gone with the wind. Make sure you have some interesting people with captivating conversations. And perhaps then the mystery would have been the icing on the cake. Not the other way around.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
rpg4lifeJun 17, 2022
I really enjoyed this movie! Had a ton of plot twists and turns. Most people will probably base this movie off of what their beliefs are rather than as it is…. A movie. All this is is some factual info twisted to the plot of the story. ThereI really enjoyed this movie! Had a ton of plot twists and turns. Most people will probably base this movie off of what their beliefs are rather than as it is…. A movie. All this is is some factual info twisted to the plot of the story. There a many people that need to not take this movie so personal. After all it is just a movie.… Expand
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
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
0
HotelCentralJan 30, 2016
I give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere inI give this film a big fat zero because it should win a prize for idiocy and I will tell you exactly why. The body of a murdered person is found inside the Louvre. The french police, in violation of standard police procedure everywhere in the western world, leave the body unattended so that the clever clever character played by Tom Hanks can examine it. The french police, as depicted in this silly silly excuse for a movie, leave only one cop at the Louvre to watch the body and he apparently is also charged with patrolling the entire Louvre, so when he goes off on patrol the Tom Hanks character enters stage right

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

But the real crime here is that the french police are made to look like idiots. I mean, probably the most basic lesson all cops learn at cop academy is PROTECT THE CRIME SCENE. Even the police in most Sherlock Holmes episodes know this. And this is approximately where I stopped watching. If I want this level of sheer idiocy I'll watch The Three Stooges.… Expand
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
10
smiyamotNov 28, 2015
I'm beginning to feel like I have no taste when it comes to movies. I really liked this movie and yet it got such low scores from both critics and the Users. It's a mystery movie, a who done it, with many more twists along the way. SolvingI'm beginning to feel like I have no taste when it comes to movies. I really liked this movie and yet it got such low scores from both critics and the Users. It's a mystery movie, a who done it, with many more twists along the way. Solving each puzzle leads to the next. Reminded me of a Sherlock Holmes story. This does deal with the Catholic church, ancient orders of Knights, the Holy Grail, maybe some people really tuned out on this movie because of that. Looking at the User scores, you will love it or hate it. I don't have many DVDs but this one is in my collection.… Expand
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
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
1
UNARMED_JORDOct 17, 2016
what a terrible film, gone is Dan Browns phenomenal story and replaced is a goose chasing three hour long fest of terrible graphics but most of all a terrible storyline.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
KurtisWilliamsOct 25, 2016
It's a masterpiece. WatchIt's a masterpiece. Watch it...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
mark8J4Dec 27, 2017
Great film.it's a beautiful fantasy story. people should take a little less seriously.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
FilipeNetoFeb 24, 2018
Based on the homonyms best seller by Dan Brown, this film begins in the Louvre, where a crime and several clues hidden in Da Vinci's works takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an unexpected treasure hunt. Directed by Ron Howard, the filmBased on the homonyms best seller by Dan Brown, this film begins in the Louvre, where a crime and several clues hidden in Da Vinci's works takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an unexpected treasure hunt. Directed by Ron Howard, the film has a screenplay by Akiva Goldsman, and a cast headed by Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

The cinema has always had difficulty in please the public when it decides to make the adaptation of a best-known literary work. For me, an avid reader, a film can rarely be better than the original book. There are always chapters that are cutted or adapted in a less well accomplished way. But that doesn't mean that the film is bad (well, sometimes it is). In this case, the adaptation isn't bad, following the book very faithfully. And that is essential.

The actors are excellent and were quite good in their roles. Despite some minor flaws, they all shone and gave credibility to their characters. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou managed to give soul, ingenuity and charm to Langdon and Neveu, managing to soften the audience in some scenes without, however, never assert themselves as a romantic couple because, in fact, they weren't. Ian McKellen, as expected, was impeccable in the role of the academic Sir Leigh, and gave a great liveliness to the film with his British manners and careful diction. Paul Bettany surprised in the role of the monk Silas, a religious fanatic. He was truly unrecognizable. Finally a word of recognition for Jean Reno, who returned to make a detective (he already had a similar role in "Les Rivières Pourpres"), again with great clearance. The special, visual and sound effects were excellent but unobtrusive; the photography, a bit dark and nebulous sometimes, contributed to thicken the mysterious environment in which the film unfolds. The soundtrack, done by Hans Zimmer, was perfect.

In conclusion: the film is very good and is faithful to the original book but, to properly appreciate it, we have to resist to make many comparisons. The book is so good that, usually, too much increases our expectations for the film.… 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
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
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
10
AryansinghOct 8, 2019
A mind blowing adaptation of a masterpiece novel.Dan brown's work has come alive through this thought provoking and thrilling movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
Ryo91Apr 17, 2020
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0/10 * Langweiliger Film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
rimfardOct 23, 2020
Entertaining movie with interesting plot twists. The historical facts discussed throughout the movie; though partially true, are quite thought provoking, which in return adds a richness to the story and captivates the audience.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
7
JJ2FAS4UJan 4, 2022
----------------------------------7.4/10-----------------------------------
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
next
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