sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+5
The Da Vinci Code
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+5
JustWatch
Remove ads

The Da Vinci Code

2006
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
2h 29m
Based on Dan Brown's popular and controversial novel, The Da Vinci Code begins with a spectacular murder in the Louvre Museum. All clues point to a covert religious organization that will stop at nothing to protect a secret that threatens to overturn 2,000 years of accepted dogma. (Sony)
Directed by:
Ron Howard Ron Howard
Written by:
Akiva Goldsman Akiva Goldsman
Starring:
Audrey Tautou Audrey Tautou Tom Hanks Tom Hanks Ian McKellen Ian McKellen Paul Bettany Paul Bettany Jean Reno Jean Reno Alfred Molina Alfred Molina Jürgen Prochnow Jürgen Prochnow Jean-Pierre Marielle Jean-Pierre Marielle Etienne Chicot Etienne Chicot Seth Gabel Seth Gabel Clive Carter Jean-Yves Berteloot Jean-Yves Berteloot
More
Franchise:
Robert Langdon
Genres:
Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Mystery
Countries:
France, Malta, USA
Languages:
English, Spanish, French, Latin
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

The Da Vinci Code

2006
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
2h 29m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 32.14% from 13200 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(13200)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 31 Jul 2009
1
1st
A film based upon one of the worst books ever published was always going to be a real shitter. Forget the books subject matter as its totally irrelivant, because most of all this is a dull, excruciatingly boring movie, and the dialouge is (obviously considering its origin) absolutely terrible. Needless to say it's a film for people with less brain cells than fingers.
Rated 31 Jul 2009
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 18 Sep 2009
56
13th
I was ultimately bored with this movie by the end of it and didn't really care about what was happening in it. Oh no Jesus slept with someone or something? Guess that means this crazy albino monk is going to come after you for finding out.
Rated 18 Sep 2009
cclzaCCLZA
Rated 10 Feb 2007
45
17th
Not as bad as the critics make it look, but yeah, it's a total waste of plot. Lets thank Ron Howard and of course the biggest miscast ever: TOM HANKS as Langdon.
Rated 10 Feb 2007
sliderccslidercc
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
91st
The Haters(critics) should go sleep with their bibles. Good film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
chemtrailschemtrails
Rated 03 Oct 2009
15
4th
Pretty fucking bad
Rated 03 Oct 2009
wicheWiche
Rated 26 Feb 2009
36
13th
Awesome, superb, intriguing, very nicely done, great characters and astonishing scenes. So far the book... I wish the film would have been more like it but actually the movie is really bad, some scenes are really bad and Tom Hank is so annoying as Robert Langdon. He really puts nothing into his role. He annoyed me from the firt minute..
Rated 26 Feb 2009
grimace98grimace98
Rated 30 Dec 2006
40
30th
Angry anti-religion stuff: awesome. Shots of Audrey Tautou looking so forlorn and distressed that I want to hold her and write her love poems so she won't kill herself: awesome. Weird Tom Hanks hair and sort of insane Jesus plot: not awesome.
Rated 30 Dec 2006
slrsoapboxSlrSoapbox
Rated 12 Jan 2007
35
10th
I'm not sure what's stupider. This film (which wastes Hanks, Bettany and Molina) based on an absolutely terrible book, or the ridiculous controversy around it. I think it's a tie.
Rated 12 Jan 2007
senseisensei
Rated 14 Oct 2007
40
6th
Tom Hanks's hair is Da Vinci's only redeeming quality, but damn if it isn't one big fucking redeeming quality.
Rated 14 Oct 2007
overratedoverrated
Rated 10 Jan 2010
13
6th
I don't really remember much. Something something Jesus something something. To be honest I was enthralled with Tom Hank's coiff for most of the film.
Rated 10 Jan 2010
cmonsterCMonster
Rated 03 Sep 2011
30
12th
After the book this was a disappointment, but not surprising. The book reveals the mystery at a great pace and being that reading takes more time than a film it gave you time to digest it. So it was interspersed with action. The entirety of it goes to fast, but doing it slower may not have been a fix. Some books just don't fit well as films. Also Angels and Demons should have been made first since it actually takes place first.
Rated 03 Sep 2011
ununniliumUnunnilium
Rated 07 Jan 2023
25
14th
A badly paced thriller (and way too long), a badly structured mystery (that the audience can't participate in), and a woefully centrist story about religious oppression (that still feels like college freshman levels of "defeated with facts and logic"), with a subdued Tom Hanks in a role that belongs to an over-the-top Nicholas Cage. Christopher Lee does an amazing job giving the audience something to invest in, and his presence makes the runtime bearable, but it's just not worth your attention.
Rated 07 Jan 2023
pippip
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
5th
fucking dreadful
Rated 14 Aug 2007
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 31 Dec 2012
75
37th
Fast-paced, shallow, silly, easy to follow - the film version is everything the book was, but in a shorter and slightly less stultifying experience. Ron Howard is better at working with this kind of material than Dan Brown was, although nothing he does hides the inherent weaknesses in story and character (especially any time bad guys are on screen). On the plus side, the cast is alright, the plot is entertaining enough - all in all I have seen much worse thrillers, and many of them.
Rated 31 Dec 2012
amadeamade
Rated 27 Jul 2008
20
0th
The most appallingly idiotic plot ever devised.
Rated 27 Jul 2008
unforgivenunforgiven
Rated 14 Aug 2007
10
1st
a masterpiece of bad screenwriting. boring as hell
Rated 14 Aug 2007
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 23 Jun 2010
45
36th
Dull and forgettable. Whilst the book was enjoyable, it functioned more like a puzzle than an actual story. Goldsman (who wrote 'Batman & Robin') fails to adapt the story, and basically just jotted down the greatest hits, making all characters paper thin and plot driven. This film won't offend anyone, but it's hard to see it as anything but redundant.
Rated 23 Jun 2010
doctor7doctor7
Rated 28 Feb 2008
40
24th
Well it's not HORRENDOUS like the average review seems to make it sound but that's not to say it's very good either. The flaws are not in the acting or the minor dialog problems (which are there but not of movie-ruining quality) but rather just how absurd the plot twists and riddles get. By the end I felt like it could've been watching the old Adam West Batman with The Riddler as this week's villan.
Rated 28 Feb 2008
paradiselostParadiselost
Rated 14 Jan 2007
40
9th
SEE how Tom hanks' thoughts are visualised with imaginary neon letters. WATCH the very same letters rearranging themselves to form some stupid anagram. HEAR how he delivers an exciting expostion about the crusader knights. DONT see this movie.
Rated 14 Jan 2007
ihatemoviesIHateMovies
Rated 05 May 2008
30
12th
Putrescent.
Rated 05 May 2008
tripwyreTripwyre
Rated 17 Apr 2008
37
18th
For a film with subject matter so taboo, it's a wonder it comes off so dull. Howard, by not wanting to run the risk of offending anyone, never runs the risk of entertaining them either. McKellen is the only reason the film is worth watching. Sure he does a wee bit of scenery-chewing, but his presence manages to single-handedly pump life into this stagnant adventure. The movie dazzles every time he's on-screen, he somehow makes it fun. Too bad it carries on for another 25mins after his exit...
Rated 17 Apr 2008
masterfxMaster_FX
Rated 12 Sep 2007
30
17th
It's a boring story about Gandalf playing tricks on Forrest Gump.
Rated 12 Sep 2007
qvtQVT
Rated 30 Dec 2008
10
15th
Sat through it. Ugh.
Rated 30 Dec 2008
gyngerbredeGyngerbrede
Rated 12 Aug 2009
10
3rd
Worthless.
Rated 12 Aug 2009
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 18 Dec 2006
2
21st
Tom Hanks is so miscast it hurts (never thought I'd say that). The religious controversy that this stirred up is nothing short of laughable. But my God Audrey is sure nice to look at, as always. The movie is a joke but so was the book, what'd you expect?
Rated 18 Dec 2006
magbMagb
Rated 25 Apr 2011
50
15th
my god
Rated 25 Apr 2011
slantmagSlantMag
Rated 02 Dec 2010
10
9th
"Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a marriage made in mediocrity." - Nick Schager
Rated 02 Dec 2010
mwdM.W.D
Rated 10 May 2014
20
14th
What is going on with Tom Hanks' hair? This is one of the most distracting haircuts I've seen on an actor... Is it a wig? It's almost as bad as those dreadlocks worn by Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Seriously who decided this was a good look?
Rated 10 May 2014
akstanwyckakstanwyck
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
11th
While the book was a page turner, albeit a guilty pleasure, this movie is too ponderous and serious. Mckellen and Bettany are very good--Molina's a cartoon villain. Hanks and Tautou are boring, basically. The book is better! The movie is glossily made, with some cool flashbacks to the past. But lighten up!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
jebJeb
Rated 25 Jul 2008
45
29th
Is better left just a novel...
Rated 25 Jul 2008
greatscott85GreatScott85
Rated 29 Jun 2011
33
9th
While the novel wasn't exactly Shakespeare, it at least managed to be an entertaining, well-paced lark, unlike this plodding, dull slog of a big-budget movie adaptation. What happened, Mr. Howard?
Rated 29 Jun 2011
sexcopterSexcopter
Rated 08 Dec 2006
15
1st
Quite simply, one of the drabbest films I've ever seen. Certainly not amazing, but there's nothing offensively bad here, which eliminates the "so bad it's good" factor. A miscast Tom Hanks, who rarely fails to deliver a quality performance, becomes a black hole of charisma, and none of the on-screen relationships that are set up actually generate any kind of electricity.
Rated 08 Dec 2006
erbasalviaerbasalvia
Rated 05 Dec 2007
10
7th
atroce
Rated 05 Dec 2007
gheulgheul
Rated 10 Jul 2007
50
22nd
Boring and stupid.
Rated 10 Jul 2007
davisty69davisty69
Rated 16 Jan 2011
75
19th
Doesn't touch the book
Rated 16 Jan 2011
eveeluneveelun
Rated 14 Aug 2007
64
28th
Pretty silly overall, but not nearly as bad as the universal critical rejection would lead you to believe. The biggest problems are the arbitrary developments in the story and the formulaic twists, which become unnecessary and cumbersome during the last forty five minutes or so. Ian McKellan is spectacular, as always.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
enderender
Rated 12 Oct 2008
55
40th
Not nearly as good as the book, and the book wasn't that amazing...
Rated 12 Oct 2008
cpryorcpryor
Rated 30 May 2011
50
16th
Boringggggggg
Rated 30 May 2011
laetitiaLaetitia
Rated 28 Oct 2010
56
9th
Boring and stupid.
Rated 28 Oct 2010
justinpdJustinPD
Rated 12 May 2008
30
3rd
Dull. Boring. Nothing much happens. The real mystery here is why the hell is this two hours ?
Rated 12 May 2008
npngNPNG
Rated 28 Feb 2008
63
45th
Not bad
Rated 28 Feb 2008
marc01marc01
Rated 12 Feb 2009
5
3rd
PHAIL!!!!
Rated 12 Feb 2009
johnshaftjohnshaft
Rated 02 Jul 2009
48
11th
Ho-hum and roundly uninspired. A generally dull effort.
Rated 02 Jul 2009
tsvetetsvete
Rated 12 Jan 2011
81
18th
1
Rated 12 Jan 2011
mystericemysterice
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
73rd
I appreciated it overall, Silas could have been better. But the set designer deserves all the credit, the subtle overtones were amazing.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
delirium9Delirium9
Rated 14 Sep 2008
25
4th
A bit entertaining... but it takes itself waaaaaaaay too seriously. I didn't like Tom Hanks in it, but Sir Ian McKellen is always a pleasure to watch.
Rated 14 Sep 2008
fuckeroofuckeroo
Rated 22 Jun 2010
35
12th
Left too much out of the book. And i don't blame them. there was really so much to cover. but it in the end it just seemed like a major fail.
Rated 22 Jun 2010
dasmaymaydasMaymay
Rated 18 Aug 2020
37
13th
The majority of this is not as (unintentionally) hilarious as its first 2 minutes, which is a shame as it would have been a decent so-bad-it's-good flick. If you ignored the mountains of cheesy dialogue and exposition in the style of the old Batman show, the overused special effects, the lack of characterization and humanity, the confusing action scenes and some egregiously dumb plot twists, you could pretend this was a decent mystery thriller. Somehow falls apart even more in the last 20 min.
Rated 18 Aug 2020
dikrisdikris
Rated 12 Feb 2015
85
74th
awsome
Rated 12 Feb 2015
movieguy1920movieguy1920
Rated 14 Aug 2007
78
22nd
I had not - and still have not - read this book, so I'm sure there were a lot of ignored juicy bits of set up and tension. But one MUST remember: A book is a great BASIS for a movie story - which is an entirely different style of storytelling. That being said, I enjoyed this movie.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
citizenxCitizenX
Rated 06 Jan 2009
30
17th
damn i cant even say i should have read the book because the actors were the only good thing in this one
Rated 06 Jan 2009
0real020REAL02
Rated 18 Nov 2023
60
0th
Pudo ser mejor.
Rated 18 Nov 2023
peyrinpeyrin
Rated 07 Jul 2020
40
15th
I remember enjoying this book when I was like 12 years old and into the whole ancient riddle gimmick. Dunno if I just grew up or this movie just sucks. Maybe both.
Rated 07 Jul 2020
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 15 Dec 2011
80
89th
The Da Vinci Code is a wonderful escapist film, one where I lost myself in the story and forgot to care whether or not it could be true. Obviously, at least in my eyes, it cannot be, but while the film plays, I forgot that. It's a mystery film that has the ability to draw you in and take you through an enjoyable journey full of revelations and twists -- at least, whenever it isn't explaining itself to you. I had a lot of fun with it and would recommend it to anyone willing to pay attention.
Rated 15 Dec 2011
eduardozeroEduardo_Zero
Rated 21 Feb 2022
12
1st
Fraquíssimo. Não é bom em nada. Não constrói clima, não entrega algo crível pois tudo parece muito caricato. Fala de um tema sensível mas não escolhe um lado e por tanto não sabe o que fazer.
Rated 21 Feb 2022
fuxoftfuxoft
Rated 14 Aug 2007
35
9th
Probably the worst Ron Howard movie ever (including Grinch).
Rated 14 Aug 2007
jonnyboyjonny_boy
Rated 09 Jan 2008
20
8th
Boring "documentary" based on the way too overrated book.
Rated 09 Jan 2008
ofallpiecesofallpieces
Rated 02 Jun 2008
76
46th
Nicely done, a hard film to adapt from a book - considering all of the different twists, turns, facts and blips that you must consider. The only problem I had during the movie was Tom Hanks' receding hairline, which started off annoying me and then quickly became an obsession. It took me watching the film two or three times before I could ignore the shock of such a high hairline.
Rated 02 Jun 2008
13ncucuma13ncuCuma
Rated 02 Jul 2009
30
4th
Good novel, bad movie.
Rated 02 Jul 2009
branqonbranqon
Rated 26 Apr 2009
60
21st
people got too serious about this book/movie. it's a good watch but come on. it's overrated.
Rated 26 Apr 2009
3names3Names
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
30th
One of the few books I've read recently, and this looked almost exactly as I pictured it in my mind... The only thing that didn't work for me was the relationship between Hanks and Tautou. They were probably both mis-cast, but 'wow!'; talk about no chemistry...!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
samanthadextsamanthadext
Rated 21 Oct 2007
90
50th
I think Angels and Demons would have made a better film. What's with Tom Hanks hair anyway?
Rated 21 Oct 2007
parrotparrot_
Rated 05 Oct 2009
60
15th
Bad book, even worse movie.
Rated 05 Oct 2009
waltermittyWalterMitty
Rated 31 Aug 2021
70
23rd
2 hours and a half of something that should have remained just on the papers. Boring, absurd and without any kind of rhythm. I save just the performances of the actors
Rated 31 Aug 2021
gwulingwulin
Rated 29 Aug 2012
40
3rd
"Symbols are a language..", Come on..
Rated 29 Aug 2012
fudgiebfudgieb
Rated 01 Jul 2008
82
48th
This is what happens when a book seemingly written like an exciting film is actually turned into an exciting film.
Rated 01 Jul 2008
sopachuco13sopachuco13
Rated 28 Feb 2016
80
62nd
The Da Vinci Code is a good suspenseful movie. It's something that would be good to watch on a rainy Saturday when you don't have anything to do all day but vege out and watch movies. This adaptation of the best-selling novel has a great cast and good direction. Everybodies favorite, guy from around the block, Tom Hanks does a good job in the starring role. I'm not sure if there character is supposed to be lifeless or if it's just a product of him being a professor. I'd watch it again.
Rated 28 Feb 2016
lifeandalllifeandall
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
9th
For those that read the book, not nearly as good. For those that didn't read the book, you'll be totally lost. In other words, bad movie idea. Go see National Treasure instead, much more code solving and plot twists.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
rrevellrrevell
Rated 06 May 2008
86
53rd
Good one. Loved the art in it. Never read the book which I hear is better. Watchable more than once.
Rated 06 May 2008
apparatusapparatus
Rated 04 Sep 2010
66
52nd
Mankind's greatest lie is hidden in the worlds most famous portrait - The Mona Lisa. Things you thought you knew are put to question in this thrilling and groundbreaking adventure around a conspiring world.
Rated 04 Sep 2010
pampaPampa
Rated 01 Nov 2009
70
42nd
Buena entretenida
Rated 01 Nov 2009
alex_wsAlex WS
Rated 19 Jan 2013
31
10th
Formulaic drivel.
Rated 19 Jan 2013
vince_leoVince Leo
Rated 14 Aug 2007
63
44th
Quite a bland way to explore such elevated and controversial revelations that were featured quite prominently, and with vastly more intelligence and respect, in book form
Rated 14 Aug 2007
cornicaCornica
Rated 02 Jul 2009
16
7th
Better than the book because of Tatou eye candy, but still pretty abysmal.
Rated 02 Jul 2009
pigletPiglet
Rated 08 Jun 2009
54
17th
I felt robbed coming out of the theatre, still do. But, I know I'm still gonna watch the sequel.....Tom Hanks, you know, what can I say.
Rated 08 Jun 2009
enigmazweb24enigmazweb24
Rated 23 Oct 2019
98
95th
I'd probably need to rewatch this movie as a 28 year old man in order to give it truly accurate rating, but when I saw this at age 16 or so, it blew my mind. The mystery and stakes are intriguing, and it's a good way to keep yourself entertained for a few hours
Rated 23 Oct 2019
mrbeckmrbeck
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
58th
Hm... I loved the book, but not as much as Angels and Demons. I'd recommend picking those up for sure. As for the movie itself... it was 'alright'. I'm going to ignore all of the 'religious significance, WoOoooOooOOo' that everyone keeps rambling about, because I don't care. As a movie, it's worth seeing for sure but don't expect to be rox0rred out of your seat.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
silmarwenSilmarwen
Rated 29 Jun 2008
96
80th
really wonderful!
Rated 29 Jun 2008
rttntomatoesrttntomatoes
Rated 03 Jan 2014
25
8th
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.
Rated 03 Jan 2014
gurrugurru
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
7th
Not bad if it was a TV feature but it is not worth seeing on a big screen. You can hardly understand if you didn't read the book and very boring if you did.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
coljaducoljadu
Rated 30 Jan 2010
83
85th
its was a good thiriller
Rated 30 Jan 2010
metalhorsemetalhorse
Rated 14 Jan 2009
20
15th
A dead in the water and horribly rushed-feeling adaptation of a really good pulp conspiracy fiction novel, not to mention a complete waste of talented individuals like Hanks, Tatou, and Bettany. Basically all of these points are for the great Sir Ian McKellen who does his best to hold this shit together.
Rated 14 Jan 2009
diniefofiniediniefofinie
Rated 21 Jan 2009
80
21st
could have been a lot better, SUPER confusing if you don't know the back-story, pretty interesting though
Rated 21 Jan 2009
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 05 Oct 2007
0
0th
Are you fucking kiddin' me ?!
Rated 05 Oct 2007
tangvampireTangVampire
Rated 01 Jun 2008
80
12th
Eh. The book is waaaay better.
Rated 01 Jun 2008
rdwn29905rdwn29905
Rated 14 Aug 2007
48
32nd
interesting concept but a not so great movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
emtiltemtilt
Rated 24 Jul 2007
36
9th
I'm not sure what made this movie so bad. Maybe it was the awful book that it was based on. Maybe it was the terrible miscasting of actors. Maybe it was the horrendous screenplay. Whatever it was, this movie is not worth your time.
Rated 24 Jul 2007
neonmanNeonman
Rated 14 Sep 2010
39
2nd
Unbelievably boring tripe. The set locations are amazing though, they just never seem that way in the movie though.
Rated 14 Sep 2010
albitchalbitch
Rated 04 Dec 2006
73
21st
Novel was better
Rated 04 Dec 2006
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 12 Dec 2006
72
32nd
It's fun enough for a turn your brain off summer blockbuster. No matter how contrived the conspiracy theory may be, it's still fun to watch and keeps you guessing if you don't take it seriously.
Rated 12 Dec 2006
recklessmessrecklessmess
Rated 11 Feb 2008
70
48th
It is a shame that the movie isn't completely faithful to the book, though the book isn't completely faithful to the legend.
Rated 11 Feb 2008
nice1984Nice1984
Rated 16 Apr 2010
70
40th
Didn't read the book but definately liked the movie. Good acters and good story.
Rated 16 Apr 2010
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 06 Jun 2016
60
40th
The Da Vinci Code isn't a horrible movie by any means, and in fact it has a great cast and a solid director. Yet it feels off. Maybe it's the jumbled story, which can be hard to follow, or just the fact that the dialogue gets bland. But as much as it detracts from the film, it's still pretty good, on the shoulders of Howard, Hanks, and McKellen.
Rated 06 Jun 2016
snarkysnarky
Rated 30 Mar 2008
60
14th
Meh. That is the only word to describe the film. Not good, not bad, simply indifferent.
Rated 30 Mar 2008
jwlietajwlieta
Rated 28 Nov 2008
80
28th
MUCHO MEJOR EL LIBRO...LO SIENTO
Rated 28 Nov 2008
hawktherockHawktheRock
Rated 06 Aug 2009
0
2nd
I will not even go into detail about how in-accurate and hoorribel this movie was. As me being a Catholic, this movie was horrid and I will never watch such a thing as long as I breath.
Rated 06 Aug 2009
needstimulusneedstimulus
Rated 01 Feb 2013
6
0th
Nice idea, falls flat and the casting of Tom Hanks will always, always confuse me. Ian McKellen is pretty fantastic in it though.
Rated 01 Feb 2013
nick_hamdenNick Hamden
Rated 06 Jun 2013
40
19th
I think this was a bit more ridiculous than national treasure. That is hard to pull off.
Rated 06 Jun 2013
cestmoicestmoi
Rated 18 May 2008
50
26th
Literary equivalent of a Ho-Ho. It looks great, it's fun to plow through, and then you feel guilty for having enjoyed it. The movie skipped right to step 3.
Rated 18 May 2008
pksenthilpksenthil
Rated 19 Jul 2009
50
29th
Poorly made movie. Did no justice to the book
Rated 19 Jul 2009

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...