The Da Vinci Code

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. (06/11/2006)

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. (07/28/2006)

Like the book, the picture is rather “naive" and rather than quality, we get solid craftsmanship instead. Thanks to the flatness of the characters, the actors have very little acting to do, which is highlighted by it being rather garrulous and so the entire movie relies on vocal performances. Although this could easily be cut down a good few minutes, in the end it is watchable without great damage to your health. But the only actually positive side of the whole Code is Zimmer’s soundtrack, which makes even the most boring dialog scene seem as if it is something fundamentally important for the story. The creators tended toward the secrecy storyline, which is therefore given the most space and so only a fraction of the movie is devoted to cracking the code and this becomes just a necessary evil with no power behind it, which is a great shame. OST score: 4/5 (05/30/2006)

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. (04/19/2014)

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. (06/03/2006)