Jump to content

Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

*** Official THE DA VINCI CODE Review Thread

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

#1 of 12 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,166 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 18 2006 - 07:59 PM

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "The Da Vinci Code". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.




Blu-ray Preorder Schedule


#2 of 12 Steve_Tk



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted May 19 2006 - 07:36 AM

Just did not translate into an entertaining movie for me. I was kinda bored. I had that expectation going in. After reading the book a year ago I didn't feel as if it would make for a fun movie. Movies are supposed to be fun, not feel like books on tape. I still enjoy the novel though.

#3 of 12 Sam Favate

Sam Favate


  • 4,751 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted May 20 2006 - 12:48 AM

I saw this last night. As someone who read the book and liked it, I very much enjoyed the film. My wife is someone who did not read the book, and she enjoyed it even more than I did. It is a smart, engaging thriller, and it deserves more credit than it is getting. I hope good word of mouth helps it because the movie deserves to be seen - it is a thoroughly enjoyable film, albeit not a rollercoaster ride than many have come to expect from summer films.

#4 of 12 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,628 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted May 20 2006 - 01:12 PM

I kind of liked the first 90 mintues of the film, but overall the main characters ("good" and "bad") weren't developed as well as they could be, and they seemed to exist just to move the plot along. And then we get to the final hour of the film where it just slows down and takes on a leisurely pace with the revelations and by then my interest had waned and the film just stumbles to the finish line.

I give it a C+ or 2.5 stars.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#5 of 12 Dave Hackman

Dave Hackman

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 173 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2000

Posted May 21 2006 - 12:50 PM

I enjoyed watching Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sofia Neveu (Audrey Tautou) attempt to un-riddle the codes left for them by the man who raised Sofia after her parents died and curator of the Louvre Museum, Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle).

This story begins in France at a seminar with Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon on stage talking about you guessed it symbols. Afterwards as Robert is signing autographs for his fans French Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) visits with him. Captain Fache shows Langdon a picture of Jacques Sauniere in a unique position dead on the floor of the Louvre. Robert knew Jacques and was supposed to meet with him. The Detective then asks Langdon to accompany him to the crime scene to assist in the deciphering of the symbols left behind. Once there, Langdon gives Captain Fache what information he can while a young female officer (Sofia Neveu) shows up to assist in the case. Sofia hands Robert her cell phone so he can retrieve a message left for him. Robert listens to the message and thus begins his fugitive-light quest towards uncovering the greatest lie ever told.

Ron Howard shot this movie wonderfully. There were tons of interesting panning views of the museums, churches and estates. This combined with ghostly overlays of the past in conjunction with the present really gave this movie a classy touch. This didn’t look like some low budget shaky digital mess and if anything, this movie had a nice grown up feel to it. There was a utilization of subtitles during non-English moments.

Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany and Jean Reno all performed their roles well.


#6 of 12 Simon Massey

Simon Massey


  • 2,026 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted May 21 2006 - 01:13 PM

I read the book a year ago and thought it was enjoyable enough but ultimately wouldn't want to bother with it again. This pretty much sums up my feelings about the film - watchable and pretty entertaining whilst its on, but I have no desire to revisit this. It seems to be pretty much a carbon copy of the book. McKellen was by far the best thing in the film to the extent that the film tended to drag more whenever he was offscreen. Quite liked the score as well. Disappointed with Tatou who I loved in Amelie but neither her nor Hanks have much to do other than move the plot along.

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image out of Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#7 of 12 MickeS



  • 5,065 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2000

Posted May 21 2006 - 04:20 PM

I found it rather bland. I was entertained enough that it never got boring, but just like most other Ron Howard movies, this one lacked dynamics and "oomph"... the screenplay didn't help either, it went from point A to point B to point C without much originality.

I have not read the book, and most of the story just seemed kind of goofy and without much purpose. On page, this might have been interesting, but cinematically, conversations aren't hugely impressive. And the illustrations to them were bordering on parody - I was almost waiting for "the wavy lines" to come and indicate when the girl was remembering things. This movie really needed a talented screenwriter who could have worked out a better way to put this story on film.

The acting was very good, and McKellen put in the best performance in the movie. The cinematography was rather dull, not much interesting in the way of color or lighting, everything was pretty straightforward, and it's all been done before. Same with editing and music, it was all text book stuff that would have been at home in a TV movie, save for a few nice panning shots perhaps.

Overall, it was adequate. Even a movie like "Mission: Impossible 3" gave me more to think about after it was over than what this one did. I'd give "The Da Vinci Code" Posted ImagePosted Image out of Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#8 of 12 Joe Reinwald

Joe Reinwald

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 65 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2002

Posted May 24 2006 - 03:37 PM

I went to see this last weekend with my wife. She enjoyed it very much, but has not really kept up with a lot of the "is this true history or not" type of stuff on the magazine covers or on TLC (or pick your channel).

I read the book last year, in fact quicker than I read most books. I thought the actors did a good job with what they had. I also imagine that McKellan had a great time in his role.

Keep in mind this is an immensely popular book. However, as someone genuinely interested in grail lore, I was bored sitting in the theater. Maybe it's simply because I knew too much going in. Maybe it's because I read the book. Maybe it was a combination of the two.

#9 of 12 David Williams

David Williams


  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted May 25 2006 - 03:46 PM

I just got back from seeing the movie. Having read the book I felt the movie was serviceable but ultimately boring. I think Patrick really nailed some of the problems, particularly the undeveloped characters. I was able to sit through it and be reasonably entertained (thank God for Sir Ian!) but my brother, who just read the book and was super eager to see the movie, fell asleep at some point.

I'd give it a 'C'.
"Only two things are infinite––the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe." ––Albert Einstein

#10 of 12 Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman


  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted May 25 2006 - 06:39 PM

Unimaginative directing (I've always felt Ron Howard was doing more made for TV type movies, but getting to show them on the big screen-- I'm sure he's a great guy, however please put more "oomph" and "weight" into your style, and I don't mean the Michael Bay type), uninspired writing (it is Akiva Goldsman after all!), "bleh" acting (Hanks sounds like he was nursing the flu during most of the whole shoot and looked tired too; basically, phoning it in), and the "history" (whether truth or not-- who cares, it's a work of fiction!!!) was thrown out in simple terms and rushed so that the central theme of Leonardo and his works were hastily summed up in about five minutes of screen time (the book and the film were called the "Da Vinci Code" for some reason). You could actually question the motives of Leonardo and his paintings and say, "hmmm... they might have something here, tell me more," but it was dumbed down. For godsake don't let the audience think during a summer movie!! Heaven forbid!

Hell, I was more interested in the quick historical subplot of the Ark in Raiders!!

As many have said the film faithfully followed the book... and that was its downfall. The book was an average thriller at best. If a competent writer were brought on board and a director who could see a great suspense thriller with historical elements hidden beneath the fluff, then it could have been a great film and far surpassed the book.

Oh well... next!


#11 of 12 Albert_M


    Supporting Actor

  • 532 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted May 26 2006 - 01:45 AM

There was simply too much exposition in the book to translate well into a screenplay and normal (albeit longish) running time. In the end we got some ok shortcuts to move it along and unfortunately a lack of depth of character.

This might have worked better as an HBO project (two part movie)

We could have had the depth, without sacrificing too much budget etc.

#12 of 12 Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins


  • 3,887 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002

Posted June 01 2006 - 04:19 PM



I never believed others when they said that a Ron Howard movie with Tom Hanks was dull. But, for the first 1/2 of the movie at least, they were right.

I think Howard did about as well with the material as could be expected. But it just doesn't translate well to screen. And there were some bad editing choices made too.

A decent flick with a good second hour (and the climax here is better than in the book) but not recommended to anyone who hasn't read the book. Book fans only.