Directed by:
Ron HowardScreenplay:
Akiva GoldsmanCinematography:
Salvatore TotinoComposer:
Hans ZimmerCast:
Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean-Yves Berteloot, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Seth Gabel (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
The murder of a curator at the Louvre reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected since the days of Christ. Only the victim's granddaughter and Robert Langdon, a famed symbologist, can untangle the clues he left behind. The two become both suspects and detectives searching for not only the murderer but also the stunning secret of the ages he was charged to protect. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (5)
Reviews (9)
When the book came out and I was lucky enough to get it very early and read it, I was thrilled. Brown's deductions were almost unbelievable, it all made sense. Only now, over time, do I see that the boy excels mainly in research, which he takes great care with, and then the story crystallizes from it on its own. Let's be honest, without that research, there wouldn't be any story; it would just be a classic treasure hunt. He can write it (i.e. use the information he finds) and that is appreciated. Ron Howard's take on the film is Hollywood-esque and quite boring. The chase for riddles here sometimes comes across as almost childish. However, that doesn't change the fact that it works quite well and is a film that entertains.
()
I like the book much more. It was readable, full of suspense, in places funny. Unlike the movie, which is long-winded and in places boring to tears. It’s as if the screenplay just sketched the path along which we were meant to set out and ignored any clarity in the plot, individuality of characters and integrity of story. A movie isn’t a book and I think they forgot about that here. I would also have expected more from the cast. Tom Hanks gives the bare minimum and Audrey Tautou just looks pretty. It was Ian McKellen who did most work, thoroughly enjoying his role of rich seeker. The others just don’t get much room. The Da Vinci Code certainly wasn’t the event of the year, but luckily the overall effect doesn’t seem as awful as I had feared. 60 %. Oh and btw, the music is amazing. Hans Zimmer played his heart out.
()
A suspenseful and sufficiently intricate piece that was dangerously fashionable to criticize at the time. Traditionally excellent performances by Tom Hanks, the beautiful Audrey Tautou, and the devilish Paul Bettany in a story that is attractive in both historical and contemporary terms, as well as relationship and religious aspects. Without knowledge of the source material, it is demanding of the viewer's attention on the first viewing, and it is only during the second viewing that you can calmly fill in the context.
()
A boring source material that is even more boringly adapted, not to mention the inability to create at least a small dose of tension and dynamics. The screenwriter mixes together truth with myths and legends and creates is an unspeakable mess for the viewer, especially if they haven't read the book and are not familiar with religion. Tom Hanks doesn't do special and Audrey Tautou is there just for show. Only Paul Bettany, who is properly weird, is somewhat good. Ron Howard also completely fails to handle the more action-packed sequences. I haven't seen such muddled and restless cinematography during a nighttime chase in Paris in a long time. In the last ten minutes, we can see maybe five twists in short intervals, which completely demolished it for me. The most muddled and incomprehensible blockbuster of this year.
()
The Da Vinci Code is flat, tedious and visually unappealing. And for me, as an atheist who at most acknowledges faith in himself, the plot is also unappealing. With the exception of Ian McKellen, the actors are bland and the only thing above average here is Hans Zimmer’s dark music. I haven’t read the book, and now I definitely won’t read it. Typical Hollywood tripe sold through brilliant marketing.
()
Ads