IMDb user comments for
The Da Vinci Code (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 190:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1900 comments in total

---

1194 out of 2180 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Movie... For Intelligent, Unbiased People, 17 May 2006

Author: Melody from United States

First off, I'd just like to say that this movie is based on a fictional story. FICTION. Why people need to express hatred over this because of their religious beliefs is so mind-boggling. No one is saying that Christianity is wrong, and that this story is right. The book is classified as FICTION, not THEOLOGY! I should also note that my extremely religious Christian friends don't find this movie at all "disturbing" or "wrong". The fact is that if you believe in something, nothing -- including a movie, or story -- should be able to deter you from that belief. If you feel threatened by this movie or any other story like this, you have serious problems regarding the foundations in which you believe.

Now, to the review... I'm not here to give you any spoilers or story info, since that's all been done in the other reviews.

I have never read the book. I went to see the movie with my boyfriend, who read the book recently, and some friends (one of whom has read the book at least twice, and is so into the story that he has researched the symbols and meanings thoroughly and participates in Da Vinci Code games, forums, etc). So we actually had at least 3 differing perspectives here.

I really loved the film. Having no story to compare it to, I didn't feel like I had to have read the book to understand the story. Nothing felt missing or incomplete. I came out of the theater ready to add this list to my favorites, and wanting to read the book to compare it to the movie.

My boyfriend also thought the film was great. He said they did a great job adapting the book to film, and although not everything was there, they did the best that they could with the time they had, and he was impressed.

My friend was so excited throughout the movie, he kept wanting to talk to us about it. He pointed out some things from the book that weren't there as well, but he understood it couldn't all be there. He also said that watching the film put a new perspective for him on the movie, since he imagined things looking and feeling different in his head. Seeing the movie allowed him to look at it differently, which made it exciting all over again.

So, in summary, this seems to be a great movie no matter how deep you are into the Da Vinci Code. I normally wait for movies to go on DVD to rent, but this is one that I'd recommend you see in the theater... the atmosphere makes it more fun and also you can talk about this with others after seeing it, instead of catching up to everyone later and possibly getting spoilers before you watch. Again, I highly recommend this movie! A+

---

605 out of 1011 people found the following comment useful :-
The standard 'not as good as the book' applies here., 17 May 2006

Author: George Floyd (GF9) from London, England

I can't say I was blown away by The Da Vinci Code - as is often the case, the book was far superior. I generally like Tom Hanks in almost all his roles, however I found that I had such a pre-conception of what Robert Langdon should be, that it took me about half an hour to get used to Hanks occupying this character. Once I settled into it though - it was a thoroughly enjoyable, occasionally slow moving thriller. Having read the book, I did have a knowledge of the various groups and factions involved - I'm not sure how someone who hasn't read the book will fair though. The casting of the movie is surely one of it's stronger points - Paul Bettany is almost unrecognisable and plays the menacing single minded Silas to utter perfection. Sir Ian McKellan too, it totally fantastic, and really steals most scene's he appears in. He delivers some great one liners too - a real character actor playing a real character. Audrey Tautou is as we have come to expect, just lovely, and who else could have played Bezu Fache - Jean Reno was made for the role. As you'd expect from a Ron Howard Production, there is a good amount of cheese, especially towards the end. Langdon's "Godspeed" caused me to awake in the night sweating! I am a fairly harsh marker on the IMDb, so don't be put off by a 6 out of 10 - I did enjoy the movie, but my anticipation was so great with this film, that it could never live up to my expectation.

---

671 out of 1170 people found the following comment useful :-
Mediocre at best, 18 May 2006

Author: Simon Cobb from Christchurch, New Zealand

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

While he may not be the world's greatest writer, Dan Brown is an excellent storyteller, as judged by the millions of people who have read and enjoyed "The Da Vinci Code" - me included. So I was keenly anticipating the release of this movie, partly because I enjoyed the book and also because a number of scenes were shot in Lincoln Cathedral, which is my birthplace.

First the good points. Ron Howard has chosen some great locations, and produced a sumptuously photographed film, with a thought-provoking, well-paced storyline which sticks pretty faithfully to the book. For me, Silas (Paul Bettany) is the strongest character in the film, graphically portrayed as a faithful servant of Opus Dei. His role is certainly one heck of a contrast with his recent leading role in Wimbledon!

Unfortunately, for me those good points are outweighed by a wooden dialogue which poor old Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have virtually no hope of making anything meaningful from. There is simply no chemistry between the 2 leading characters and some of their lines made me cringe because they were so embarrassingly weak. At no point did I feel involved in what should be a powerful and emotional story; it simply failed to engross me in any way. Bored is a strong word, but I was verging on it by the end.

In summary, disappointing.

---

449 out of 817 people found the following comment useful :-
A Nutshell Review: The Da Vinci Code, 18 May 2006

Author: DICK STEEL from Singapore

This movie is becoming as controversial as the book. Since the day it was announced that it's gonna be made, there were protests against it being done, and it has escalated to calls for boycotting, or banning the movie altogether. I'll not waste time and go into its controversies, nor discuss what's real and what's not. Neither will I explain in detail the plot, as I believe most of you readers would already have some vague idea of what it's about, or have read the book, since it's on the bestsellers list for months.

Rather, I'll evaluate the movie as it is, on how well it entertains. Those who wish to preach in my comment box, prepare to have those comments deleted, at my discretion. This is the stand I shall take, that this movie is entirely fictional, based on events which are used loosely, for the sole purpose of weaving a storyline that tries to be believable. I think some have already mentioned it's too successful in doing that, and may mislead people into thinking its theories presented, are real. However, don't take it too seriously, and if you wish to, use another proper platform to debunk the myths, not my movie review blog.

The structure of the movie, is exactly the same as the book. There is no change to the ending, despite some rumours that it will be different. Naturally, some of the detailed explanation that's given in the book, especially many three-way dialogue between Sophie- Robert-Leigh, have to be summarized in order to pace this movie into 2 1/2 hours. Herein lies the challenges. For those who've read the book, the movie offers nothing new, other than the gratification of watching events and characters play out on the big screen. For those who haven't read the book, the movie version should be decent enough to make you want to pick up the novel and read more into the controversial theories explained.

However, having being familiar with the plot and how the story unfolds, red herrings, character motivations, twists and all, it may leave those who've read the novel, a page-turner in every sense of the word, a bit wanting, that the pace could've been improved. Undoubtedly the pacing sags when it's time for some dialogue heavy moments, but I suppose that is unavoidable when you're revisiting material.

However, its presentation of these controversial dialogue moments coupled with special effects, that will make you go wow. Truly, the technique is nothing original, and some of the visuals used looked like Return of the King and Kingdom of Heaven rejects, but as a whole, combined with the narrative, it helps to present the controversies in a more palatable manner.

Casting, I felt, was spot on. Tom Hanks makes Robert Langdon pretty accessible, given Hanks' everyman demeanor, and Audrey Tautou makes a believable Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen, probably THE actor with 2 summer blockbusters back to back (the other being X- Men 3), is convincing as the rich grail hunter Sir Leigh Teabing. Paul Bettany is chilling as the albino killer Silas, and Jean Reno and Alfred Molina round up the star studded cast as the detective Captain Fache and Bishop Aringarosa.

Much is said about the haunting soundtrack, but as far as I'm aware, there's nothing scary about it. Silas, in his scene of self-cleansing, is horrid enough though, as are some scenes of unexpected on screen violence that hit like a sack of potatoes falling from the sky.

In the end, in spite of all the controversies, perhaps Robert Langdon's line is poignant - if given a chance, would you rather destroy faith, or renew it? The book and the movie have provided an opportunity for the faith to renew itself, to debunk the myths and theories (which were developed loosely to make the story flow of course), and to generally point the curious to the direction and light the faith wants to show.

Otherwise, this Ron Howard movie makes a good summer popcorn flick, with the usual thrills and spills you'd come to expect with its superb production values.

---

548 out of 1087 people found the following comment useful :-
Loved the book? It's hard not to love this., 18 May 2006

Author: toddt85 from Australia

Okay, let me start off by saying that I absolutely loved the book - it had me hooked more than Harry Potter - and that's saying something (and no I'm not a 10 year old child)! After hearing about the critics' mainly negative views of the film, I approached it without high expectations, and for that, I was rewarded. What I got was an action-packed film that didn't let up until the dying minutes. This film is incredibly faithful to the book (I'm looking at you, Girl With a Pearl Earring!!) to the point where hardly anything is left out, and only minor things have been changed. The visuals are stunning, the acting of Hanks and Tautou is great - and contrary to certain critics opinions - I felt the emotional connection between them. As always, McKlellan is fun to watch, effortlessly bringing Teabing to life, and Reno suffices as Fache. Bettany is fantastic as Silas. The musical score was as good as the visual look of the film - it paired perfectly with the storytelling. Overall, I left the cinema feeling satisfied, because a great book had been turned into a really good film. Approach this film with little expectation, and you will enjoy the ride. Bravo Ron Howard, for doing such a good job.

---

40 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
Sir Ian McKellen Expertly Delivers the Legend of the Film, 4 September 2007

Author: Madisons from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Playing Sir Leigh Teabing, the great British actor, Sir Ian McKellen, does not disappoint as he delivers the legend of "The Da Vinci Code." The theory that is known as 'the Da Vinci code' is what Sir Leigh Teabing teaches to the would-be living descendant of Jesus of Nazareth.

Howard's direction is a marvel. Hanks, whose films I usually don't like in the least, plays the only character he's taken that I became enthralled by, Dr. Robert Langdon, and Audrey Tautou as French Agent Sophie Neveu is certainly a gorgeous, fresh face in a major US film who aptly held a captivating leading role.

Though I can certainly understand why "The Da Vinci Code," is so controversial in US society, because the theory of there being a child conceived by Jesus and Mary Magdelene is not what the Roman Catholic Church wants to believe or witness even being publicly proposed. The very idea of the God-man being so human as to be married somehow threatens "the Church," and its dogma. Strange how it fortifies and invigorates my own (Christian) spirituality! Regardless, this movie is one of my favorites! My rationale for finding favor in it has nothing to do with religion. I have found it fascinating and riveting because it is one heck of an intriguing story that was expertly directed, acted, and filmed. The excitement was ever so understandable within the film itself. The characters of the Opus Dei group made the motion picture's tension build like a very well written suspense as they scrambled for what Teabing wound up with.

Though I am reticent to admit it, Hanks and Tautou made for quite a good screen match. Though their performances are excellent, they can't touch their elder British screen pro, Sir Ian McKellen's. I'm now convinced more than ever that McKellen has been the most versatile actor of our time: From the most watched children's series "X-Men" as comic book/sci-fi's evil "Magneto;" to numerous Shakespearean characters, such as King "Richard III," "Iago," & "Edward II;" to one of the best Hitlers ever in "Countdown to War;" to a Nazi war criminal cornered by a high school kid in, "Apt Pupil;" to the good wizard "Gandalf," in the highly acclaimed, "Lord of the Rings," trilogy; to the gay film director of "Frankenstein," James Whale, in the biopic that was utterly overlooked at the Oscars, "Gods and Monsters;" I know whenever I spend my time with a motion picture that McKellen plays in, I'm in for the best script & performance that an actor of his acumen and towering stature would pick.

So it is no surprise to me that the character of Sir Leigh Teabing is the one who recants the story of the 'Da Vinci code' and does so as a historian who is an expert in the study of it.

I also liked the fact that this movie does come to a convincing end. Not one that convinces me of the Da Vinci code theory, necessarily, but an ending that leaves the characters themselves with open questions. There's no room for a sequel. Yet, the movie is so well done it leaves me wanting more.

It's not that this motion picture is a classic, by any means. But rather, that it is a terrific story, with a great deal of suspense, action, intrigue, and at times more than a little horrific and scary.

Most of all, "The Da Vinci Code" is now and will continue to be legendary.

---

13 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
better than many critics have given it credit for, 5 July 2006

Author: Roland E. Zwick (magneteach@aol.com) from United States

From the way the critics have gone after "The Da Vinci Code," you'd think that Ron Howard himself had been jealously guarding the location of the Holy Grail all these years and was just now revealing it to all the world for his own nefarious (i.e. commercial) purposes. Actually, despite all the critical hostility and rancor, this turns out to be a reasonably entertaining adaptation of a reasonably entertaining novel, far from a classic or a work of art, but hardly the pile of cinematic refuse so many of the reviewers have led us to believe it is.

As a work of history, the novel is a passel of nonsense, and only those with a bent towards conspiracy theory overload would be foolish enough to believe a minute of it. But as a work of imaginative fiction, "The Da Vinci Code" certainly gives its audience the neck-twisting workout they've paid good money to receive.

It would be pointless to reiterate the plot of a novel that has probably had the biggest readership of any literary work since "Gone With the Wind." Suffice it to say that a mysterious murder in the Louvre sends a Harvard symbologist and the dead man's granddaughter on a clue-driven search for the famed Holy Grail. Along the way, the two uncover a grand conspiracy on the part of a renegade Catholic order to protect a secret that, if it were revealed, could shake the whole of Western civilization down to its very foundations.

Despite the phenomenal - one is tempted to say "unprecedented" - commercial success of his work, Dan Brown is no great shakes as a writer; his characters are, almost without exception, drab and two-dimensional, and his dialogue, when it isn't being overly explicit in pouring out explanations, sounds like it was written by a first-year student in a Writer's 101 workshop. But the one undeniable talent Brown does have is his ability to knit together a preposterously complex web of codes and clues into an airtight tapestry, and to make it all convincing.

The movie is very faithful to the novel in this respect. It moves quickly from location to location, never giving us too much time to question the logic (or illogic) of the narrative or to examine the many gaping plot holes in any great detail. Writer Akiva Goldsman has encountered his greatest trouble in the scenes in which the action stops dead in its tracks so that the characters can lay out in laborious detail the elaborate story behind the clues. Yet, this is as much the fault of the nature and design of the novel as it is of the man given the unenviable task of bringing it to the screen. Moreover, perhaps in the interest of time and keeping the action flowing, Robert and Sophie come up with solutions to the myriad riddles much too quickly and accurately, with a "Golly, gee, could it mean_______?" attitude that borders on the ludicrous. But, somehow, Howard makes most of it work. Perhaps, it's the clunky literal-minded earnestness with which he approaches the subject that ultimately allows us to buy into it against our better judgment.

Tom Hanks is stolid and passive as Dr. Robert Langdon, the college professor involuntarily driven into all this cloak-and-dagger intrigue, but Audrey Tautou has a certain subtle charm as Sophie, the woman who may play more of a part in the unraveling of the mystery than even she herself can imagine. Jean Reno and Paul Bettany have their moments as two of the less savory players in the story, but it is Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an expert on all things related to the Holy Grail, who walks off with the film. His scenery-chewing shtick pumps some much needed life into a tale essentially populated by underdeveloped stick figures.

The religious controversy surrounding both the novel and the film is as ludicrous as it is unjustified. Anyone whose belief system could be seriously shaken by this absurd mixture of unsubstantiated myth-making and plain old-fashioned wild speculation couldn't have had a very solid foundation of faith to begin with.

The rest of us can appreciate "The Da Vinci Code" for what it is, an overblown but epic exercise in code-busting and clue-decoding - in short, the "Gone With the Wind" of whodunits.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
The marvelling mystery of religion, 16 June 2009

Author: Stampsfightclub from United Kingdom

After a suspicious murder at the Louvre, Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) and detective Sophie Neveu (Tautou) are on the run whilst they attempt to uncover the mystery of the Holy Grail.

Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code broke barriers with audiences all over the world for its unashamed approach to religion and the concept of what the Holy Grail truly is amongst the ongoing battle between Opus Dei, The Church and the Priory of Sion. Brown certainly has sparked hefty debates but a film adaptation was always inevitable and when released, it caused as much as a storm as when the book was released.

The storm that came with this in 2006 was an ashamed feeling of disapprove for the way director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman approached this astonishing story. This was banned in numerous countries for its strong opinions and depictions of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene but the uproar came for the film itself. Badly made, unfaithful to source material and atrociously acted and directed, Da Vinci fell into the category of the world's worst blockbusters. Personally, amongst all the negativity, I rather enjoyed watching two fine actors looking to solve a delicate mystery.

There is no doubt that whatever your beliefs, the book is well scripted with a sharp and intriguing motive to keep you hooked right till the shocking finale. Even the long winded debates were interesting as we learnt of different groups in Christianity and the film took all the heavy ideologies onboard in an attempt to portray the book as was written.

At two and a half hours, this film somehow leaves out a vast majority of debated conceptual significance but the importance is all relative come the end. For someone who enjoyed the book, I find the simple explanation as to why this movie "failed" is that it leaves out this hefty amount of debate.

Tom Hanks was criticized for his blunt performance and sadly, the hype was right. There was no spring as there was in Big, no drama like in Cast Away. From the book, it seemed Langdon was a more spirited soul that exuded adventure but there is something lacking here. Tautou is buoyant and necessarily silent in all the right places gives a good pairing along the way with Hanks; one of the final scenes exceptionally sentimental.

Ron Howard, who was also slated, delivers an unsurprising style of mystery. His continuous use of close shots for unsurprised expressions do nothing to help the feel of the film, which means the reliance is all on the plot, which is enjoyable and still exciting.

Yes, it isn't the book but as with the Harry Potter series for example, we all came to our own conclusions and drew up our own imagination so it was never going to be perfect. Da Vinci Code is a good film with a strong conceptual plot that generates debate and excitement.

---

8 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
References to England, 6 June 2006

Author: jamiesmith-2 from United Kingdom

I live in England, and couldn't help notice every time we see a street shot of Hanks, in London, there's a big red phone box. Shortly before a big red bus drives past. Obviously, this is for the American audience, who believe we still use huge red phone boxes, and all us Brits talk like the queen. But seriously, haven't used a big red phone box in about 50 years!!!!

As the film goes, I enjoyed it. A little cheesy, but that was expected. Not nearly as bad as the guys over at Cannes made it out to be. Paul Bettany was excellent as Silas. Really convincing role. Hanks, despite a lot of criticism for not being right for the part, in my opinion gave a great performance. When I originally read the book, I pictured Hanks as Langdon. It seems i'm the only one!!!

Decent film. Few flaws. But lets be honest it was never going to live up to the hype.

---

What was at first an interesting smart thriller later on became terribly overcooked utter crap, 10 July 2009

Author: John Smith from London, England

'The Da Vinci Code', made in 2006, rated by more than 100 000 IMDb users, big names in cast, well-known director, fairly good rating on IMDb and most importantly genre from which u can expect something great (mystery-thriller). So with all these facts i had every reason to watch this movie.

It started off great, atmosphere was smooth and appropriate, plot seemed highly interesting and entertaining at first and everything was going in favor of this (underrated, or so i thought at that point) movie. And just about near the middle checkpoint, with over 1 hour in length, things started to go wrong. One sequence too much with everything, one twist too much, one history crap said too much each time, plot and story just became terribly overcooked that it was unbelievable (i mean it was unbelievable what they did with this potentially great movie and i don't mean that the story was at that point unbelievable because it was unbelievable as soon as you figure out what this movie is about, so it was already unbelievable when i read the plot on IMDb). Not everything, but great deal of things were just flushed down the drain, everything that was good at first became dumb and overcooked at the conclusion. Usually thrillers build up suspense to make great ending and that's basically the biggest advantage of these kind of movies, and in this movie all that built-up suspense was for nothing, because what this movie delivered at the end, the conclusion, the revelation, was just so pointless and overcooked that i almost gave this film 1/10 rating just from the heat of the moment. But i didn't so i rated it fairly...

First part of the movie - 8/10

Second part of the movie - 4/10

You do the math...or just count the golden stars at my comment.

---

---

Page 1 of 190:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history