• Plot Description
Original title: Da Vinci Code, The
• USA: May 19, 2006
Budget USD 125,000,000
The Da Vinci Code Website
Rated PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content.
2 hours, 32 minutes
Columbia Pictures, Imagine Entertainment, Brian Grazer/John Calley
Studio Columbia Pictures
More info on IMDb.com
• The Da Vinci Code (2006)
• The DaVinci Code
• Da Vinci Code, T2000he (2006)
|Genre: Mystery, Thriller, Drama, Murder|
Tagline: Seek The Truth
Plot: While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. While working to solve the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci -- clues visible for all to see -- yet ingeniously disguised by the painter. Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion -- an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who seems to anticipate their every move. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's ancient secret -- and an explosive historical truth -- will be lost
More Plot Descriptions
Discussion forum for this movie
...director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama,leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material; result is perhaps the best thing the project's critics could have hoped for...
--TODD MCCARTHY (Variety)
The Da Vinci Code has its moments, but it's unforgivably dull in places and frequently both poorly directed and laughably silly.
--Matthew Turner (ViewLondon)
A jumble of historical myth, religious symbology and international thriller-action makes for an unwieldy, bloated melodrama.
--Kirk Honeycutt (Hollywod Reporter)
And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret -- that the movie follows the book religiously. While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown's formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones.
--Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times)
One of the most talk driven summer flicks in living memory, an out of sorts Howard transforms what should be a fun treasure trail romp into something inert and borderline dreary.
--Ian Freer (Empire Online)
Fans of the book may enjoy finally seeing the characters on the screen, but for the most part, the movie adds nothing new to the experience for anyone who's read the book, and little of interest to anyone who hasn't. Ultimately, it makes the flaws in Brown's source material--the storytelling ones, not anything to do with the religious theories--that much more apparent. "The Da Vinci Code" may just be one of those cases of a book that doesn't translate well onto the screen... 4/10
--Edward Douglas (ComingSoon.net)
Mostly, though, The Da Vinci Code, the book, is a barely fictionalized Comparative Mythology for Dummies, and so the movie is, too. Which isn’t entirely a bad thing...If you already know who Mithras is, though, or have heard of such ideas as “the divine feminine,” you’ll find that much that is exciting about The Da Vinci Code to uninformed audiences will leave you less than thrilled.
...The knight, after enduring Langdon's there-is-no-grail, it's-actually-a-woman and what-you-drank-was-probably-poison spiel could inquire, quite sedately, why it is then that his family have remained sanctioned at a bogus post for umpteen generations. Unsatisfied by Hanks' blabbering retort the knight then happily announces the departure of his head from its resting point (Tom's first and potentially Oscar winning head-roll).
..."Who is God, who is man?" It's a question The Da Vinci Code is thoroughly incapable of answering, though hidden in the query seems to be an apt description of the film itself—for God, as any novice symbologist knows, is also an anagram for dog.
--Nick Schager (SlantMagazine.com)
...it's a relatively mindless affair that offers adequate entertainment value while displaying obvious, and often irritating, flaws. The controversy has made seeing The Da Vinci Code a more desirable night out than it might otherwise have been, but it won't take long before potential audience members recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. One could classify The Da Vinci Code as diverting, but it has sidestepped greatness by a wide margin.
--James Berardinelli (ReelViews)
Trapped in this earnest, emotionally thin thriller, Hanks does as much as he can with his cipher of a role, but for all his innate appeal and authority, he's surprisingly colorless as the claustrophobic hero....
--TIM KNIGHT (Reel.com)
| Written by|
Be Cool, The Real Da Vinci Code, Da Vinci Code Decoded
|What should have been a thriller with interesting people tracing improbable but interesting clues to an ending that is, if not a surprise, at least satisfying, is instead a two-and-a-half hour slog that tries the patience of even the most saintly in the audience. It takes a great deal of time, and travels to a great many locales, to do absolutely nothing worth seeing. |
--Andrea Chase (Killer Movie Reviews)
This is goofy stuff, folks, but Howard and his stern-faced actors treat it like it's Shakespeare, and not the fun kind, either. Tom Hanks has never seemed so dull, and the pixie-ish Audrey Tautou's only job is to be surprised by everything. ("What? Quoi?Are you saying...? Do you mean...?" etc.)... C+
--Eric D. Snider (EricDSnider.com)
The film itself has a few problems, namely with the verbose dialogue and painfully long runtime (149 minutes), but Howard keeps it chugging along at a respectable pace, thanks most in part to the novel’s short-and-sweet method of storytelling...is the kind of film that allows the audience to see only what they believe, and unless you’re an admirer of Brown’s thrilling novel, you’ll quickly find that there’s not much else to enjoy.
--Jason Zingale (Bullz-eye.com)
Howard’s version misses Brown’s inherent sense of astonishment. It lacks the joy of revelation, the excitement of code breaking, and the thrill that accompanies an impromptu quest. At best, this Code will satisfy anyone who hasn’t already deciphered Brown’s mysteries. For the rest of the approximately 40 million who have the misfortune of entering the theater after digesting Code, the movie is slow, drab, and devoid of adventure.
--Sean O'Connell (FilmCritic.com)
The Da Vinci Code is not nearly the disaster or deserving of the critical drubbing it has received. It is a better than average popcorn film that runs a bit long.
--Julian Roman (MovieWeb)
Perhaps an interesting side-piece to those already fanatical about the book, the film version of The Da Vinci Code is ultimately a flawed and lifeless adaptation. There's nothing technically wrong with Howard's film, but Brown's approach to the novel is essentially untranslatable and that's perhaps more a criticism of the book than the film.
--Joe Utichi (FilmFocus.co.uk)
Brown’s book was heavy on action, a real thrill ride with the two lead characters working as a team to decipher a series of clues and anagrams that ultimately lead them to the book’s version of the truth about the Holy Grail. The Da Vinci Code movie never captures that same sense of adventure... C+
--Rebecca Murray (About.com)
...But even with all the hoopla surrounding this film, there is not a whole lot to worry about here. I don't see The Da Vinci Code making any kind of permanent mark on the history of movies. It's just not that good of a film. 5/10
--Brendan Cullin (EmpireMovies.com)