Watch
The Da Vinci Code

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)
Your probable score
?

The Da Vinci Code

2006
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
2h 29m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 32.16% from 13222 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(13222)
Compact view
Compact view
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 10 Feb 2007
45
16th
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 14 Aug 2007
90
91st
The Haters(critics) should go sleep with their bibles. Good film.
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 03 Oct 2009
15
4th
Pretty fucking bad
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 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 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 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 12 Aug 2009
10
3rd
Worthless.
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 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 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 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 12 May 2008
30
3rd
Dull. Boring. Nothing much happens. The real mystery here is why the hell is this two hours ?
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 10 Jul 2007
50
22nd
Boring and stupid.
Rated 27 Jul 2008
20
0th
The most appallingly idiotic plot ever devised.
Rated 25 Jul 2008
45
29th
Is better left just a novel...
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 30 May 2011
50
16th
Boringggggggg
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 14 Aug 2007
40
5th
fucking dreadful
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
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 05 May 2008
30
12th
Putrescent.
Rated 25 Apr 2011
50
15th
my god
Rated 30 Dec 2008
10
15th
Sat through it. Ugh.
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 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 14 Aug 2007
10
1st
a masterpiece of bad screenwriting. boring as hell
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 12 Sep 2007
30
17th
It's a boring story about Gandalf playing tricks on Forrest Gump.
Rated 16 Jan 2011
75
19th
Doesn't touch the book
Rated 28 Oct 2010
56
9th
Boring and stupid.
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 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 05 Dec 2007
10
7th
atroce
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 12 Oct 2008
55
40th
Not nearly as good as the book, and the book wasn't that amazing...
Rated 04 Dec 2006
73
21st
Novel was better
Rated 21 Sep 2011
60
5th
the book is much better than movie, but still very entertaining film, most casts done well
Rated 10 Nov 2013
80
35th
I really enjoy Dan Brown's books but this movie just... It didn't work out the way it should, but if I hadn't read the book yet, I'd totally love it, so 80 it's a good score for me.
Rated 02 Jun 2008
24
12th
This movie scores so low because it takes an intriguing book and makes it Hollywood. Dozens of pages of details are compressed into mere seconds.
Rated 05 Jan 2007
65
39th
The visuals and soundtrack worth 50 points.
Rated 07 Sep 2009
45
13th
The movie had all potential to be a great movie, but instead it just fell flat.
Rated 30 Jul 2008
58
26th
Great book; not-so-great movie.
Rated 21 Sep 2008
80
46th
Cool mystery thriller, liked Tom Hanks in his role!
Rated 03 Jun 2008
45
11th
really boring and stupid
Rated 18 Mar 2007
57
25th
This movie is not terrible but it's certainly nowhere near as good as it should have been. Great actors and an experienced director should have made for an instant win, especially given the subject content. Oh well!
Rated 19 Mar 2007
38
9th
It's much duller than its ideas, source material, filmmakers (Ron Howard/Brian Grazer) and leading man (Tom Hanks) would have you predict. A big successful blockbuster failure. Odd.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
59
24th
I tried watching this on like three different occasions and tuned out at different times each time. Its boring and long and doesn't live up to being anything controversial, other than Tom Hanks hair.
Rated 28 Jul 2008
70
42nd
I didn't read the book, but went with a friend that has read it. She brutalized the flick, I was entertained in bits and pieces so that's enough for a mild recommend, I think it's a film that people should see, if for nothing else than to make their own conclusions about it.
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 05 Jun 2007
50
33rd
What's the big deal?
Rated 08 Jun 2007
45
26th
Howard is a skilled craftsman, still flashing a storytelling clarity and attention to key details common to those who emerged from the Corman School. In the service of eye-rolling junk like this, it's purely wasted effort. The only one involved in the film who seems to know it's hogwash is McKellen, who brings a drolly cantankerous quality to his scenes. Everyone else just strides along, solemnly bearing the duty of creating blockbuster entertainment sadly devoid of actual entertainment value.
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 22 Oct 2009
80
26th
a lot of information and all together
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
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 27 May 2012
50
5th
It's better if you read the book
Rated 24 May 2016
86
72nd
liked it
Rated 06 Jun 2024
36
0th
Review:Meh, the book was decent, but this could have been a LOT better. Best Time to Watch:Unless you like really complex thrillers, this isn't for me. Even so, I only watch it every blue moon,if ever.
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 14 Aug 2007
40
14th
it was entertaining, however silly. I don't see why the church is so uppity about this, it's like a bad indianna jones movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
14th
tom hanks was a terrible choice; i hate dan brown and his ridiculous plots
Rated 12 Nov 2017
73
4th
Though I always love Tom Hanks, this movie underwhelmed the possibility they had in production. Whether comparing to national treasure or not, or comparing the questionable genius of Cage to the clear strengths of Hanks' acting, these are worthy to be judged together in the same room.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
14th
Some really interesting ideas that sort of get lost in this insipid treasure hunt thing. Unable to suspend my disbelief with the cute little poems.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
60th
Engaging and surprising, this picture met all my criteria for great entertainment: An interesting story, told through great actors, and unpredictable movement to a terrific conclusion. Thumbs up!
Rated 02 Jul 2009
30
4th
Good novel, bad movie.
Rated 16 Dec 2008
85
43rd
A very good film and just about true to the book. I can't wait for Angels & Demons.
Rated 12 Feb 2015
85
74th
awsome
Rated 27 Feb 2008
69
9th
Should've been so much better!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
53
26th
I enjoyed watching it, I guess. I thought the story was silly, and not just because it has bizarro-world implications for Catholicism. The acting was wooden and irritating, especially Jean Reno whose character is about as necessary as the repeated scenes of self-flagellation. The wild goose chase was entertaining until it became unclear who was going where and why and with whom. Probably confusing because there's only so much you can do with a 2 hour movie, but they spent nearly 1/8 of that tim
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
50th
The book was much more absorbing.
Rated 22 Feb 2008
75
25th
Not one of Hanks' better movies, but interesting. McCellin(?) has a great part.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
11th
Like a cinematic accompaniment to the book rather than a film of its own. Empty, slow and what the hell were they thinking with Tom Hank's hair?!?
Rated 14 Aug 2007
33
10th
It wasn't clever, the characters changed alignment every 10 minutes, Hanks' acting was lazy as hell (and he sounded like he had a cold during some scenes), and Molina was thrown away. Paul Bettany was about the only bright spot. This could've been an amazing, insightful movie, and they even scratch the surface when McKellen's character talks about the hints given by art, but... sigh.
Rated 21 Aug 2012
45
9th
Just can't bring myself to care.
Rated 03 Jan 2020
90
63rd
Great mystery movie. Keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time.
Rated 05 Jul 2008
40
11th
Yawn. Sheesh, what a cash cow.
Rated 10 May 2010
66
35th
66
Rated 17 Mar 2008
80
16th
A good rendition of the book - though I don't like the perpetual darkness of the film...
Rated 14 Aug 2007
63
27th
Not completely unworthwhile, but certainly not entertaining. Why all the hype for this? Overrated.
Rated 15 Aug 2007
41
20th
I was simply bored. I didn't enjoy the book and my mom forced me to see the movie. I only watched it out of my love for her. I love her a lot, you see.
Rated 18 Mar 2011
72
58th
an okay movie
Rated 20 May 2009
53
24th
Predictable!
Rated 04 Jul 2008
87
91st
great history use
Rated 04 Aug 2010
3
26th
I watched 'Angels & Demons' first. Gave this a shot but I didn't miss much.
Rated 21 Sep 2007
89
71st
i liked this one, the really famous story was filmed really nice.
Rated 27 Oct 2008
60
51st
Was sort of dramatic, suspenseful, thrilling and mysterious. Just enjoyed seeing the Lourve again mainly.
Rated 20 Sep 2008
57
63rd
The suspense was good.
Rated 17 Oct 2007
2
1st
Soporific. Possibly worse than the book. I give it a "2" because the opening sequence was cool, I think.
Rated 17 Oct 2007
5
2nd
Crap crappity crap.
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 18 Oct 2008
51
53rd
okay
Rated 25 Feb 2009
41
50th
Interesting book.
Rated 27 Mar 2008
5
1st
More poorly written than the book.
Rated 02 Jan 2008
55
25th
Something of a missed opportunity and the outcome is not worthy of the cast. Not as good as the book, slower paced and somehow lost the imagery and sense of pace.
Rated 04 Jan 2008
40
17th
How can a book that was basically a screenplay anyway make such a dull movie? I liked the casting (aside from Tom Hanks), Audrey Tautou and especially Jean Reno were perfect picks. This could have been a fun action/adventure movie but it just ended up boring.

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...