The Da Vinci Code Movie Review
| The Da Vinci Code | |
|---|---|
| Directed by | Ron Howard |
| Produced by | |
| Screenplay by | Akiva Goldsman |
| Based on | The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown |
| Starring | |
| Music by | Hans Zimmer |
| Cinematography | Salvatore Totino |
| Edited by | |
Production companies | |
| Distributed by | Columbia Pictures |
Release date | |
Running time | 148 minutes[1] |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Budget | $125 million[2] |
| Box office | $758.2 million[2] |
May 19, 2006 Movie Review. The Da Vinci Code Peter T. The makers of The Da Vinci Code have been saying for some time now that their film is not supposed. The Da Vinci Code received a 25% approval rating on the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes based on a sample of 220 reviews and an average rating of 4.8/10. The critics consensus states: 'What makes Dan Brown's novel a best seller is evidently not present in this dull and bloated movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code.' Slow-moving, talky translation of popular novel. Read Common Sense Media's The Da Vinci Code review, age rating, and parents guide.
The Da Vinci Code is a 2006 American mysterythriller film directed by Ron Howard, written by Akiva Goldsman, and based on Dan Brown's 2003 best-selling novel of the same name. The first in the Robert Langdon film series, the film stars Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Sir Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean Reno, and Paul Bettany. In the film, Robert Langdon, a professor of religious symbology from Harvard University, is the prime suspect in the grisly and unusual murder of Louvre curator Jacques Saunière. In the body, the police find a disconcerting cipher and start an investigation.[3] A noted British Grail historian named Sir Leigh Teabing tells them that the actual Holy Grail is explicitly encoded in Leonardo da Vinci's wall painting, The Last Supper. Also searching for the Grail is a secret cabal within Opus Dei, an actual prelature of the Holy See, who wish to keep the true Grail a secret to prevent the destruction of Christianity.
The film, like the book, was considered controversial. It was met with especially harsh criticism by the Roman Catholic Church for the accusation that it is behind a two-thousand-year-old cover-up concerning what the Holy Grail really is and the concept that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married and that the union produced a daughter, and for its treatment of the organizations Priory of Sion and Opus Dei. Many members urged the laity to boycott the film. In the book, Dan Brown states that the Priory of Sion and 'all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate'.
The film grossed $224 million in its worldwide opening weekend and a total of $758 million worldwide, becoming the second-highest-grossing film of 2006, behind Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. The film received generally negative reviews from critics. It was followed by two sequels, Angels & Demons (2009) and Inferno (2016).
- 3Production
- 4Catholic and other reactions
- 5Censorship
- 6Cast response
- 7Reactions to the film
- 7.4Box office response
- 10Sequels
Plot[edit]
Jacques Saunière, the Louvre's curator, is pursued through the Grand Gallery by an albinoCatholicmonk named Silas, who demands the location of the Priory's 'keystone' to find and destroy the Holy Grail. Saunière gives him a false lead and is murdered. When the police arrive, they find his body posed like Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. The police captain, Bezu Fache, sends his lieutenant, Jérôme Collet, to summon American symbologistRobert Langdon, in the midst of signing autographs after one of his public talks, to examine Saunière's body.
At the museum, Langdon is shown the body, and a secret message, readable only by blacklight, that contains an out-of-order Fibonacci sequence. Sophie Neveu, a police cryptographer and Saunière's granddaughter, reveals to Langdon that Fache planted a tracker on him after finding the words 'P.S. Find Robert Langdon' at the end of Saunière's secret message, leading Fache to believe Langdon murdered Saunière. The two get rid of the tracker, distracting the police, and sneak around the Louvre, finding more clues in Leonardo da Vinci's works, eventually leading to Langdon to deduce that Saunière was the grand master of the Priory of Sion.
Silas is revealed to be working for an anonymous person named the Teacher, along with members of Opus Dei, led by Bishop Aringarosa. Evading the police, Langdon and Sophie travel to the Depository Bank of Zurich, where they access a safe deposit box of Saunière's, using the Fibonacci sequence. Inside the box is a cryptex, a cylindrical container that can only be safely opened by turning dials to spell a code word, and which contains a message on papyrus. The police arrive outside and Langdon and Sophie are aided by the bank manager, Andre Vernet, only for him to attempt to take the cryptex and murder them. Langdon disarms Vernet and flees with Sophie and the cryptex.
The two visit Langdon's friend, Sir Leigh Teabing, a Holy Grail expert who walks using crutches, who claims the Grail is not a cup but instead Mary Magdalene, Jesus Christ's wife. Teabing argues that she was pregnant during His crucifixion, and the Priory was formed to protect their descendants. The Opus Dei have been trying to destroy the Grail to preserve the credibility of the Vatican. Later, Silas breaks into Teabing's house, but Teabing, using one of his crutches, disables him. The group escapes to London via Teabing's private plane, along with his butler, Remy Jean. They travel to the Temple Church, but the clue to unlocking the cryptex is a red herring. Silas is freed by Remy while claiming to be the Teacher and taking Teabing hostage, dumping him in the car trunk, and taking Silas to hide out in an Opus Dei safe house. Teabing, who is revealed to be the Teacher, later poisons Remy and sends the police after Silas. Silas is shot by police after accidentally wounding Aringarosa, who is promptly arrested by Fache, who resents being used to hunt Langdon.
Langdon and Sophie are confronted by Teabing, who wants to bring down the Church for centuries of persecution and deceit. The trio goes to Westminster Abbey to the tomb of Isaac Newton, a former grand master of the Priory. Teabing demands that the pair open the cryptex. Langdon tries and then tosses the cryptex into the air. Teabing dives for it, catches it, but vinegar dribbles and the papyrus thought destroyed. The police arrive to arrest Teabing, who realizes Langdon must have solved the cryptex's code and removed the papyrus. The code is revealed to be 'APPLE', after the apocryphal myth of the apple which led Newton to discover his law of universal gravitation. The clue inside the cryptex, which tells of the Grail hiding ''neath the rose', leads Langdon and Sophie to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.
Inside the chapel, they discover Magdalene's tomb has been removed. Langdon, after searching through documents, realizes that Sophie's family died in a car crash, that Saunière was not her grandfather but her protector, and that she is the last descendant of Jesus Christ. The two are greeted by several members of the Priory, including Sophie's grandmother, who promises to protect her. Langdon and Sophie part ways, the former returning to Paris. While shaving, he cuts himself and has an epiphany when his blood curves down the sink, reminding him of the Rose Line. Realizing the true meaning of the cryptex clue, he follows the line to the Louvre, concluding the Holy Grail, the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene, is hidden below the Pyramide Inversée. Langdon kneels above it.
Cast[edit]
- Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon
- Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu
- Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing
- Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa
- Jürgen Prochnow as André Vernet
- Jean Reno as Police Captain Bezu Fache
- Paul Bettany as Silas
- Étienne Chicot as Lieutenant Jérôme Collet
- Jean-Yves Berteloot as Remy Jean
- Jean-Pierre Marielle as Jacques Saunière
- Charlotte Graham as Mary Magdalene
- Hugh Mitchell as young Silas
- Seth Gabel as Michael the Cleric
- Marie-Françoise Audollent as Sister Sandrine
- Francesco Carnelutti as Prefect
- Rita Davies as Elegant Woman at Rosslyn
- Denis Podalydès as Flight Controller
- Author Dan Brown and his wife make cameos (forefront) in the first scene of the book signing scene.
- The Templar Revelation authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince make a brief appearance as passengers on a bus.
Bill Paxton was director Ron Howard's first choice for the role of Robert Langdon, but had to decline as he was beginning filming for the television series Big Love.[4]
Production[edit]
Development[edit]
The film rights were purchased from Dan Brown for $6 million.[5]
Filming[edit]
Filming had been scheduled to start in May 2005; however, some delays caused filming to begin on June 30, 2005.[citation needed]
Location[edit]
The Louvre gave permission to film relevant scenes at their premises. A replica of the Mona Lisa was used during filming as the crew was not allowed to illuminate the original work with their lighting. During the on site filming at the Louvre the Mona Lisa's chamber was used as a storage room. Westminster Abbey denied the use of its premises, as did Saint-Sulpice. The Westminster Abbey scenes were instead filmed at Lincoln and Winchester cathedrals,[6] which both belong to the Church of England. (Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar, a church or chapel under direct jurisdiction of the monarch; whereas Saint-Sulpice is a Roman Catholic institution.)
Due to the denial of a location permit for Saint-Sulpice,[7] the entire scene had to be recreated virtually by post-production company Rainmaker U.K. and though the set had been partially built, the co-ordinates were centimeters out from what the compositors had expected and so the entire process was extremely difficult to complete.[8]
Lincoln Cathedral reportedly received £100,000 in exchange for the right to film there, with filming there occurring between August 15 and 19, 2005, mainly within the cloisters of the cathedral. The cathedral's bell, which strikes the hour, was silent for the first time since World War II during that time. Although it remained a closed set, protesters led by a 61-year-old woman named Sister Mary Michael demonstrated against the filming. Sister Mary Michael spent 12 hours praying on her knees outside the cathedral in protest against what she saw as the blasphemous use of a holy place to film a book containing heresy.[9]
Winchester Cathedral answered criticism by using its location fee to fund an exhibition, lecture series and campaign to debunk the book.[10] The scenes for the Pope's summer residence, Castel Gandolfo were filmed on location at Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire, England.
Shoreham Airport in West Sussex, England, was used as a filming location, with its art-deco terminal building utilized in a night shoot for the scenes at 'Le Bourget' Airport.[11]
Filming also took place elsewhere in the United Kingdom.[12] Locations included King's College London campus; Fairfield Halls (Croydon); the Temple Church (London); Burghley House (Lincolnshire) and Rosslyn Chapel and Rosslyn Castle (Midlothian, Scotland) make an appearance at the final of the film.
Studio shoots[edit]
The filmmakers shot many of the internal scenes at Pinewood Studios;[13] the opening sequence in the cavernous 007 Stage at Pinewood Shepperton, where the interior of the Louvre was recreated.[14] In this sequence, Hanks' character is taken by French police to the Louvre, where a dead body has been discovered. David White of Altered States FX, a prosthetics and special makeup effects company, was tasked with creating a naked photorealistic silicone body for the scene. Lighting effects were utilized to obscure the body's genitalia, a technique also used on television programs such as NCIS.[15]
Pinewood's state-of-the-art Underwater Stage was used to film underwater sequences.[16] The stage opened in 2005 after four years of planning and development. The water in the tank is filtered using an ultraviolet system which creates crystal clear water, and the water is maintained at 30 °C (86 °F) to create a comfortable environment to work in for both cast and crew.[17]
Alternate versions of Bettany's nude flagellation scenes were shot, in which he wears a black loincloth. Clips of these versions appear in the History Channel's Opus Dei Unveiled documentary, aired in summer 2006.
Catholic and other reactions[edit]
The Vatican[edit]
At a conference on April 28, 2006, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican curial department, Archbishop Angelo Amato specifically called for a boycott of the film; he said the movie is 'full of calumnies, offences, and historical and theological errors'.[18]
Cardinal Francis Arinze, in a documentary called The Da Vinci Code: A Masterful Deception, urged unspecified legal action against the makers of the film. He was formerly Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican.[19]
Opus Dei[edit]
Stating that it does not intend to organize any boycotts, Opus Dei (the Catholic organization that is featured prominently in the novel and the film) released a statement on February 14, 2006, asking Sony Pictures to consider editing the soon-to-be-released film so that it would not contain references that it felt might be hurtful to Catholics. The statement also said Brown's book offers a 'deformed'[20] image of the church and that Opus Dei will use the opportunity of the movie's release to educate about the church.
On Easter, April 16, 2006, Opus Dei published an open letter by the Japanese Information Office of Opus Dei mildly proposing that Sony Pictures consider including a disclaimer on the film adaptation as a 'sign of respect towards the figure of Jesus Christ, the history of the Church, and the religious beliefs of viewers'.[21] The organization also encouraged the studio to clearly label the movie as fictitious 'and that any resemblance to reality is pure coincidence'.[21]
According to a statement by Manuel Sánchez Hurtado, Opus Dei Press Office Rome,[22] in contrast to Sony Corporation's published 'Code of Conduct' the company has announced that the film will not include such a disclaimer.
American Catholic bishops[edit]
U.S. Catholic bishops launched a website, JesusDecoded.com, refuting the key claims in the novel that were about to be brought to the screen. The bishops are concerned about errors and serious misstatements in The Da Vinci Code.[23] The film has also been rated morally offensive—by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting, which denounced its depiction of both the Jesus-Mary Magdalene relationship and that of Opus Dei as 'deeply abhorrent'.[24]
Peru[edit]
The Peruvian Episcopal Conference (CEP) declared the movie—and the book—as part of a 'systematic attack on the Catholic Church'.[25] Furthermore, the Archbishop of Lima, the Cardinal and member of Opus Dei Juan Luis Cipriani, urged his community not to see the film: 'If someone goes (to see the movie), they are giving money to those who hurt the faith. It's not a problem of fiction; if truth is not respected, what arises we could call white glove terrorism.'[26]
NOAH[edit]
The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH) expressed concern about Silas' character giving people with albinism a bad name.[27] However, the filmmakers did not change his appearance.
Censorship[edit]
The film was banned in a number of countries, including among others Syria,[28]Belarus,[29] and Lebanon.[30] In Jordan, authorities banned the film claiming it 'tarnishes the memory of Christian and Islamic figures and contradicts the truth as written in the Bible and the Quran about Jesus'.[31] In Iran, it was banned due to protests by Muslim and Christian minorities.[32]
China[edit]
Although The Da Vinci Code was passed by Chinese censors, it was abruptly removed by authorities from public view in mainland China, after 'a remarkable run in China, grossing over $13 million',[33] due to protests by Chinese Catholic groups.[34]
Egypt[edit]
Both the book and the film were banned in Egypt due to pressure from Coptic Christians. Some Muslims compared the film to the Danish cartoons that had caused a controversy earlier that year.[35] Hafez Abu Saeda, of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated that 'This violates freedom of thought and belief … This is fiction. It's art and it should be regarded as art.'[36]
Faroe Islands[edit]
The biggest cinema in the Faroe Islands, Havnar Bio, decided to boycott the film, effectively blocking it from the other smaller cinemas, which rely on second-hand films from this source, because it seems to be blasphemous in their point of view. Its CEO, Jákup Eli Jacobsen, says that 'he fears losing the operating license if it exhibits blasphemy in the cinema'.[37]
A private initiative by the individual Herluf Sørensen has arranged the movie to be played, despite the boycott by Havnar Bio. The movie played at the Nordic House in the Faroe Islands from June 8 to 9, 2006.[38]
India[edit]
There was a huge outcry in many states by the Christian and the Muslim minorities to ban the film from screening in India for the perceived anti-Christian message. Possibly the largest reaction occurred in Kolkata where a group of around 25 protesters 'stormed' Crossword bookstore, pulled copies of the book off the racks and threw them to the ground. At the same day, a group of 50–60 protesters successfully made the Oxford Bookstore on Park Street decide to stop selling the book 'until the controversy sparked by the film's release was resolved'.[39]
The film was allowed to be released without any cuts but with an A (Adults Only) certification from the Central Board for Film Certification and a 15-second disclaimer added at the end stating that the movie was purely a work of fiction.[40] The Supreme Court of India also rejected petitions calling for a ban on the film, saying the plot which suggested Jesus was married was fictional and not offensive.[41]
The film has been totally banned in some states such as Punjab, Lakshadweep, Goa, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.[42][43] The Andhra Pradesh High Court subsequently reversed the State Government's order banning the screening of the film in the state; the State Government had previously banned the film based on the objections lodged by Christians and Muslims.[44]
Pakistan[edit]
Pakistan banned The Da Vinci Code for showing what officials called blasphemous material about Jesus. Christian groups, along with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal held protests against the film calling for a global ban.[45]
Philippines[edit]
The Philippine Alliance Against Pornography (PAAP) appealed to then Philippine PresidentGloria Macapagal Arroyo to stop the showing of The Da Vinci Code in the Philippines. They branded the film as 'the most pornographic and blasphemous film in history'[46] and also requested the help of Pope Benedict XVI, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and other religious groups to stop the showing of the film.[47]
However, Cecille Guidote Alvarez, Philippine Presidential Adviser on Culture and the Arts, said the Philippine government would not interfere in the controversy about the film and leaves the decision to the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board's (MTRCB) rating.[48] Eventually, MTRCB decided to give The Da Vinci Code an R-18 rating (restricted to those 18 years of age and above) despite PAAP's opposition to showing it.[49]
Samoa[edit]
The film was banned outright in the Independent State of Samoa after church leaders watching a pre-release showing filed a complaint with film censors.[50]
Solomon Islands[edit]
Solomon IslandsPrime MinisterManasseh Sogavare said he would seek to have the film banned in his country, as it might threaten the Solomons' predominantly Christian faith:
| “ | We profess Christian religion in the country, and that film that depicts some thoughts about this person called Jesus Christ that Christians adore as not only as a good man, but was himself God, and such a film basically undermines the very roots of Christianity in Solomon Islands.[51] | ” |
Sri Lanka[edit]
Sri Lanka is also one of the countries that banned the film from being released.[52] It was banned by presidential order of Mahinda Rajapakse.Public Performances Board to ban the screening of the movie 'The Da Vinci Code' in local cinemas and on local television channels. Apparently the Catholic Bishops Conference made the appeal through an epistle. 'The decision to ban the film was taken on an appeal by the Catholic Bishops Conference in Sri Lanka.'[53]
Thailand[edit]
Christian groups in this mostly Buddhist country protested the film and called for it to be banned. On May 16, 2006, the Thai Censorship Committee issued a ruling that the film would be shown, but that the last 10 minutes would be cut. Also, some Thai subtitles were to be edited to change their meaning and passages from the Bible would also be quoted at the beginning and end of the film.
However, the following day, Sony Pictures appealed the ruling, saying it would pull the film if the decision to cut it was not reversed. The censorship panel then voted 6–5 that the film could be shown uncut, but that a disclaimer would precede and follow the film, saying it was a work of fiction.[54][55]
Cast response[edit]
Tom Hanks' response[edit]
Hanks told the Evening Standard that those involved with the film 'always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown. But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.'[56] He said it is a mistake 'to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this.'[56]
He also stated at the Cannes Film Festival that he and his wife saw no contradiction between their faith and the film, as 'My heritage, and that of my wife, suggests that our sins have been taken away, not our brains.'
Ian McKellen's response[edit]
Also at Cannes, McKellen was quoted as saying 'While I was reading the book I believed it entirely. Clever Dan Brown twisted my mind convincingly. But when I put it down I thought, 'What a load of [pause] potential codswallop.'[57]
During a May 17, 2006 interview on The Today Show with the Da Vinci Code cast and director, Matt Lauer posed a question to the group about how they would have felt if the film had borne a prominent disclaimer that it is a work of fiction, as some religious groups wanted. (Some high-ranking Vatican cabinet members had called for a boycott of the film.[58]) McKellen responded:
| “ | I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying 'This is fiction.' I mean, walking on water? It takes... an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie—not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story... And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing when they've seen it.[59] | ” |
Reactions to the film[edit]
Cannes Film Festival[edit]
According to the Associated Press, during a preview for movie critics in Cannes, a line spoken by Tom Hanks 'drew prolonged laughter and some catcalls'. Nearing the end of the screening, 'there were a few whistles and hisses, and there was none of the scattered applause even bad movies sometimes receive at Cannes.'[60]
Protests[edit]
There have been protesters at several movie theaters across the United States on opening weekend protesting the themes of the film, citing it as blasphemy and claiming that it shames both the Catholic Church, and Jesus Christ himself. More than 200 protesters also turned out in Athens, Greece to protest the film's release shortly before opening day. In Manila, the film was banned from all theaters and the set by the local MTRCB as an R18 movie for the Philippines.[61] In Pittsburgh, protesters also showed up at a special screening of the film the day before its widespread release.[62] Protests also occurred at the filming sites, but only a monk and a nun stood in a quiet protest at the Cannes premiere.[57] In Chennai, India, the film was banned for a two-month period to appease local Christian and Muslim groups.[63]
Critical reception[edit]
The Da Vinci Code received a 25% approval rating on the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes based on a sample of 224 reviews and an average rating of 4.7/10. The critics consensus states: 'What makes Dan Brown's novel a best seller is evidently not present in this dull and bloated movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code.'[64] The film was poorly received at the Cannes Film Festival, where it debuted.[60]
Michael Medved gave the film a negative review, citing it as 'an attack on religion'.[65]Anthony Lane of The New Yorker addressed the concerns of Catholics in his film review, stating that the film 'is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith.'[66] In his Movie Guide, Leonard Maltin called the film 'a letdown in every respect.'[67] Director Howard noted that the overwhelmingly negative reviews were 'frustrating' to him.[68]
Conversely, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times (who had spoken very negatively of the novel) gave the film three out of four stars, stating, 'The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations.' Of the storyline, he also commented, 'Yes, the plot is absurd, but then most movie plots are absurd. That's what we pay to see.'[69] Lawrence Toppman of The Charlotte Observer, who also liked the film, gave it three and a half out of four stars and noted 'unlike most Hollywood blockbusters, this one assumes audience members will be smart.'[70]
Although many critics gave mixed to negative reviews of the film, critics praised the performances of McKellen as well as Bettany.[71]
On the 'Worst Movies of 2006' episode of the television show Ebert & Roeper (January 13, 2007), guest critic Michael Phillips (sitting in for the recovering Roger Ebert) listed the film at No. 2.[72] The film earned a Razzie Award nomination for Ron Howard as Worst Director, but lost to M. Night Shyamalan for Lady in the Water.
Box office response[edit]
Opening weekend[edit]
The film opened with an estimated $31 million in box office sales on its opening day, averaging $7,764 per screen.[73] During its opening weekend, moviegoers spent an estimated $77 million in America, and $224 million worldwide.[2]The Da Vinci Code is the best domestic opening for both Tom Hanks and Ron Howard.[74]
It also enjoyed the third biggest opening weekend for that year (after Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and X-Men: The Last Stand, and the second biggest worldwide opening weekend ever, just behind 2005's Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.[75]) This has led some critics, particularly in the UK, to moot the idea of the 'critic-proof film'.[76]
Ranking and gross[edit]
- Number 1 film at the USA box office during its first week grossing more than $111 million.[77] Fifth-highest gross of 2006 in the USA, and grossed $758 million worldwide in 2006—the second-highest of 2006.[2] Its worldwide total made it the 51st-highest-grossing film, and the highest-grossing film in the franchise.[citation needed]
- On June 20, 2006, it became only the second film of the year to pass the $200 million mark in the USA.[78]
Accolades[edit]
| Award | Category | Recipient(s) and nominee(s) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64th Golden Globe Awards | Best Original Score | Hans Zimmer | Nominated |
| 12th Critics' Choice Awards | Best Composer | ||
| 49th Annual Grammy Awards | Best Score Soundtrack | ||
| 33rd People's Choice Awards | Favorite Movie Drama | The Da Vinci Code | |
| 27th Golden Raspberry Awards | Worst Director | Ron Howard | |
| 11th Satellite Awards | Best Original Score | Hans Zimmer | |
| Best Visual Effects | Kevin Ahern | ||
| Best Sound | Anthony J. Ciccolini III, Kevin O'Connell, and Greg P. Russell | ||
| Best DVD Extras | The Da Vinci Code | ||
| 2006 Teen Choice Awards | Choice Movie: Villain | Ian McKellen |
Home media[edit]
The film was released on DVD on November 14, 2006 in three editions:
- A Target-exclusive three-disc release in both widescreen and fullscreen, along with a History Channel documentary.
- A two-disc release in both widescreen and fullscreen.[79]
- A 'special edition gift set' that includes a two-disc DVD set, working cryptex, and replica Robert Langdon journal.[80]
All DVD sets include an introduction from director Howard, ten featurettes, and other bonus features.
In Australia, New Zealand, Spain and Latin America (DVD region code 4), the two-disc set also included an extended edition of the film, including over twenty-five minutes of extra footage, bringing the running time to 174 minutes.[79]
In Hong Kong and Korea (Region 3), the extended cut was also released on DVD in a two-disc set. Two gift sets were also released, with working cryptex replica, replica journal, and more. The French and Spanish Region 2 disc also received a special gift set.[81]
On April 28, 2009, a two-disc Blu-ray edition of the extended version of the film was released in North America. While there is no regular DVD release of the extended version in the United States or a Region 2 release in the United Kingdom, a version of the extended cut was released in Germany.
The Da Vinci Code was also released on UMD for the Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) on the November 14, 2006.
Sequels[edit]
Angels & Demons[edit]
Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, with the help of Jurassic Park screenwriter David Koepp, adapted Angels & Demons (a Dan Brown novel published before The Da Vinci Code) into a film script,[82] which was also directed by Howard. Chronologically, the book takes place before The Da Vinci Code. However, the filmmakers re-tooled it as a sequel. Hanks reprises his role as Langdon in the film, which was released in May 2009 to moderate (but generally better) reviews.
Inferno[edit]
Sony Pictures produced a film adaptation of Inferno, the fourth book in the Robert Langdon series, which was released in October 2016[83] with Ron Howard as director, David Koepp adapting the screenplay and Tom Hanks reprising his role as Robert Langdon.[84] Filming began on April 27, 2015, in Venice, Italy, and wrapped up on July 21, 2015.[85] On December 2, 2014, Felicity Jones was in early talks to star in the film.[86] Bollywood actor Irrfan Khan was cast as The Provost.[87] Danish actress Sidse Babett Knudsen was added to the cast as Elizabeth Sinskey.[88]
See also[edit]
- The Da Vinci Treasure – A mockbuster produced by The Asylum
- National Treasure - film about the Knights Templar Treasure
References[edit]
- ^'THE DA VINCI CODE (12A)'. British Board of Film Classification. May 2, 2006. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
- ^ abcd'The Da Vinci Code (2006)'. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved December 16, 2006.
- ^'Dan Brown » The Da Vinci Code'. www.danbrown.com. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
- ^Twister, Titanic, Apollo 13, and Aliens star Bill Paxton dies
- ^'Ask Men'.
- ^'Film locations in South East England'. Archived from the original on October 1, 2012.
- ^Michael Haag & Veronica Haag, with James McConnachie, The Rough Guide to The Da Vinci Code: An Unauthorised Guide to the Book and Movie (Rough Guides Ltd; 2006)
- ^Robertson, Barbara (May 19, 2006). 'The Da Rainmaker Code'. cgsociety.org. The CG Society. Retrieved March 1, 2013.
- ^Gledhill, Ruth (August 16, 2005). 'Nun protests over cathedral filming of Da Vinci Code'. The Times. London, England. Retrieved March 1, 2013.
- ^Guardian Unlimited: Location fee funds Da Vinci Code rebuttal
- ^'Secret Da Vinci Code airport set revealed', The Argus, 2006-01-09. Retrieved on 2009-05-19.
- ^The Da Vinci Code UK Filming locations
- ^Gordon Brown Opens Underwater Stage at Pinewood Studios, May 19, 2005
- ^WHAS11news: Fire chars British set of new Bond movie, Katie Fretland, July 30, 2006
- ^American Cinematographer: Secret History
- ^'Gordon Brown Opens Underwater Stage at Pinewood Studios,' May 19, 2005, webpage: PinewoodShepperton-Stage
- ^Pinewood Studios – Underwater Stage Pinewood Studios – Water FilmingArchived September 16, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
- ^'Reaffirm the Resurrection, Pope urges faithful'. Catholic World News. May 1, 2006.
- ^Wilkinson, Tracy (May 17, 2006). 'Vatican Officials Grappling With `Da Vinci Code''. Los Angeles Times.
- ^'Group urges disclaimer on 'Da Vinci Code' film'. Hürriyet Daily News. April 17, 2006. Archived from the original on August 18, 2016.
- ^ ab'Opus Dei demands Da Vinci Code disclaimer'. the Guardian. April 18, 2006.
- ^Sánchez Hurtado, Manuel (May 17, 2006). 'The Other Code'. ROM: Opus Dei Press Office.
- ^Jesus Decoded' Web site launched to counter 'Da Vinci Code' claimsArchived June 1, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^Patterson, John (April 21, 2007). 'Down with this sort of thing'. the Guardian.
- ^RPP Noticias – 'Código da Vinci' presenta grandes falsedades, afirman obispos del Perú
- ^Cardenal Cipriani pide a fieles abstenerse de ver 'El Código Da Vinci'
- ^'Albino group to protest Tom Hanks' 'The Da Vinci Code' film'. UPI/Reality TV World. March 19, 2006
- ^http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000725.html.
- ^http://iqna.ir/fr/news/1478889/le-film-da-vinci-code-interdit-au-bélarus
- ^'Da Vinci' unlikely to pass Egypt censors TribLIVE
- ^Egypt bans 'The Da Vinci Code'
- ^https://mobile.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/books/27davinci.html
- ^'China dumps 'Da Vinci Code''. CNN. June 8, 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
- ^Kahn, Joseph. 'China Cancels 'Da Vinci' Movie'. The New York Times.
- ^Coptic pressure bans 'Da Vinci Code' in Egypt
- ^Egypt: Da Vinci Code based on Zionist myths
- ^'Faereysk kvikmyndahus snidganga Da Vinci lykilinn'. mbl.is. May 12, 2006.
- ^'Norðurlandahúsið'. Upcoming.org.
- ^'Novel earns vandal wrath - Code controversy deepens with warning from protesters'. The Telegraph. May 18, 2006.
- ^'India censors clear Da Vinci Code'. BBC. May 18, 2006.
- ^'India's Supreme Court rejects pleas to ban 'Da Vinci Code'
- ^Sony Pictures statement on `Da Vinci Code` – Sify.com
- ^''The Da Vinci Code' banned in State'. The Hindu. Chennai, India. June 2, 2006.
- ^'High Court quashes A.P. ban on film '. The Hindu. Chennai, India. June 22, 2006.
- ^'Pakistan bans Da Vinci Code film'. BBC News Online. June 4, 2006.
- ^Araneta, Sandy (April 19, 2006). 'Anti-pornography group asks GMA to ban 'The Da Vinci Code''. philstar.com.
- ^'Anti-pornography group asked GMA to Ban 'The Da Vinci Code''. Philippine Headline News. Philippines. April 19, 2006. Archived from the original on April 21, 2006.
- ^'Palace sidesteps 'Da Vinci' storm'. The Manila Times. Philippines. April 19, 2006. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006.
- ^''Da Vinci Code' for adults only, says film review body'. Philippines: inq7.net. May 17, 2006.
- ^Johnston, Martin. 'Samoa bans Da Vinci Code'. The New Zealand Herald.
- ^'SOLOMON ISLANDS TO BAN 'THE DA VINCI CODE'Archived May 10, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation, May 26, 2006
- ^SRI LANKA: Presidential ban of the Da Vinci Code film is an act of dictatorship without any basis in law — Asian Human Rights Commission
- ^Asian Human Rights Commission Retrieved 2011-03-14.
- ^'The Da Vinci Code' can be shown uncut
- ^IHT ThaiDay – Manager Online
- ^ abTom Teodorczuk and Mike Goodridge (November 5, 2006). 'Hanks blasts Da Vinci critics'. Evening Standard. Archived from the original on February 5, 2010. Retrieved March 7, 2010.
- ^ abCharlotte Higgins (May 18, 2006). 'Fans out in force for Da Vinci premiere – but even kinder reviews are scathing'. The Guardian. London. Retrieved March 7, 2010.
- ^Pullella, Philip (April 28, 2006). 'Boycott Da Vinci Code film'. Reuters. Archived from the original on May 5, 2006. Retrieved May 20, 2006.
- ^Crawley, William (May 20, 2006). 'A Da Vinci Disclaimer'. BBC.
- ^ ab'Da Vinci Code' misses mark for Cannes critics. msnbc.com. Associated Press. May 17, 2006.
- ^'Hundreds of Greek Orthodox march to protest Da Vinci Code movie'. Athens: Deutsche Presse-Agentur. May 16, 2006. Archived from the original on September 6, 2006.
- ^'Locals Protest 'Da Vinci Code' Movie'. KDKA News. Pittsburgh. May 19, 2006. Archived from the original on December 1, 2007.
- ^'The Hindu News Update Service'. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007.
- ^'The Da Vinci Code (2006) - Rotten Tomatoes'. Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango. Retrieved February 11, 2019.
- ^MSNBC: The Situation With Tucker Carlson: May 17.
- ^Anthony Lane, Heaven Can Wait: 'The Da Vinci Code.', The New Yorker, May 29, 2006
- ^Maltin, Leonard. Leonard Maltin's 2008 Movie Guide. New American Library. p. 319.
- ^Movie critics frustrate 'Da Vinci's' Howard - Da Vinci Code - MSNBC.com
- ^Blog, Chaz's (May 18, 2006). 'The Da Vinci Code'. Chicago Sun-Times.
- ^Movie: The Da Vinci Code[permanent dead link]
- ^The Da Vinci Code Movie Review – MoviesOnline.ca
- ^'Worst Movies of 2006!!!'. DVDizzy.com.
- ^''Da Vinci Code' opens with estimated $29 million'. CNN. May 20, 2006. Archived from the original on May 28, 2006.
- ^'Da Vinci Code' a hot ticket'. CNN.
- ^'At $77 Million, It's Code Green For 'Da Vinci'
- ^Lawson, Mark (May 24, 2006). 'Who cares what the reviews say?'. The Guardian. London. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
- ^'The Da Vinci Code (2006)'. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved December 16, 2006.
- ^The Da Vinci Code (2006)
- ^ abASINB00005JOC9, The Da Vinci Code (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition) (2006)
- ^ASINB000I2KJR4
- ^ASINB000I2J2WC, The Da Vinci Code (Full Screen Two-Disc Special Edition) (2006)
- ^ComingSoon.net: Akiva Goldsman Back for Angels & Demons
- ^Gregg Kilday. 'Tom Hanks' 'Inferno' Shifts Opening to 2016'. The Hollywood Reporter.
- ^'Tom Hanks And Ron Howard To Return For Next Dan Brown Movie 'Inferno'; Sony Sets December 2015 Release Date'. Deadline Hollywood. July 16, 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2013.
- ^'Sony Pictures Locks Tom Hanks, Ron Howard For April 'Inferno' Start'. Deadline Hollywood. August 26, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2014.
- ^'Felicity Jones In Early Talks To Join 'Inferno' With Tom Hanks'. Deadline Hollywood. December 6, 2014. Retrieved December 2, 2014.
- ^Singh, Prashant (February 15, 2015). 'Irrfan Khan to work with Tom Hanks in Inferno'. Hindustan Times. New Delhi. Retrieved August 15, 2016.
- ^Patrick Hipes. ''Inferno' Movie Adds Omar Sy & More As Cast Goes Global - Deadline'. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved April 23, 2016.
Sources[edit]
The following are reference sources, repeated in alphabetic order:
- Larry Carroll: 'Ian McKellen Sticks Up For Evil In Da Vinci Code, X-Men' [6], MTV News, May 15, 2006.
- Catholic World News, 'Reaffirm the Resurrection, Pope urges faithful,' Catholic World News, May 1, 2006.
- CNN, 'Da Vinci Code' a hot ticket,' CNN, May 21, 2006 (webpage expired).
- CNN, 'Da Vinci Code' opens with estimated $29 million,' CNN, May 20, 2006 (webpage expired).
- DPA, 'Hundreds of Greek Orthodox march to protest Da Vinci Code movie,' Deutsche Presse-Agentur, May 16, 2006.
- Fretland, Katie, 'Fire chars British set of new Bond movie' July 30, 2006, webpage: WHAS11-DVC: Louvre interior set filmed at Pinewood.
- Sánchez Hurtado, Manuel, The Other Code, Opus Dei Press Office, May 17, 2006.
- KDKA News, 'Locals Protest 'Da Vinci Code' Movie,' KDKA News, May 19, 2006.
- Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) painting, 1503–1507, in Louvre Museum.
- Pinewood Shepperton studios, 'Gordon Brown Opens Underwater Stage at Pinewood Studios,' May 19, 2006, webpage: PinewoodShep-Stage.
- Philip Pullella, 'Boycott Da Vinci Code film,' Reuters, April 28, 2006, web: ScotsmanVatDVC. Retrieved August 22, 2006.
- Us Weekly, 'Ian McKellen Unable to Suspend Disbelief While Reading the Bible,' US Weekly, May 17, 2006: (has Video clip).
External links[edit]
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to The Da Vinci Code. |
| Wikiquote has quotations related to: The Da Vinci Code (film) |
- The Da Vinci Code on IMDb
- The Da Vinci Code at AllMovie
- The Da Vinci Code at Rotten Tomatoes
- The Da Vinci Code at Box Office Mojo
- The Da Vinci Code at Metacritic
- The Da Vinci Code at the TCM Movie Database
- The Da Vinci Code at the American Film Institute Catalog
Permalink
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.
Permalink
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.
Permalink
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.
Permalink
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+
Permalink
First, I have to qualify myself. I read the book and I LOVED it; couldn't put it down. I loved the history, the speculation, the riddles and puzzles, and the masterful blend of fact and fiction. Additionally, I'm not religious, although I was definitely familiar with Christian historical icons such as Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary Magdelene before I read the book. I also happen to be a big fan of Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Ian McKellan.
Having said that, I went in prepared to like this movie, even though I had somewhat lowered my expectations based on the barrage of bad reviews. All of this proved to be a winning formula for me, apparently.
If you're like me and you loved the book and you like the artistic team that pursued making it into a movie, then you'll most likely come out satisfied. You won't mind what many critics have called 'overly-long exposition' and historical flashbacks, because that's pretty much what the book consisted of. And in the book, it was absolutely engrossing! So, I personally didn't mind all of the explanation of history, symbols, etc.
Critics have also found fault with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou's portrayals of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu (respectively), saying that they delivered flat performances. But once again, whoever read the book will remember that both of these characters weren't that dynamic on the written page, either. Of course, Sir Ian McKellan, with the juiciest role of Holy Grail scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, chews up the scenery every time he's shown on screen. Sir Leigh Teabing was also one of the richest characters in the book.
I think that the people who won't like this movie are people who didn't read the book, and are going into the theater expecting a regular movie, which it's not. It's an adaptation of a very wordy, detailed, twisting, speculative novel that blends fact and fiction in a devastatingly effective way, and it's easy to get lost while watching the movie if you don't already know where the story is going. Sure, Ron Howard uses digitized, grainy flashbacks of ancient pagan rituals and societies to move the narrative along and to keep the audience on point, but I can see how it could be overwhelming to those who only know the bare bones of the plot. However, those who found it fascinating in the book will find pleasure in seeing the visual accompaniment to what they've already read.
In short, you go see this movie (or read the book) for how it challenges popularly-held beliefs; not for its rich, engaging character development. It's a quest for the 'truth', and in terms of the IDEAS expressed, they did a dag-blasted good job of translating those ideas onto the screen. Those who often complain that movies don't stay true to the books that they're based on will find comfort in the fact that Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard have stayed incredibly close to the original text when translating it onto the screen. However, this will be to the dismay of those movie-goers who haven't read the book, and are therefore expecting a traditional action thriller with traditional action thriller dialogue.
If you go to RottenTomatoes.com, you'll see the huge disparity between what the critics have said, and what the users have said regarding this film. While the cumulative critics rating is a dismal 22%, the combined user rating is a 74%, which is way above average for the site. That should speak volumes to whoever is skeptical about seeing the movie because of the bad reviews.
The bottom line is that it's definitely a movie worth watching if only to see how the creative team behind it went about turning the best-selling novel into celluloid. It's also a treat to see something in popular culture challenge popular religious ideals so skillfully, even if only in the form of fiction.
My advice: go see for yourself.
Permalink
A lot of people are too harsh on this one. Mostly because they know the book and have very high expectations. I have to see my first book-to-film where the film is better.
Also, you're not going to hell for watching this movie or reading the book. It's based on a novel, which is based on a few loose theories, but in the end all it wants to do is to entertain. And that is exactly what both the book and the movie did for me.
Permalink
Permalink
Monty Python could have done a better job with this movie.
Permalink
I have not read the book so I will not attempt any kind of comparison.
Plot essentially goes like this: In the middle of the night, Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned as an expert to a crime scene in Le Louvre where a terrible murder has been committed. The victim's body is self-placed in such a bizarre, symbolic way next to one of the world's most famous paintings that the investigation gradually unlocks age-old mysteries that many do not wish to be unlocked.
The Da Vinci Code is a chilling, thrilling and well-sewn together mystery thriller that often keeps you on the edge of your seat. The cast do not disappoint either. Paul Bettany is genuinely creepy as Silas and thereby reinforces the stereotype that all albinos are evil. While Audrey Tatou is annoyingly frail as Sophie Neveu, she is captivating and lovely and is able to project both charisma and presence on screen in this film. However, Tom Hanks did not at all feel like the protagonist in the story and I am unaware whether that was intentional or not but I'm guessing no, in which case Hanks definitely fails in both attracting and keeping our interest.
So the cast usually perform well (with the exception of Hanks) and the story is also facilitated by some very striking visuals. A big plus for this film which elevates it slightly above generic formula is its beautiful locations often seen through epic aerial shots. Good call, Howard! Another big plus is its distinctly Euro-centric feel in both style and substance. This surprised me since it is Tom Hanks and Ron Howard in the same film, but they do manage to keep the overblown Hollywood clichés to a minimum. This is even apparent in the score by Hans Zimmer; it is not overblown, but subtle and appropriate in the scenes to which it was scored. Similarly, Frenchmen do not speak English with a French accent when they were alone together, but speak in French. That said, the plot does unfold in a somewhat Hollywood fashion -- and the plot happens to be thinner than an Olsen twin.
To counter the good parts, two big minuses in The Da Vinci Code are its wooden and sometimes even placeholder dialogue and its distinct lack of humor. I felt the actors were much too serious for this kind of film, which is first and foremost an adventure story, fast-paced and constantly unlocking new mysteries. The issues in the film were serious enough and needed more comedy to balance them.
As I write this review, more and more bad points about it spring to mind. This is strange, since I remember sitting in the cinema with my friends just a few hours ago and being thoroughly entertained and captivated by the whole thing. So, never mind the occasionally insultingly far-fetched plot and plot-twists by Dan Brown; The Da Vinci Code is a nicely done and very entertaining film in which nothing feels missing or incomplete.
7/10
Permalink
American symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and French cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) are on a trans-European quest to solve riddles left by Louvre curator, Langdon's hero and Neveu's grandfather, Jacques Saunier, as he lay dying. The riddles and subsequent quest allegedly lead to the true identity and whereabouts of the famed Holy Grail. Hot in pursuit of the thinking man's Bonnie and Clyde is Javert-ian French police captain Bezu Feche (Jean Reno), intent on pinning the murder of Suanier on Langdon and Neveu, and albino monk, Silas (Paul Bettany) under the command of a mysterious telephone voice known only as The Teacher.
With a pedigree such as the most popular book in the world, two Academy Award winners (Hanks, Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman), French film superstars (Tautou and Reno) and Gandalf (Ian McKellen), you'd wonder how such a film could fail.
Well, how about the miscast of Howard as director. Howard lacks the vision to properly adapt the novel and bring it to life. Some of the blame does go to his Cinderella Man scribe Akiva Goldsman for not writing a fitting script. But Howard's awkwardness is more prominent. If we were going to pick name directors for this film, Steven Spielberg would have been better choice, but I think David Fincher (Se7en and Fight Club) would have been perfect.
The whole production felt rushed. Having just read the book, a lot of plot points were fresh in my mind, and that may have clouded the comprehension of certain things, which I think Howard and Goldsman were counting on. Looking back on it, the first 30-45 minutes were very rushed, and I don't think things were adequately explained. They were still referenced and used in the movie, but not explained well. It suffered from the, what I call, Godfather syndrome: referencing things from the book at the wrong time. They could have taken their time with the film, and it would have told the same story, and been a lot better.
Hanks was out of place as Landon, our hero. He doesn't have or project the same presence about him that Langdon should have. Might I suggest seasoned conspiracy theory veteran David Duchovny? As with Mission:Impossible:III, the supporting cast was impeccably put together, and the one true weakness of the cast is unfortunately the keystone (maybe it's just a bad year for actors named Tom).
Slightly better than your average summer fair, but still doesn't hold up when put against the equally action oriented yet wholly more insightful X-Men franchise.
Permalink
Nevertheless, a pleasant movie to watch. I confess I need to see it again, since I saw it from 3 to 6 am, with very few hours of sleep on the night before. I suggest the ones who read the book to re-read it before they go see it - to add a little bit more perspective. To those who haven't, I wish you a lovely time at the movies - it really is pleasant to see.
Praise to Audrey Tautou, a beautiful splendid actress, and all the other actors that don't need any more praise, like Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Tom Hanks, who I didn't see fit the part at first, but who grew on me half-way through the movie, if not sooner. A huge praise to Paul Bettany too, for his astonishing and disturbing performance as Silas.
I give it an 8, because it's one of the first movies made from books that did not make me go 'Oh, this was not like this in the book' every five seconds. I never saw Ron Howard as the ideal director for this movie - but he pulled it off decently, though a bolder choice would have been in order.
Permalink
I can't begin to write here how appalled I was that such a hyped and eagerly anticipated (not by me I must hasten to add) film could be so bad.
I wasn't one of the 'trillions' that read Dan Brown's book, and I think the film makers just assumed that everyone in the audience had read the book, and more to the point, loved the book; 'so hey, we don't have to worry too much, whatever we do we're gonna make shed loads, just get it done!'. I deteste these films which come out of Hollywood, which seemingly are made purely for profit and let all the important attributes needed to make a true, decent film, fall to the way-side.
It literally took about 15 minutes for me to decide that this film was a complete piece of crap. The dialogue used to move the plot along was ridiculous. In those first 15 minutes Tom Hanks (whom to my mind has only ever made a handful of decent movies at best) is giving a lecture to students. Then he gets taken aside to be told his friend was murdered, can he please come have a look. OK, strange but lets go with it. Then a french policeman tells him he must help immediately and it wouldn't be wise not to. Then a girl appears from nowhere and tells him he must come with her as the policeman is trying to kill him. Oh but wait, we can't go out the front door or anything, we have to go this way. Oh and by the way can you read codes by any chance? Oh you can? Wonderful! Then please de-code this before we go, it'll help greatly........
And so the plot goes on and on and on like this, no explanation, no reasoning just blind commands that he follows again and again from anybody that cares to give him one. At no point in this opening 15 minutes does Tom Hanks question what people are telling him, he just believes them, does what he is told and moves onto the next stage. It was like watching a computer game, with the main character being told do this, do that, don't go here and quick come this way, by supporting characters just to progress onto the next level. It was mind-numbingly boring. Does no-one else agree even slightly with this?
The strange thing is I briefly started to read the opening chapter or two of the book whilst I was away last month with my girlfriend, and my first impressions were that it read like a movie script so something doesn't quite add up........
Permalink
This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.
Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.
Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, 'The DaVinci Code', which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.
Some of these errors are as follows:
The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.
Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the 'Mona Lisa' as the 'Mona Lisa' in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.
The painting 'Madonna on the Rocks' is actually entitled 'Virgin on the Rock'; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.
The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the 'holy grail', or 'chalice'. Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, ' bling' to own a golden chalice!!
There is a sketch by Leonardo of the 'mystery hand' holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a 'disembodied hand wielding a dagger'.
If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.
The film was very 'talky', which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.
'Sacred feminine', indeed...I'm a woman, and 'The Davinci Code' insulted my intelligence.
Permalink
Who is Robert Langdon, the hero played by Tom Hanks? I get no feeling for anything about the guy, his claustrophobia is presented as being important, but it is an uninteresting embellishment and is clearly not important to the story.
The whole story for the film reduces to. . .well, I don't know what it reduces to? I seemed to just be watching pretentious people running around on fool's errands. This is not always a problem in a movie, no one can adequately explain The Big Sleep and I defy anyone to clearly tell me what happens in the recent Russian film Night Watch, but those films have a surfeit of characters that make the twists and turns interesting to follow. Not to mention a wonderful visual strategy that makes them breath. The Da Vinci Code is a suffocating film that does the impossible; it makes the Louvre look boring.
I was puzzled by the casting. With all American Tom Hanks on board and the French Audrey Tautou, the German Jurgen Prochnow and the competent Brits: Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, and Ian McKellen, we have a Chinese dinner approach to casting 'one from column A and one from column B', but this cast doesn't gel.
They each do their little bits, but the whole does not add up to more than the parts. There were too many little things that rankled me or anyone with half a brain. The Louvre is filmed so blandly, that it doesn't really matter that they really used the real place for a location. Also, the Louvre does not have steel gates that come down when a painting is removed from the wall. Also, Tautou introduces herself as a 'French Police Cryptologist'. French Police Cryptologist? The French have a national police? The Louvre wouldn't be in the Paris police jurisdiction? Does your city have a staff cryptologist on its police force? Too many ludicrous things happen that made me ask questions while it is happening, not after it's all done when you would get the Hitchcock 'refrigerator moment'. I can take religious hooey, but I can't take scientific hooey. Even the car chases are uninteresting, and badly filmed.
One more thing, if I am ever shot and have to leave a clue to the identity of my killer, I will write that he was an albino monk in a cassock with a cell phone and an automatic. There can't be that many running around, even in Paris.
Permalink
Four words - wrong star, wrong director.
Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.
What is conspicuously absent from either man's resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.
The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of 'what ifs' and 'oh my god' moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.
What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard's film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.
Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany's evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.
Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would've made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag 'Years Most-Anticipated', its a boring dud.
Permalink
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.
Permalink
This thrilling movie is a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue , mystery , tension , outstanding surprises but with a plethora of blasphemies . The film is an excuse for a merciless criticism to Catholic religion , the only one apparently can be criticized . It's plenty of theories for nuts , this is an old wives' tale . There's virtually no empirical proof and venturing into the even more bizarre theory about relationship between Christ and Mary Magdalena . Absurd theories about ¨The Last Supper¨ the great fresco of Leonardo . The maximum ridiculous about female symbol when exposes the holy chalice resembles the shape of a woman's womb . Besides , inventing a new Gospel according to Philip what was rejected at the council of Nicea by emperor Constantino . Stupid lies concerning on women like a huge threat to Catholic Church , accusing Inquisition publishes what may be the most blood-soaked book in human history : ¨The Malleus Malleficarum¨ , the witches' hammer , it is instructed the clergy on how to locate , torture and kill all freethinking women , during witch-hunt , the movie tells , fifty thousand are captured , burned alive at the stake , it's a complete lie , someone can to be but no such huge deal . In addition , the Templars slaughter was executed by the ambitious King Philip IV of France , it was not committed by Catholic church for hide the Holy Grial guarded along centuries by Grand Maestre and his guardians called the Senechals and forming a millenarian sect in a secret society called the Priory of Sion . In fact , officials from Britain's Westminster Abbey refused to allow shooting to take place in the Abbey claiming the book is theological unsound . But several scenes being filmed on historical places , with locations in Scotland , Britain and France . As the close-up shots of the exterior of Rosslyn Chapel are genuine, but the two distant shots of the chapel aren't actually of Rosslyn Chapel , this is because the chapel was swathed in scaffolding when filming took place.
Permalink
SCREENPLAY: Akiva Goldsman's script includes nearly all of the major scenes from the novel. To his credit, Goldsman provides dialogue on the Knights Templar, Mary Magdelene, Leonardo's 'Last Supper' mural and other details from the novel.
DIRECTION: Ron Howard's stylish approach to the film includes interesting camera angles, especially in the aerial shots of such great location sites as the Louvre in the Paris and the Rosslyn chapel in Scotland. It was clear that Howard wanted not merely an action picture, but a leisurely paced retelling of Dan Brown's story. There was also the thoughtful use of close-ups in the more intimate moments with a brilliant analytical scene dissecting the controversial 'chalice' apparent in Leonardo's 'Last Supper.'
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Overall, the film was appropriately dark and moody. The flashback sequences were shot in a grainy style that contrasted with the action-packed story of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. Salvatore Totino deserves the highest praise for his tasteful yet imaginative camera work.
ACTING: Tom Hanks was not overly charismatic as Robert Langdon. But that is precisely the bookish Everyman who is the protagonist of Dan Brown's novel. As Sophie, Audrey Tatou was more dynamic than Robert, as appropriate to her character as well; there was a sparking and even radiant quality to this young performer. The supporting cast was solid with Jean Reno especially successful in developing multiple layers of characterization in the morally conflicted detective Bezu Fache. Perhaps most memorably, Ian McKellen delivers a star turn as the scholar Leigh Teabing.
Over twenty years ago, Umberto Eco's novel 'The Name of the Rose' was the equivalent in its time of Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code.' The subsequent film version of Eco's story was a disappointment in its attempt to equal the success of the novel version of 'The Name of the Rose.' In the case of Ron Howard's film version of 'The Da Vinci Code,' however, not only does the film do justice to the novel, but in many respects it is better!
Permalink
Ian McKellen was fabulous in this film and stole the majority of the scenes he was in delivering some excellent one-liners along the way. I loved his passion for England and was very pleased to see he hasn't lost his talent. Paul Bettany was also tremendous in this film and it made me see him in a different light. After Wimbledon I wasn't sure of his acting skills but The Da Vinci Code proved him worthy of many of the actors in Hollywood today.
Tom Hanks is one of my all-time favourite actors but I have to say he just didn't seem comfortable in the role of Robert Langdon. He wasn't terrible but he just didn't come up to par with some of his previous roles which I felt was a shame. Audrey Tatou was very good in her role and I couldn't have imagined a better actress for the role.
Overall I felt the film was great, even with Ron Howard's inevitable cheesy scene...'Godspeed' from Tom Hanks. After seeing the film I decided to read the book and I can see why some people prefer the book. However I think it is much harder for a film to grip then it is a book and so for that reason I gave The Da Vinci Code 9/10. I would say anyone should go and see it, just accept it as a film, not as an adaptation of a book.
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Apparently this film and book offended some peoples imaginary friend.I can see why, such a waste of money when people are going hungry.
Raspberries all around.
Permalink
Permalink
Tho probably not the best movie this year, it's worth the while and I certainly can watch a couple of times more!
Permalink