The Da Vinci Code

PG-13

5/19/20062h 29m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ Seek the truth. ~

Overview:

A murder in Paris’ Louvre Museum and cryptic clues in some of Leonardo da Vinci’s most famous paintings lead to the discovery of a religious mystery. For 2,000 years a secret society closely guards information that — should it come to light — could rock the very foundations of Christianity.

Director:

Ron Howard

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$125,000,000.00

Revenue:

$760,006,945.00

Key words:

paris, france
based on novel or book
holy grail
christianity
monk
secret society
louvre museum
heresy
mona lisa (la gioconda)
freemason
pentagram
conspiracy
tomb
catholicism
cryptologist
iconography
albino
sect

Cast

Tom Hanks

~ as ~

Robert Langdon

Audrey Tautou

~ as ~

Sophie Neveu

Ian McKellen

~ as ~

Sir Leigh Teabing

Jean Reno

~ as ~

Captain Bezu Fache

Paul Bettany

~ as ~

Silas

Alfred Molina

~ as ~

Bishop Manuel Aringarosa

Jürgen Prochnow

~ as ~

André Vernet

Jean-Yves Berteloot

~ as ~

Rémy Jean

Etienne Chicot

~ as ~

Lt. Collet

Jean-Pierre Marielle

~ as ~

Jacques Saunière

View full cast & crew

Reviews (3)

John Chard
Written 5 year(s) ago
7
Each breath you take is a sin. No shadow will be safe again, for you will be hunted by angels.

The Da Vinci Code is directed by Ron Howard and adapted to screenplay by Akiva Goldsman from the novel of the same name written by Dan Brown. It stars Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow. Music is scored by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.

When a man is murdered inside the Louvre, his body is found to be surrounded by cryptic messages. The police call in American symbology expert Robert Langdon (Hanks) to decode the clues. When he is joined by Parisian cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Tautou), it quickly becomes apparent that nothing is as it first seems and a mystery begins to unravel that could shake Christianity to its very core.

Extended Cut (Blu-ray) Version Viewed.

I haven't read the book! And I love treasure hunt/clue chasing movies! So I came to Ron Howard's hugely successful film (over $600 million in worldwide profit) bereft of literary pressure and with only a modicum of genre expectation. Perhaps this is why I'm apparently only in a small percentage of film lovers who really enjoyed the film? In spite of those gargantuan financial figures.

Ultimately it's very safe film making, with a director and cast guaranteeing professionalism, but it weaves a magical mystery tour full of cryptic clues, secret organisations and cover ups. Yes, there is a good deal of corn thrown in as well, which inevitably stops the adaptation from being hyper intelligent. There's also an understanding on my part as to why many feel it's just too talky, but was the film ever going to be unfurled as an action movie blockbuster for the popcorn munching crowd, like National Treasure et al?

It is a clever conspiracy thriller full of twists and turns with a outlandish revelation at the finale. It's also very appropriately performed by the cast (serio brooding and fret), and when McKellen joins the fray after an hour of film it has a little class as well, while Zimmer's score is a majestic blending of choir, strings and synths. I maintain that the film didn't deserve the critical whacking it got, but again I say I had a blank canvas going in for my first viewing.

I wasn't sold to it because of controversy or had a saliva tinged mouth having worshipped at the altar of Dan Brown, I expected exactly what I got. A flawed but ever so intriguing adult mystery thriller, and not even Hanks' hair stopped me having a great time with the movie. 7/10
Peter McGinn
Written 3 year(s) ago
6
Writing this review might be considered an act of vanity. Until recently I was among the very few who hadn’t seen The Da Vinci Code, or even read the book. But now I have done so — watch the movie, that is. I still have no plans to read the book. But is there anyone left out there who might benefit from a review?

Mostly I thought the movie was rather silly. Oh, I know that the book was researched about as well as your average documentary, and that the plot is intricate and suitably complex for a thriller. Like a spy thriller, it develops that the two heroes can never be sure who they can trust. In fact, the short answer seems to be “No one!” There are plenty of plot twists, reverses and surprising revelations, some nifty but others that are utterly predictable. But it lost some of its credibility for me near the beginning when the female lead drove her car at a high rate of speed in reverse in and around traffic, faster than most drivers could manage driving forward. Really?

There is a lot of action in the movie, but it lacks the exuberance and humor of a classic like Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess religion is a serious business.
CinemaSerf
Written 4 month(s) ago
6
This had all the ingredients and even a self-flagellating Paul Bettany so what happened? Well it all started strongly enough with the aforementioned man perpetrating a mysterious killing in the Louvre museum. It turns out that the victim is one of the museum’s curators and when the police discovers that his body has been defaced with ancient symbols, they call in “Sophie” (Audrey Tautou) to investigate. She, in turn, invites acclaimed American professor “Langdon” (Tom Hanks) to help find out what this might all mean, and swiftly there are embroiled in the machinations of a legendary society that has it’s roots stretching back to the very beginnings of Christianity. Indeed, as they try to stay one step ahead of these people who would have them dead, too - and who have a multitude of connections throughout French society and government - they begin to suspect that the Holy Grail might be the ultimate goal here as their travels take them, ably assisted by “Sir Leigh Teabing” (Sir Ian McKellen), to a burial site in London reputedly connected with the crusades. The supporting cast includes Jean Reno and Alfred Molina and the story itself is thick with religiosity and controversy, but the end product is really a bit of a damp squib. I think that’s probably because Hanks hasn’t the gravitas to anchor this well enough. Even his looks of panic lack any credible sincerity and there’s precious little by way of chemistry with the adequate Tautou. Bettany does better, he does manage to exude a little of the maniacal zealot and Reno always manages to play the slightly dodgy French cop convincingly but for the most part this is just dialogue heavy with too many clues transcribed straight from the text of Dan Brown’s novel without Ron Howard seeming to remember that this is a visual medium and sometimes it’s more fun for us to be given a few detecting tasks of our own to figure out. It’s long, but that needn’t have mattered had we been more involved in the unravelling of this intriguing mystery. We were not, though, and that makes it a little too ploddingly descriptive for me, sorry.