Genres

Visitors Review

petim123 2012-05-25 07:49:07

Wait for the DVD

I may have been one of 5 people left that hasn't read the book. I knewgenerally that the plot questions the "foundations" of Christianity andthat it takes place in and around some of the "oldest, most historicsites" in Europe. I eagerly awaited opening day.I stood in line; I paid top dollar for tickets. What a disappointment.This movie is boring and predictable. I actually nodded off at timesand missed nothing! The most engaging parts of the movie were when IanMcKellen's character is providing background for the story. Not havingread the book, I guessed fairly early on, the big ending and several ofthe minor twists. I don't consider myself a movie buff and don't oftencritique them but this movie left me feeling ripped off.What has happened to Tom Hanks? Age has not been good to him. He looksolder and a little too well fed in this movie. He doesn't act as muchas just re-cite lines. I got no empathy nor feeling from him at all.The heroine, Audrey Tautou, also walked through the movie emotingnothing which is more glareing given the ending. The minor characterscarried the show; Ian McKellen and Jean Reno especially, but alsoJürgen Prochnow, and Paul Bettany.Do yourself a favor, enjoy the book and wait for the DVD.

ehutson2001 2012-05-24 14:45:22

Go ahead and give Hanks and Howard their Oscars.

This movie is what great movie-making is all about. Tom Hanks andAudrey Tautou are flawless in the film. The writers manage to make themovie both interesting and easy-to-follow for those of us who sometimeshave trouble doing so.Paul Bettany does a superb job in a role which could not have been easyto do.And Ron Howard has created a masterpiece. The movie is visuallystunning.Now, to be fair, it should be said that those who go ready to beoffended probably will be. But, having said that, I think the moviewill be a big hit at Oscar time and will withstand the test of time.

generationofswine 2012-05-21 19:22:32

From a Historian

I majored in history, I've worked in history, I've taught history & Isay again to everyone: "I don't care about history in my movies." WhatI want is to be entertained. I'm a Catholic that loved "Dogma," I haveone standard when judging films, entertainment. "The Da Vinci Code," in book form, came at you like a bullet. Thechapters were short, concise, & left you hanging on the end. I finishedthe book in one sitting, I couldn't put it down, I constantly needed toknow what happened next."The Da Vinci Code," in it's movie form doesn't have that. But it doeshave it's "X-Files" junkie moments. There are times where theconspiracy nut in everyone is so engrossed that they can't help but beentertained. But those moments are all that you get & there aren'tenough of them to drag the viewer through the entire film. Instead the suspense & cliffhangers that kept me on the edge of my seatwhile reading the book I sat through the mundane waiting for the fewmoments that reminded me of my favorite T.V. show. Watch "Revelation"instead, it covers the same religious/mystery story with a lower budget& worse acting but yet make a far more entertaining film & you get UdoKier who seems to be born for movies like these.

jenmac_85 2012-05-21 07:54:20

Watchable

I felt that the movie was watchable, but apart from the hypesurrounding the film I could actually pick anything that made it standout from other films.I felt that the acting was solid, but nothing spectacular and the filmprovide some interesting miniature history lessons. I was impressed byhow rigidly the film stuck to the book unlike some other films. Itprovides an interesting topic to discuss once you have seen it If you were going in and not watching the film too seriously, it wouldprobably be fine, but you may try to think too hard about it. I ampleased that I saw it, but probably wont be buying it when it isreleased on DVD

Green_Eyed_Monster 2012-05-17 12:21:25

Its fiction!! Get over yourselves!

I would first like to say how amazed I was to see how many people aretaking this film so seriously. Its a story designed to entertainpeople! Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code based on one of Catholicismsconspiracy theories, and that's all it is, not what is seen as truth.Now that's out of the way I loved this film. Of course, I have to saywhat has become a cliché when a film is adapted from a book... the bookis better, so if you liked this film (or didn't like it) and haven'tread the book yet, I suggest you do.The film is very entertaining with a brilliant cast. The only person Ihave to say I was disappointed with is Sir Ian McKellen, who wasdefinitely "chewing the furniture" in this one as the eccentric SirLeigh Teabing. He took it a tad too far! The star of the film is mostdefinitely Paul Bettany who is simply terrifying as the albino monk,Silas. Its nice to see him in a film that isn't a chick-flick or aromantic comedy! As always, Jean Reno is very good, but unfortunatelywe didn't see enough of him.If you like a good thriller, and don't like films that instantly spelleverything out for you, go and see this film. Its definitely worth theprice of a ticket and you're bound to find some part of itentertaining. But if you don't like these kind of films, or your moralvalues are likely to be offended by the content matter (and we all knowwhat that is. Its had enough attention from the press world wide forgoodness sake!) then don't go and see it. Its as simple as that!!

mairtin-2 2012-05-17 00:05:00

Absolute Garbage.

Terrible film. It lost me from the beginning. Some guy is shot by themost conspicuous assassin ever seen. Who could fail to spot an albinoin a medieval cassock ? Where did he think he was, a fancy dress ? Thenthe mortally wounded guy runs around the Louvre leaving riddles in hisown blood. Ever heard of a mobile phone ? Tom Hanks, Professor of SillyNonsense at Harry Potter university doesn't make a move on AudreyTatou. Some stuff happens and they're in a van. Ian McKellen can afforda villa in Portugal by hamming it up egregiously.Apparently this film and book offended some peoples imaginary friend.Ican see why, such a waste of money when people are going hungry.Raspberries all around.

erinhutching 2012-05-11 20:05:34

Does not stand alone from book

Having been amongst the many who had read and loved The Da Vinci Code,I wasn't sure what to expect from the movie. I had heard the storiesabout people walking out but I wanted to see for myself if it wasreally that awful. The answer is, in short, it is not that bad. If youexpect it to live up to the hype and the precedent set by the book, youwill be disappointed. If you go in with minimal expectations expectinga typical Hollywood thriller, you will probably enjoy yourself. Readersof the book will really notice how much is missed out in the film. Thismay be simply due to the restrictions of the medium, as the pages ofexplanation of different symbols, ideas and theories are probably noteasily adapted to the screen. This makes the storyline lack depth andappear superficial. The movie does not stand alone well and will beenjoyed the most by those who have knowledge of the background detailsupplied by the book. Cinematically, it is enjoyable as the shots arebeautiful but there is a lot of superimposing of images that aresupposed to represent Langdon's thought processes as he solves puzzleswhich just get annoying and serve only to demonstrate the very largebudget the film obviously had. Tom Hanks does better than expected, but he lacks the intelligentcharisma required by the character of Langdon. Audrey Tautou is sweetand charming as Sophie, but there is no chemistry between her andHanks' Langdon and their relationship seems more father-daughter thananything else. The strongest performances are by Jean Reno as CaptainFache and Paul Bettany as Silas.

2012-05-11 12:14:51

Great adaptation

I read the book. The book is complex with a lot of information and twists and turns and complex descriptions of characters, places and theories. Because of the change in medium (page to film) and format (movies are 2 hours) changes had to adapt the book to film.The film in many ways sticks to the thriller genre with a historic twist interms of plot, settings and backdrop. I think it was a great and entertaining two hours. The plot is driven partly by characters and partly by the quest for the grail.Most people know the plot so I will be brief. The movie had a great ensemble cast and moved at a good pace. It was a great date night movie and the setting was rich and colorful. I loved the movie. The religous controversey seems so strange; it is a work of fiction and like most works of fiction it has some basis in reality that is what makes it something the audience can relate to and feel a connection. If a person really feels their faith is threatened by a film then maybe it was not that strong anyway.This was a fun movie, entertaining with a good pace and it stuck to the spirit and overall plot of the book. The creative choices that had to be made in the process of adaptation from book to film did not compromise the integrety of the story.

the-gossip-king 2012-05-10 15:26:48

most underrated movie of all time perhaps

How dare people say this movie is bad. You are wrong! I am sorry thereis no other way to put it. I do not know what was wrong with thismovie. Everything was done extraordinarily well. Tom Hanks and AudreyTautou were perfectly cast as Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. JeanReno was good at being what he always is. A cop. Ian McKellen wasprobably the best as Sir Leigh Teabing and Paul Bettany did a decentjob as Silas as well as Alfred Molina who played Bishop Aringarosa. Thescore was superb and dare i say should have got an Oscar nominationperhaps even should have won! Ron Howard's directing and the camerawork are exceptional. I was surprised to find this got second mostdisappointing adaption from a book to a movie. (first being goldencompass) This is unfair. Everything in the book was in the movie exceptfor a few minor details. Nothing huge. I thing everyone did very welland i do not understand what was wrong with the script. It worked fine.It was not outstanding but it was definitely not something tocriticize. Do not let anyone else stop you from seeing this movie. :)

Matt_Layden 2012-05-10 06:20:15

"It's One Of Those Read The Book & Skip The Movie Types"

The Da Vinci Code, based on the massively popular book by the samename, sees Robert Langdon sent to a murder scene to investigate certainsymbols left by the victim. What Langdon figures out though, coulddestroy Christianity and his life.The Da Vinci Code is a cultural phenomenon, which almost everyone hasread. So it's no surprise that they want to get a movie out there forthe people who are too lazy to read the books, but here it's an obviouscase of cashing in on the money that the book has earned. Much likePassion Of The Christ, you can tell that the filmmakers hope that it'scontroversy is the key to it's success. It's a shame to say that it'sone of those read the book and skip the movie.I've read the book, been to it's locations and believe in Jesus Christ,so I really enjoyed the book. With Ron Howard giving us the motionpicture, my hopes that the film making a good translation to screenwere still up in the air. After finally seeing the film, I've come torealize that the book is indeed better then the movie. The main reasonbehind this would be because the film itself felt rushed. It felt likeit was still trying to cash in on the book's success, it just sohappens that it leaves the viewer wondering what all the fuss is about.If they haven't read the book that is.Da Vinci is the weakest film out of the Hanks and Howard collaboration.Hanks still doesn't seem to fit the title character of Langdon. No,it's not the hair, it's just that when I'm watching the film I see TOMHANKS, not Robert Langdon. Hanks aside, everyone else seems to fittheir roles perfectly. I enjoyed Reno as the french police officerFache and adored Tautou as Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen does a good jobas well, although I thought he was more comical then his charactershould be. Molina is barely used in the film, but out of everyone, it'sPaul Bettany who shines here. Bettany showed his acting chops inGangster No. 1, here he steals the screen. Unlike Hanks, Bettanybecomes his character sends chills down some spines.The film is true to the book, but I could of sworn I remember a lotmore stuff happening in the book then what was showed in the film.Granted, you can't transfer everything from page to screen, but itseems like they didn't really care for the material. The most importantand entertaining part of the book seems to fly by here. I was also veryturned off by the scenes that showed Langdon looking at certain thingsthat weren't there. Hologram like images that play out in his mind andto the viewer, but are invisible to everyone else. The score was impressive, it's one of the few highlights in the film.The book itself was a page turner and never seemed to slow down, thefilm doesn't slow down either, but with a 2 1/2 hour running time itdoes hit you in your seats. National Treasure I said felt like a DaVinci Code ripoff, but Treasure was the better film of the two. It wasmore adventurous then Code, which to me, even with it's beautifullocations, seemed confined. Howard is a good director, and if he actually took the time to make agood film here he could have had a success, unfortunately his rushedattempt to get the film in theatres shows. As does the acting, which isquite embarrassing at some points. The controversy surrounding the filmshould die down when people realize that the film isn't that great, asshould it's box office intake. If they do decide to make Angels andDemons, I'll go to see it, as it was the better book and should makethe better movie.

limebalthazar 2012-05-08 07:56:52

So-so.

Tom Hanks disappointed me thoroughly. I'd expect something more thanthe uninspiring performance he gave from Tom freaking Hanks. He justwasn't appropriate for the role at all. He came across as too awkward,and spoke from the side of his mouth from time to time, which waspretty distracting. Robert Langdon is supposed to be aging, but suaveall the same-- which Tom Hanks just did not pull off. Definitely notHanks' best work.However, the movie was pretty easily understandable for those whodidn't read the book, and included a couple of extra little things sothat the movie wasn't just a clone of the book. However, it was dumbeddown significantly. If you're seeking an intellectual thrill ride, lookelsewhere.

nbeach44 2012-05-07 16:57:41

Congrats to Ron Howard

Although reviews for this Ron Howard film have been mixed (and thatsputting it mildly), I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is slow moving atpoints but it is necessary to explain the story. I found Tom Hanks toplay a pretty solid character in Robert Langdon. Almost precisely as Ihad imagined in reading Dan Brown's best seller. The use of flashbackscan become annoying, but I found the visuals in them and throughout theentire film incredible. Once again Ian McKellen is outstanding andpossibly saves this film from critical destruction. I would definitelynot let negative reviews deter you from seeing this because thevisuals, locations and story are amazing.

byrann_gowan 2012-05-05 03:41:52

Makes me want to read the book

I don't know why this got such backlash, when it got released.When it comes to the movie and the book, they are both hot topics fordiscussion in religious circles. Quite a few religious circles aroundthe world had issues with some of the aspects of this film and book;Some believed that it was basically an insult to the Catholic faith andto Jesus Christ. What I don't get is: Why is this an insult? Therereally isn't anything to get all negatively hopped up about. Okay,maybe it's a little shocking to think that Jesus had a wife and adaughter, but first, let's take a look at the gospel of Philip; thisgospel states that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were "companions," which,according to this movie, means that they were partners. It also saysthat He loved Mary Magdalene more than His disciples. Now, we all drawour own conclusions here, but really, I am a Christian, and yet, I findnothing wrong with this image; I mean, He was married, and He had akid. That's just my opinion, but you've got to fill the holes in thebible.Anyways, enough ranting, more critiquing. This movie stimulated myinterest as I was reading about the plot of the book. I decided towatch the movie, despite the negative reviews from the critiques. I canhonestly say that this is not as bad as people are making it out to be.Yes, it could have been more, but if it had've been even 10 minuteslonger, it probably would've felt too long.The acting is on par, as well. Alfred Molina (Doctor Octopus fromSpider-Man 2) is good as Bishop Aringarosa; Paul Bettany is quitecreepy as Silas. While I couldn't make out a whole lot of what JeanReno said (because most of his lines were in French, I believe), he didseem to be into his role, which was good. Ian McKellen is always greatin everything he does. Audrey Tautou is beautiful as Sophie, who findsout a little secret about herself towards the end. And, of course, TomHanks as Robert Langdon: this is a role that fits him, and fits himwell. Good job to all.Overall, if you're going to see it, be aware of the ideas that itbrings up; go in with an open mind, but make sure that you are ready tothink. After I finish "Angels and Demons," I think I might pick up "TheDa Vinci Code." A 7.5 out of 10 for me.

Tucker Jay 2012-05-04 12:05:11

Entertaining

I particularly welcome the exposure the film gives to the denigrationof women by the Catholic Church and the role of Mary Magdalene inchurch history. While The Da Vinci Code never reaches its fullpotential as a compelling work of art, it is solid entertainment thatcreates awareness of the differences within the early church and mayspur people to read apocryphal writings such as the Gnostic Gospels andThe Gospel of Thomas. Of course, the theory, first expounded in thebook Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, isout of the mainstream, yet, it is not as preposterous as Roger Eberthas claimed. Given the paucity of historical records referring to ahistorical Jesus and the passing of two thousand years, it is no moreimplausible than many other theological notions, widely accepted as theunvarnished truth. Anyway, all questions are answered and you are notleft hanging. Whether you agree with the answers is up to you.Remember, it's only a movie, and it's never too late to become ahistory buff and you can do your own research.

kai ringler 2012-05-03 00:15:01

the bible.. fact or fiction?

Well talk about a movie to really make you think, well folks this isit. I mean the Bible, Jesus,Mary Magdeline, the Pope, just to name afew, the Knights Templar, The Crusades. It's a lot to take in but let'stry, I can buy the fact that their could be a conspiracy i mean justlook at the Catholic Church, now i was raised protestant, and haven'tbeen to church in many years, after being made to go as a kid, but thepoint is, the corruption in the church, Jesus was 33 when he died, youmean to tell me he never had sex,, course he did, he was mortal ibelieve, him having a kid, i'll buy that much. I liked the first 1:45of the movie, then well it seemed to me that too much was revealed atthe wrong time, making it less than suspenseful after that. I loved thecharacter of Silas, played by Paul Bettany, Tom Hanks character i likedvery much. seeking the truth, very studious, always thinking, i respectthat. I absolutely think Jean Reno shined in this movie, he is one ofthe best French actors today. I think that this movie came too quicklyafter the book, I haven't read the book, but i will someday. The movietook us to magical places. Westminster Abby, the Louvre, just to name 2. All in all like i said a great thriller, mystery. lots of intrigue,for the first hour and forty five mins.. after that well, it justdidn't work for me. but that's me.

kingzmessenger 2012-05-02 09:20:45

I found the movie to be largely boring

Though the book (which I have not read) is supposed to be verywell-written and be a fun, edge-of-your-seat novel, I found the movieto be long and largely boring. I kept thinking to myself, "Is it overyet?" My niece, in contrast, said she thought it was interesting. Mybrother-in-law compared the movie to "National Treasure," butpersonally, I found "National Treasure" to be a FAR move interestingmovie than "The DaVinci Code." If it were not for the claims ofaccuracy by Dan Brown (i.e., a fictional novel claiming to befactual---even though Dan Brown admits to it being a fictional novel,at the same time, the book says that all the documents, organizations,etc. are accurate; plus, according to his own website, he apparentlybelieves a lot of it to be true himself) and the wide-spread publiccontroversy, along with 60% of people surveyed believing that eitherall or part of it was true---if it were not for all the publiccontroversy, I would find it to be a stupid story and hardly worthnotice. However, much of the movie did come across as being quiteconvincing that these were actual facts that were being revealed, andnot just some fun story, so because of that, I also found it to be avery bold and diabolical attack against Christianity. However, I doagree that, on the positive side, it does promote discussion of suchhistorical and theological matters, which I see as a good thing. It hasprompted me to do research on the issues raised in the movie, andbecause of this, I have learned more than I knew before. My researchhas only solidified my faith as a Christian, because I have found theBible, the four Gospel accounts, and Christ Jesus the Son of God tohave an immense mountain of verifiable historical accuracy andmanuscript documents (including non-Christian sources) to back them up,compared to the ridiculous, preposterous, stupid, silly and feebleclaims that "The DaVinci Code" makes. Toward the end of the movie, whenthey revealed what was supposed to be a huge climax in the movie, I hadto suppress myself (out of respect for the others in the theater) fromlaughing out loud, since it was so ridiculous.

chefz 2012-05-01 20:43:33

-cHeFz Scoop- " The Da Vinci Code"

___ "The Da Vinci Code"____St0ry: 6/10AcTing: 5/10W0rth Seeing: If There's nothing else showingHiRe a bAby-sItTer: Na, bring the kidsDan Browns novel in my opinion was 'awful' and he completely ripped itoff another book written a few years previous, but enough on the book.With my opinion of the novel in mind, I wasn't expecting anything greatwhen I went into see 'The Da Vinci Code' and my expectations were livedup to. Tom Hanks was obviously paying the rent when he made this movie,I have great respect for Hanks as an actor but this movie was just'weak', from the opening scene with the curator to the credits I foundmyself trying to keep awake. Unless you were a great fan of the book Iwould give this movie a pass or at least wait until it comes to DVD..:ChEfZ:.

jerrywilson 2012-05-01 04:21:25

Intrigueing and Thrilling

Let me start by saying I did not read the book. There is one thing I'vediscovered about movies based on novels. Most often, if you've read thebook, you hate the movie. Those who don't read the book are usually ina better position to provide an unbiased review.I love Tom Hanks as an actor. He can play almost any role toperfection. Having said that, this part is still a stretch for him. Itcould have been better cast.Still, I really liked the movie. It was all it was billed as. I likedthe cinematography. And I even enjoyed the "talking heads" moments. Iknow it's fiction, but Brown has said his research while writing thebook did reveal factual evidence, and I believe there is probably moretruth in the movie than what most religious groups would want us tobelieve.Face it; if it were all nothing but fiction, the Catholic churchwouldn't be so worried about it. And, of course, everyone knows thechurch has been one of history's biggest villains. I know something ofreligious history, and much of what the talking heads were discussingis true. That makes the movie better, being based on actual events,even if highly embellished.Even though it's fictional, it's still a movie everyone should see. Itcan lead some to question the role of religion in their lives. Andthat's a good thing.

Torchwoods 2012-05-01 18:37:09

Fun movie

A fictional movie about a fictional subject, Religion. A fun watchthough. I love mythology. Jewish myths, Christian myths, Greek myths.All of them are fun ways people explain their world in their own mind.This movie takes a fictional look at a fictional religion. I can'tbelieve people get so upset over this stuff. A lot of the detail fromthe book is left out, I assume for time. The people in the movie comeout a bit lifeless but otherwise a fun movie.Those that believe in these myths might take it a bit poorly. Just keepin mind its just a movie. If you view it as an attack on your religion,your just wrong. religious beliefs attack nonbelievers all the time.Fair is fair after all.

zizmondka 2012-04-30 22:29:22

Seen it.... loved it

I'll go out on a limb here and say that The Da Vinci Code is a greatmovie. Not in its genre, being classified as a "thriller", becauselet's face it, there's nothing thrilling in there if you already knowthe story (having read the book), but it's a great summer blockbuster.Anyway, as it debuted in Cannes, the reviews were horrendous – toolong, too complicated, you won't understand it if you haven't read thebook and so on, and so forth. And the next day, it was getting worse bythe minute. Now, having seen it, I have to wonder two things – whetherthe critics at Cannes are so cynical they don't like any movie at allanymore, or they're failed movie makers, adamant that if they didn'tsucceed in the business than no one would – "so let's thrash everymovie that comes our way!"I loved the movie, it wasn't at all too long, it wasn'tincomprehensible, and there was nothing to laugh about at the climax,when Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) tells Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) thetruth about her origins. It was a bit melodramatic, but totallyplausible.Now, for the movie. It was beautifully directed. Ron Howard knows whathe's doing. It wasn't a supernatural movie, so what CGI there wasserved the story perfectly (to show Langdon's "almost" photographicmemory or to whisk the audience back into the past as the charactersdiscussed about history and its events). The screenplay adhered to thestory line of the book as much as a screenplay can (a big round ofapplause for Akiva Goldsman) and if he changed the ending (betweenLangdon and Neveu) a little, he did good – the movie didn't need thatextra zing. And don't let me touch the music. Hans Zimmer delivers eachand every time, and if it had a little of the Gladiator soundtrack init, it doesn't matter. I especially loved the last scene of the movieas Robert Langdon kneels in above the two opposing pyramids at theLouvre. I loved everything about it – the pose of the character(respectful and wondering at the same time), the lighting (it was nightafter all), the movements of the camera (as it travels from above, downto the pyramids and inside them, to reveal the grail), and the musiconly added to the enchantment and beauty of it, rising in a lovelycrescendo to the revealing. Perfect!Now, to the cast: Tom Hanks is still not Robert Langdon in my book (butthat's just because each and every reader creates his/her own pictureof the character), but I have nothing against his performance in thismovie. In reality, he's probably the only actor in Hollywood that coulddeliver all those lines about history, symbology, and the grail,without turning ridiculous. I believed he knew what he was talkingabout – not that he's just learned those lines, but it seemed as ifhe'd read all the books on the subject. He did an amazing job. Tautou(at least for me) was a perfect Sophie Neveu. She might look fragileand doe-eyed, but you could glimpse something else beneath that sweetexterior. For such a young creature, she did an amazing job. I have toagree with the reviews about Ian McKellen. He stole each scene he wasin. He was brilliant, as always. And I enjoyed the scene at the gate tohis castle as he runs a little test on the worthiness of his visitors.Classic British wit! Jean Reno was cast to the perfection. His BezuFache is just like the detective I imagined reading the book. But then,who else can you cast as an uptight, know-it-all, stuck-up Frenchpoliceman than Jean Reno. I love the guy. And I mustn't forget PaulBettany as Silas, the albino Opus Dei hit man. His performance wasbrilliant. His depiction of a fanatic, lost soul was perfect, realisticto the goose bumps, and very poignant.Overall, the movie is a must see for everyone – The Code's geeks thatknow the book by heart, and all those who haven't read the book. If youdecide to go to the cinema this weekend, but don't exactly know what tosee, this could be a good choice. It will give you something to thinkand talk about.