the davinci code movie review

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, veni, vidi, da vinci.

Now streaming on:

They say The Da Vinci Code has sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown 's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard 's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.

Let us begin, then, by agreeing that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret -- that the movie follows the book religiously. While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown's formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones.

Hanks stars as Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist in Paris for a lecture when Inspector Fache ( Jean Reno ) informs him of the murder of museum curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle). This poor man has been shot and will die late at night inside the Louvre; his wounds, although mortal, fortunately leave him time enough to conceal a safe deposit key, strip himself, cover his body with symbols written in his own blood, arrange his body in a pose and within a design by Da Vinci, and write out, also in blood, an encrypted message, a scrambled numerical sequence and a footnote to Sophie Neveu ( Audrey Tautou ), the pretty French policewoman whom he raised after the death of her parents. Most people are content with a dying word or two; Jacques leaves us with a film treatment.

Having read the novel, we know what happens then. Sophie warns Robert he is in danger from Fache, and they elude capture in the Louvre and set off on a quest that leads them to the vault of a private bank, to the French villa of Sir Leigh Teabing ( Ian McKellen ), to the Temple Church in London, to an isolated Templar church in the British countryside, to a hidden crypt and then back to the Louvre again. The police, both French and British, are one step behind them all of this time, but Sophie and Robert are facile, inventive and daring. Also, perhaps, they have God on their side.

This series of chases, discoveries and escapes is intercut with another story, involving an albino named Silas ( Paul Bettany ), who works under the command of the Teacher, a mysterious figure at the center of a conspiracy to conceal the location of the Holy Grail, what it really is, and what that implies. The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as "maso-chastity," not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.

Opus Dei works within but not with the church, which also harbors a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (the pope and most other Catholics apparently don't have backstage passes).

These men keep a secret that, if known, could destroy the church. That's why they keep it. If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago.

But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that's why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in "The Da Vinci Code" really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for "repairs." A likely story.

Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno do a good job of not overplaying their roles, and Sir Ian McKellen overplays his in just the right way, making Sir Leigh into a fanatic whose study just happens to contain all the materials for an audio-visual presentation that briefs his visitors on the secrets of Da Vinci's " The Last Supper " and other matters. Apparently he keeps in close touch with other initiates. On the one hand, we have a conspiracy that lasts 2,000 years and threatens the very foundations of Christianity, and on the other hand a network of rich dilettantes who resemble a theological branch of the Baker Street Irregulars.

Yes, the plot is absurd, but then most movie plots are absurd. That's what we pay to see. What Ron Howard brings to the material is tone and style, and an aura of mystery that is undeniable. He begins right at the top; Columbia Pictures logo falls into shadow as Hans Zimmer's music sounds simultaneously liturgical and ominous. The murder scene in the Louvre is creepy in a ritualistic way, and it's clever the way Langdon is able to look at letters, numbers and symbols and mentally rearrange them to yield their secrets. He's like the Flora Cross character in " Bee Season ," who used kabbalistic magic to visualize spelling words floating before her in the air.

The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations. After it's over and we're back on the street, we wonder why this crucial secret needed to be protected by the equivalent of a brain-twister puzzle crossed with a scavenger hunt. The trail that Robert and Sophie follow is so difficult and convoluted that it seems impossible that anyone, including them, could ever follow it. The secret needs to be protected up to a point; beyond that it is absolutely lost, and the whole point of protecting it is beside the point. Here's another question: Considering where the trail begins, isn't it sort of curious where it leads? Still, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "In my beginning is my end." Maybe he was on to something.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Carol Doda Topless at the Condor

Marya e. gates.

The Long Game

Brian Tallerico

Asphalt City

Glenn kenny.

Space: The Longest Goodbye

Accidental Texan

Film credits.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Rated PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content

149 minutes

Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon

Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu

Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing

Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa

Jurgen Prochnow as Andre Vernet

Paul Bettany as Silas

Jean Reno as Bezu Fache

Jean Pierre Marielle as Jacques Sauniere

Etienne Chicot as Lt. Collet

Directed by

Akiva Goldsman

Based on the novel by

Latest blog posts.

Until It’s Too Late: Bertrand Bonello on The Beast

O.J. Simpson Dies: The Rise & Fall of A Superstar

Which Cannes Film Will Win the Palme d’Or? Let’s Rank Their Chances

Second Sight Drops 4K Releases for Excellent Films by Brandon Cronenberg, Jeremy Saulnier, and Alexandre Aja

Share full article

Supported by

Movie Review

A 'Da Vinci Code' That Takes Longer to Watch Than Read

By A.O. Scott

May 18, 2006

CANNES, France, May 17 — It seems you can't open a movie these days without provoking some kind of culture war skirmish, at least in the conflict-hungry media. Recent history — "The Passion of the Christ," "The Chronicles of Narnia" — suggests that such controversy, especially if religion is involved, can be very good business. "The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence, arrives trailing more than its share of theological and historical disputation.

The arguments about the movie and the book that inspired it have not been going on for millennia — it only feels that way — but part of Columbia Pictures' ingenious marketing strategy has been to encourage months of debate and speculation while not allowing anyone to see the picture until the very last minute. Thus we have had a flood of think pieces on everything from Jesus and Mary Magdalene's prenuptial agreement to the secret recipes of Opus Dei, and vexed, urgent questions have been raised: Is Christianity a conspiracy? Is "The Da Vinci Code" a dangerous, anti-Christian hoax? What's up with Tom Hanks's hair?

Luckily I lack the learning to address the first two questions. As for the third, well, it's long, and so is the movie. "The Da Vinci Code," which opened the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday, is one of the few screen versions of a book that may take longer to watch than to read. (Curiously enough Mr. Howard accomplished a similar feat with "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" a few years back.)

To their credit the director and his screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman (who collaborated with Mr. Howard on "Cinderella Man" and "A Beautiful Mind"), have streamlined Mr. Brown's story and refrained from trying to capture his, um, prose style. "Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair." Such language — note the exquisite "almost" and the fastidious tucking of the "which" after the preposition — can live only on the page.

To be fair, though, Mr. Goldsman conjures up some pretty ripe dialogue all on his own. "Your God does not forgive murderers," Audrey Tautou hisses to Paul Bettany (who play a less than enormous, short-haired albino). "He burns them!"

Theology aside, this remark can serve as a reminder that "The Da Vinci Code" is above all a murder mystery. And as such, once it gets going, Mr. Howard's movie has its pleasures. He and Mr. Goldsman have deftly rearranged some elements of the plot (I'm going to be careful here not to spoil anything), unkinking a few over-elaborate twists and introducing others that keep the action moving along.

Hans Zimmer's appropriately overwrought score, pop-romantic with some liturgical decoration, glides us through scenes that might otherwise be talky and inert. The movie does, however, take a while to accelerate, popping the clutch and leaving rubber on the road as it tries to establish who is who, what they're doing and why.

Briefly stated: An old man (Jean-Pierre Marielle) is killed after hours in the Louvre, shot in the stomach, almost inconceivably, by a hooded assailant. Meanwhile Robert Langdon (Mr. Hanks), a professor of religious symbology at Harvard, is delivering a lecture and signing books for fans. He is summoned to the crime scene by Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), a French policemen who seems very grouchy, perhaps because his department has cut back on its shaving cream budget.

Soon Langdon is joined by Sophie Neveu, a police cryptographer and also — Bezu Fache! — the murder victim's granddaughter. Grandpa, it seems, knew some very important secrets, which if they were ever revealed might shake the foundations of Western Christianity, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, one of whose bishops, the portly Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) is at this very moment flying on an airplane. Meanwhile the albino monk, whose name is Silas and who may be the first character in the history of motion pictures to speak Latin into a cellphone, flagellates himself, smashes the floor of a church and kills a nun.

A chase, as Bezu's American colleagues might put it, ensues. It skids through the nighttime streets of Paris and eventually to London the next morning, with side trips to a Roman castle and a chateau in the French countryside. Along the way the film pauses to admire various knickknacks and art works, and to flash back, in desaturated color, to traumatic events in the childhoods of various characters (Langdon falls down a well; Sophie's parents are killed in a car accident; Silas stabs his abusive father).

There are also glances further back into history, to Constantine's conversion, to the suppression of the Knights Templar and to that time in London when people walked around wearing powdered wigs.

Through it all Mr. Hanks and Ms. Tautou stand around looking puzzled, leaving their reservoirs of charm scrupulously untapped. Mr. Hanks twists his mouth in what appears to be an expression of professorial skepticism and otherwise coasts on his easy, subdued geniality. Ms. Tautou, determined to ensure that her name will never again come up in an Internet search for the word "gamine," affects a look of worried fatigue.

In spite of some talk (a good deal less than in the book) about the divine feminine, chalices and blades, and the spiritual power of sexual connection, not even a glimmer of eroticism flickers between the two stars. Perhaps it's just as well. When a cryptographer and a symbologist get together, it usually ends in tears.

But thank the deity of your choice for Ian McKellen, who shows up just in time to give "The Da Vinci Code" a jolt of mischievous life. He plays a wealthy and eccentric British scholar named Leigh Teabing. (I will give Mr. Brown this much: he's good at names. If I ever have twins or French poodles, I'm calling them Bezu and Teabing for sure.)

Hobbling around on two canes, growling at his manservant, Remy (Jean-Yves Berteloot), Teabing is twinkly and avuncular one moment, barking mad the next. Sir Ian, rattling on about Italian paintings and medieval statues, seems to be having the time of his life, and his high spirits serve as something of a rebuke to the filmmakers, who should be having and providing a lot more fun.

Teabing, who strolls out of English detective fiction by way of a Tintin comic, is a marvelously absurd creature, and Sir Ian, in the best tradition of British actors slumming and hamming through American movies, gives a performance in which high conviction is indistinguishable from high camp. A little more of this — a more acute sense of its own ridiculousness — would have given "The Da Vinci Code" some of the lightness of an old-fashioned, jet-setting Euro-thriller.

But of course movies of that ilk rarely deal with issues like the divinity of Jesus or the search for the Holy Grail. In the cinema such matters are best left to Monty Python. In any case Mr. Howard and Mr. Goldsman handle the supposedly provocative material in Mr. Brown's book with kid gloves, settling on an utterly safe set of conclusions about faith and its history, presented with the usual dull sententiousness.

So I certainly can't support any calls for boycotting or protesting this busy, trivial, inoffensive film. Which is not to say I'm recommending you go see it.

"The Da Vinci Code" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some violent killings and a few profanities.

The Da Vinci Code

Opens tomorrow worldwide.

Directed by Ron Howard; written by Akiva Goldsman, based on the novel by Dan Brown; director of photography, Salvatore Totino; edited by Dan Hanley and Mike Hill; music by Hans Zimmer; production designer, Allan Cameron; produced by Brian Grazer and John Calley; released by Columbia Pictures. Running time: 148 minutes.

WITH: Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon), Audrey Tautou (Sophie Neveu), Ian McKellen (Sir Leigh Teabing), Jürgen Prochnow (Vernet), Paul Bettany (Silas), Jean Reno (Bezu Fache) and Alfred Molina (Bishop Aringarosa).

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Fandango at Home
Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Civil War Link to Civil War
Monkey Man Link to Monkey Man
The First Omen Link to The First Omen

New TV Tonight

Fallout: Season 1
Chucky: Season 3
Baby Reindeer: Season 1
Mr Bates vs The Post Office: Season 1
Franklin: Season 1
Dora: Season 1
Good Times: Season 1
Beacon 23: Season 2

The Da Vinci Code Reviews

The filmmakers were so concerned about doing justice to the book’s ideas that they forgot there’s an audience to entertain.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/4 | Sep 5, 2023

The Da Vinci Code jumps from remarkable location to remarkable location without generating memorable images or dramatic moments in a single one of them. It all becomes a blur.

Full Review | Feb 14, 2021

It is foremost moviegoing entertainment - and only secondarily a condemnation of religious fanaticism.

Full Review | Original Score: 7/10 | Nov 18, 2020

Unwieldy scripting has the usually nimble Hanks tied down by tonnes of tongue-twisting expository dialogue.

Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/5 | May 8, 2020

Exaggerated and absurd at all levels. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Feb 12, 2020

An entertaining thriller with a solid cast and some genuinely intriguing moments.

Full Review | Original Score: B | Nov 19, 2019

The failures of Howard's performance does not ruin an unstoppable entertainment that does not give rest and that takes the viewer on a journey in perpetual motion. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Aug 31, 2019

They haven't tried to enrich the story, or to give more nuances to the characters, or to increase the adventure and the thriller. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Jun 28, 2019

The book was better.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | Jun 5, 2019

About as suspenseful and involving an affair as sitting through a two-and-a-half hour college lecture on cryptology, with a Sunday sermon thrown in for good measure.

Full Review | Original Score: C+ | Nov 2, 2018

By the end, the film degenerates into wishy-washy relativism of the school that says "the only thing that matters is what you believe", a real cop-out after the hectic Grail quest preceding it.

Full Review | Sep 26, 2017

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Feb 9, 2011

The exposition is actually the best and most valuable part of the film

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Dec 15, 2009

Too meekly middlebrow to really affront

Full Review | Aug 30, 2009

What seems credible on page is ludicrous in action.

Full Review | Original Score: D+ | May 14, 2009

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Aug 7, 2008

So intent on being faithful, The DaVinci Code forgets to be entertaining.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/10 | Feb 28, 2008

Any movie with a skulking albino assassin begs for campy, self-aware treatment, but Howard and scripter Akiva Goldsman serve it all up straight-faced.

Full Review | Original Score: D | Jul 29, 2007

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4 | Jul 14, 2007

Who knows whether Dan Brown was motivated by a distaste for Catholicism or merely by money? Regardless, it seems dishonest for him to foist his debunked heresies on the gullible, unsuspecting public as if they're the God's honest truth.

Full Review | Original Score: 0/4 | May 20, 2007

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Get the app
Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

Explaining the News to Our Kids

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

The da vinci code, common sense media reviewers.

Slow-moving, talky translation of popular novel.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

To protect a secret, characters kill, lie, rob, an

Langdon is resourceful and very intelligent; his d

Shooting murder opens the film; Silas whips and cu

Some famous paintings show women's naked body part

Some swearing, including French with subtitles ("s

Positive Messages

To protect a secret, characters kill, lie, rob, and injure -- while others are determined to uncover the truth. The movie's plot presumes upon long-standing, deep-seated cover ups among very important people.

Positive Role Models

Langdon is resourceful and very intelligent; his determination to uncover the truth never flags. But other characters are far less worth emulating, whether because they lie and betray others or because they purposely harm themselves.

Violence & Scariness

Shooting murder opens the film; Silas whips and cuts himself, showing blood and cringing/grimacing in pain; grainy flashback scenes repeatedly show violence (Crusades/knights, battles/armies, witch hunts/burnings, visualizing various narrations of "history"); personal flashbacks include Silas' abuse as a child, young Robert trapped in a well, and young Sophie crying/afraid in the harrowing car accident that killed her parents. General action includes shootings, fisticuffs, poisoning, kicks/slaps; Silas kills a nun by smashing her head; blood on shirts and faces.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Some famous paintings show women's naked body parts; Silas appears naked as he performs self-flagellation (you see only his backside and close-ups of limbs); discussion of gender roles includes mention of penises (emblem of "male aggression").

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Some swearing, including French with subtitles ("s--t," "bastard") and English ("Jesus," "hell").

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that The Da Vinci Code opens with a brutal murder and includes several other bloody scenes, including a naked man beating himself. The subject matter is too convoluted to interest young kids, so unless you want to shush them, leave them home. A couple of characters use mild profanity, although most of the cursing shows up in French and in subtitles. Spoiler alert : The film's plot, based on Dan Brown's best-selling novel , suggests that the Catholic Church has for centuries repressed the "truth" that Jesus was human, married Mary Magdalene, and fathered a daughter. Some viewers may find the issues raised -- Jesus' divinity and the Church's cover-up -- upsetting. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

Parents say (8)
Kids say (30)

Based on 8 parent reviews

What's the Story?

In THE DA VINCI CODE, world-renowned symbologist Dr. Robert Langdon ( Tom Hanks ) is called by Parisian policeman Capt. Fache ( Jean Reno ) to consult on a murder case, the scholar is briefly flattered, then daunted when he learns he is a suspect, owing to a note left by the victim. Along with the victim's granddaughter, cryptologist Sophie ( Audrey Tautou ), Langdon tries to decipher the message, which begins with the victim's arranging of his own body to approximate Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. "Symbols," says the doctor early on, "are a language that can help us understand our past." The film reveals various characters' pasts, including the murderer's (a self-flagellating albino Opus Dei monk named Silas [ Paul Bettany ]), Sophie's, Langdon's, and significant events in history. Robert and Sophie end up on a kind of scavenger hunt from Paris to London, and are tracked by Fache and aided by Robert's colleague, Sir Teabing ( Ian McKellen ), who claims to be thrilled to be on a "grail quest." The mystery involves a Catholic Church's cover-up -- for thousands of years -- concerning Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Is It Any Good?

Based on Dan Brown's bestseller , this movie is surprisingly unwieldy and conventional, despite and because of the controversy surrounding it. While The Da Vinci Code often looks like it's offering subjective views into Robert Langdon's mind, in effect these images are silly and slow. The special effects are unconvincing as paintings and sculptures move, and the explanatory voice-overs tend to repeat what's obvious.

For all the mystical blurring of edges, the film doesn't make smart connections between periods or characters, and it offers too much explanation and tedious literal flashbacks. The untangling of all the plot strands leads not to an interrogation of various institutions (academe, the cops, the Church), but to a pile-on of much less interesting personal pathologies.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about The Da Vinci Code 's premise and the controversy it has inspired. How does the controversy help to promote the movie?

What's the appeal of conspiracy theories?

If you've read the book , how does the movie compare?

Movie Details

In theaters : May 19, 2006
On DVD or streaming : November 14, 2006
Cast : Audrey Tautou , Ian McKellen , Tom Hanks
Director : Ron Howard
Inclusion Information : Gay actors
Studio : Columbia Tristar
Genre : Thriller
Run time : 147 minutes
MPAA rating : PG-13
MPAA explanation : disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content
Last updated : October 20, 2023

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear

Excellent adventure movies for family fun, thriller movies.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

The Da Vinci Code Review

19 May 2006

148 minutes

The Da Vinci Code

Much of the talk surrounding the success of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code concerned how cinematic it was: linear storytelling, short chapters, constant movement punctuated by sporadic violence, all set against a heady backdrop of Big Religious questions. All the adaptation needed to do was put Ext or Int at the front of every scene and it was a sure thing. So how Ron Howard, whose middle brow sensibility would seem a perfect fit for the book’s high minded populism, managed to come up with something so wide of the mark is a bigger mystery than anything dreamed up by Brown.

A movie so dependent on exposition that there is no room for anything else, be it character, atmosphere, or even action set-pieces, the storytelling operates not through character motivations and desires but through a series of puzzles and clues. So as Langdon and Neveu lurch from mystery to mystery — a Countdown conundrum here, an olde worlde Rubik’s Cube here — there is no sense of solving the mystery along with the heroes as they unravel impenetrable riddles (“So Dark The Con Of Man”) with ease, if little logic — whenever it gets complex, Tautou pops up with an “I-don’t-understand” to induce further plot clarifications.

After an hour of Langdon and Neveu prattling around, McKellen’s entry into the proceedings as a doddery Grail authority gives it a real boot up the backside, lending a real zest and twinkle to his difficult scenes of yet more explanation. Also on the plus side, Bettany’s mad albino henchman — half zealot, half Sith —has some effective moments (wince as he flagellates himself).But the film’s biggest surprise is the lack of engagement of its two major players. With any attempts at character sidelined by the sheer volume of plot, Hanks is a remote, detached presence, devoid of his trademark energy and charisma (he’s also the only Harvard professor to lecture via the Question Of Sport numbers board).

Equally hesitant, Howard’s trademark assurance eludes him — he botches one of the few action sequences through incomprehensible editing as Langdon and Neveu evade the police in a Smart car — and he never hits the right tone to make this hooey digestible. By the time third act comes round with its big revelations that throw up more questions than resolutions, the director feels just too drained care. And so will you.

Movies | 03 09 2017

Movies | 27 06 2016

Tom Hanks And Ron Howard Ignite Inferno In April

Movies | 26 08 2014

Movies | 17 07 2013

Movies | 02 03 2012

Movies | 21 12 2010

Movies | 08 07 2009

Movies | 25 10 2007

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

DVD & Streaming

The Da Vinci Code

Action/Adventure , Drama , Mystery/Suspense , Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Content Caution

In Theaters

Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon; Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu; Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing; Jean Reno as Captain Bezu Fache; Paul Bettany as Silas; Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa

Home Release Date

Distributor.

Columbia Pictures

Movie Review

Robert Langdon is a Harvard professor of symbology, not a homicide cop. So why do the Parisian police call him to help solve the murder of a museum curator at the world-renowned Louvre? Because this is no ordinary crime scene. Aside from its unlikely setting, the body itself, as well as the immediate surroundings, bear mysterious symbols that seem to point toward the likely killer.

Paired with a French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, Robert tries to decode the clues. The first one he seems to miss, though, is that the relentless investigator assigned to the case, Captain Bezu Fache, suspects Robert of the murder.

Robert and Sophie soon uncover a conspiracy so vast and so explosive that it would turn the world upside down should it ever be revealed. This conspiracy involves a secret society whose alleged membership has included Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton and Victor Hugo. It posits an alternate “truth” about the founding of the Christian church and the origin of the Bible. And it calls into question the very nature of Jesus Christ.

Positive Elements

Robert and Sophie dedicate themselves to digging down through the layers of lies hoping to find the truth (they don’t ever find it, but their aim is admirable), putting themselves at considerable risk in that search. In one instance, Sophie defies a killer to protect an important secret and, hopefully, to save Robert’s life. Captain Fache at first allows a personal motive to steer his investigation, but as he unravels the loose ends, he begins to set aside this bias in an effort to crack the case.

Spiritual Elements

[ Spoiler Warning ] The basic premise of The Da Vinci Code is that Christianity as the world understands it today is based on a historical fraud. The story charges that the Roman emperor Constantine was not a Christian convert, as history records, but rather a pagan who forced the church to adopt certain positions in A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicea, from which we get the Nicene Creed. It maintains that Constantine started a cover-up about the “true” story of Jesus Christ—namely, that He was merely human, not divine, and that He was married to Mary Magdalene with whom he fathered a “royal bloodline” that survives to this day. The legendary Holy Grail, it insists, was not the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, but the very womb of Mary Magdalene. (More on this in my “Conclusion.”)

Robert’s old friend and fellow historian, Sir Leigh Teabing, goes to some length to blame God and His followers for the majority of the world’s ills—past and present. In his mind, freedom for mankind can come only if everyone stops believing in God. “As long as there has been one true God, there has been killing in His name,” he states. Later he asks, “What if the world finds out that the greatest story ever told is a lie?” And he wants Jesus to be “shown for what He was, not miraculous, mad.”

Sophie asks Robert, “Are you a God-fearing man?” Robert responds, “Well, I was raised Catholic.” He recounts a time when, as a young boy, he’d fallen in a well and prayed to Jesus. “Sometimes I wonder if I was alone down there,” he says.

A mysterious albino monk (named Silas), who is under orders from a dogmatic Roman Catholic sect, prays in front of a crucifix before setting out to kill. He also prays over a person he has just slain. He allows a victim to recite a last prayer before shooting him. And he says, “Christ give me strength,” before killing.

A secret society says its mission is to “protect the source of God’s power on earth.” A clue unearthed by the monk contains a stone with Job 38:11 etched on it; a nun later recites part of the verse: “This far you may come and no farther.” The nun then tells Silas: “Jesus had but one true message.” Sophie later challenges the same killer monk: “Your god doesn’t forgive murderers; he burns them.”

There’s talk of a pentacle symbol representing devil worship. It’s pointed out that the pentacle is also the symbol for Venus, which itself is supposedly the symbol of the “sacred feminine.” The star of David is deemed a pagan diagram as well. There are two (one visual, one verbal) brief references to ritualized sex …

Sexual Content

… in which masked figures watch a naked couple writhing beneath a sheet; we briefly see the woman’s bare back. Sophie asks in disbelief if people believed they could find God through sex.

Da Vinci-era paintings of nude women are seen at various times throughout the film, as are statues. Prostitutes proposition men in a run-down section of Paris. When Robert discusses the pagan symbols for male and female fertility, Teabing makes a joke about male genitals.

Violent Content

The Da Vinci Code ‘s violence pushes at the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. The monk engages in rituals of self-mutilation in several scenes. Stripped nude, he fastens a device around his thigh that gouges into the flesh and muscle, with bloody results. We see his severely scarred and bloody back before and while he whips himself. His flagellation is accompanied by him praying before a crucifix. And he says, “I chastise my body,” a corruption of the meaning in 1 Corinthians 9:27. As all of this is going on, the camera watches intently, showing audiences the majority (but not quite all) of his nakedness from multiple angles.

Likewise, bloody diagrams carved into the body of a nude murder victim who is lying splayed on the floor are studied by the camera; high contrast and harsh lighting are the only things that hide his midsection as they create “perfectly placed” whiteouts and dark shadows.

A man holds a knife at Sophie’s throat, drawing blood. (She also has a gun held to her head, as do others.) A criminal’s neck is snapped, and we get an eyeful of his very bloody face. Captain Fache knocks a man to the floor and kicks him viciously (and repeatedly). Silas beats a nun with a large stone artifact, killing her.

There are several shootouts. In one, a bishop is seriously wounded. Policemen are hit before the assailant is brought down; we see bloody bullet wounds on his body as he dies. Another man is shot execution-style. In flashback we see a man beating his wife, and his son retaliates by plunging a knife into him. In other flashbacks we see a man run through with a spear, bodies burning at the stake, and “witches” being beaten and drowned. Crusade-era knights fight with swords. A body tumbles from a castle wall. And a knight is stabbed as he lies in bed (we see the bloody blade penetrate from below).

A head-on collision between a car and a semi is shown from inside the car. Sophie careens her car backward through the streets and over a sidewalk, narrowly missing pedestrians and barely avoiding crashing into other vehicles.

Crude or Profane Language

Four or five uses of the s-word (half of them in subtitles). Other crudities, including “h—,” “bastard” and variations of “a–” are also printed onscreen. (And some cursing in French is not translated into the subtitles.) God’s and Jesus’ names are abused about 10 times.

Drug and Alcohol Content

Robert and Sophie come upon a drug user in a park preparing to shoot up heroin. Sophie pays him to stop and walk away from his “stuff.” Then she snaps the needle off the syringe. A man drinks from a hip flask thinking it’s booze; it’s actually lethal poison. Surrounded by police in London, Teabing jokes about an old “cannabis charge.” An officer smokes a cigar.

Based on the novel by Dan Brown, which has sold more than 40 million copies since it was published in 2003, The Da Vinci Code arrives in theaters with considerable controversy preceding it. On his Web site, Brown tries to answer charges that his (tall) tale is anti-Christian by writing, “This book is not anti-anything. It’s a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me.”

That’s interesting, to say the least, since Brown opens his book by writing, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” [ Spoiler Warning ] By extension, then—despite his online disclaimer—he, his book and now his movie assert that 1) The New Testament is not the “true” account of the life of Jesus. Rather, the Gnostic Gospels tell the true story. 2) Jesus was not fully God and fully man, as taught in Scripture and affirmed by early church creeds, but was merely a man who was declared divine by an emperor’s decree hundreds of years after the fact. 3) Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered children, founding a royal bloodline that exists to this day. 4) The first leader of the church was not any of the apostles but rather Mary Magdalene, and this fact was covered up and any dissent ruthlessly crushed by the Roman Catholic church. 5) A secret society called the Priory of Sion, founded in 1099, exists to expose the “truth” that the church is hiding. 6) The Catholic group Opus Dei is the church’s arm tasked with crushing this opposition.

In response to such assertions, a belfry full of countering books and Web sites have sprung up.

It seems that even director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman wanted to back off some of Brown’s “out-there” spiritual revisionism. (Credit them, too, with dialing back the story’s sexual content, particularly a graphic description of a religious orgy detailed in the book.) In press materials issued by Columbia Pictures, the studio contradicts Brown’s declaration that the Priory of Sion is a real secret society. It points out that this legend has been debunked as a fraud perpetrated by Pierre Plantard, a French con artist who invented the “Priory of Sion” in 1956 as part of a scam against the French government.

Other changes: the movie’s Robert Langdon is different from the novel’s. Here he’s much more of a skeptic. For example, he challenges what Teabing says about Jesus’ supposed marriage. He also seems much more open to the claims of Christianity, even talking at one point about praying and sensing the protective presence of God. And while the book flatly states, “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,” the movie soft-sells this thunderclap by turning it into a question: “What if the world discovers the greatest story ever told is a lie?” (Words put into the mouth of the villain.)

But this Da Vinci Code -lite, so to speak, still sets out to sow seeds of doubt about the Christian faith and it challenges important core truths established in Scripture. It also leads to an absurd—and damaging—conclusion. Robert ultimately tells Sophie, “What matters is what you believe.” Never mind evidence, history or sound reasoning. Just believe what you want. It’s a shaky (and shoddy) theology that clashes with the solution to the story’s central mystery since the movie must believe the very things Robert is doubting if it’s to end the way it does—by providing “proof” that all the previously mentioned nonsense is still, somehow, true.

Latest Reviews

The Long Game

The Greatest Hits

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

The Da Vinci Code

Images & screenshots.

No Results.

Be the first to rate & review this game!

The Movie Review: 'The Da Vinci Code'

A few minutes after 4 p.m., Jack Bauer is summoned from his office at the Los Angeles branch of the Counter Terrorism Unit to investigate the murder of a curator at the Getty Museum. The man's body has been horribly deformed by contamination with an unknown virus, but before dying he was able to use one of his open pustules to paint a series of coded phrases on the museum floor. Jack cracks the code by consulting Van Gogh's painting Irises , and discovers that the virus derives from a legendary flower-based compound last used against the Cathars during the Albigensian Crusade. Jack traces the compound to a rogue operation being run out of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, using evidence he acquired by torturing an albino assassin sent after him by an overzealous undersecretary for ecumenical affairs. It's now 6 a.m. the next morning and Jack, accompanied by a pretty biologist from the Centers for Disease Control and a grandfatherly ex-spook (who may or may not be what he seems), is on a private jet headed for Washington, DC. Unless he can get to the bottom of the conspiracy by afternoon, millions of innocent Americans will die horribly in a Biblical plague. Blip blip blip ... .

If only. Joel Surnow, the creator of "24," reportedly tried to acquire the rights to The Da Vinci Code to serve as the plot for the show's third season. Of course, there aren't enough advertiser dollars in the universe to get the bestselling novel of all time to settle for network television treatment. But it's a shame, because despite the obvious challenges of adapting a medieval theological conspiracy to a show about contemporary counterterrorism, "24" has a mood that would have well suited The Da Vinci Code --shamelessly pulpy, compulsively entertaining, and far more interested in heedless forward motion than in having anything remotely thoughtful to say. (Not that that's stopped both right and left from trying to appropriate the "message" of "24.")

Instead, we got a Major Motion Picture directed by Ron Howard, perhaps the single director least likely to rescue this material from itself. The novel, despite some truly appalling prose on the part of author Dan Brown, works pretty well as a potboiler: The pages go by quickly (though there are far too many of them), and the constant riddles and reversals are diverting enough if one doesn't contemplate them too closely. The problem is that this resolutely silly book actually takes itself rather seriously--and, worse, somehow managed to persuade millions of people who ought to have known better to do the same.

Enter Howard who, with a couple of notable exceptions (the 1982 "Little Opie Cunningham" sketch from SNL, the too-marvelous-not-to- be-cancelled "Arrested Development" ), has devoted his adult life to making Frank Capra look like an ironist. The word "earnest" is not itself earnest enough to convey the earnestness of Howard's filmmaking. That this would be a problem was evident even before The Da Vinci Code began shooting, when Howard let it be known that he would try to alter the story to make it less offensive to Catholics. The idea itself was preposterous: This is, after all, a book whose entire premise is that there is a millennia-old conspiracy by the Catholic Church to hide the truth about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene and thereby oppress women. (Not to mention the numerous murders committed by Church agents through the course of the story.) Moreover, Howard's eagerness to understand and mitigate the concerns of those whom his film might offend essentially meant embracing the moral gravity of a project that shouldn't have any moral gravity.

Howard's alterations were generally minor: The hero, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), who in the book is a great enthusiast of the Magdalene conspiracy theory, is in the film something of a skeptic. Of course, this is really a second-tier issue given that, regardless of the extent to which Langdon believes in the conspiracy, it turns out to be true . Howard also tones down Brown's insistence in the non-divinity of Christ, suggesting that he might have been both the Son of God and the husband of Mary. (Sadly, the film offers no speculation on what kind of father-in-law the Almighty might make.) There are a smattering of smaller tinkers, as well: In an apparent effort to assuage the albino anti-defamation lobby, Silas the killer monk (Paul Bettany) is implicitly rendered as a non-albino (albeit one with white hair and skin), his "frightening, disembodied" red eyes replaced by Bettany's own Aqua Velva blues.

In the end, though, the primary impact of Howard's alterations is to make an already absurdly self-important project even more so. The high-mindedness of his theological compromises is almost enough to make one nostalgic for the fierce, if idiotic, anti-clericalism of the novel. The result is a tepid, ponderous movie that behaves as if it has something important to say but is too nervous to tell us what it is. No one in the cast seems to have much idea what the point of the film is (beyond making a billion dollars, of course), so they wander aimlessly through the proceedings. Hanks's performance as a superstar symbologist (who knew there was such a thing?) is far less interesting than his hairdo, which would not be out of place on someone who cooks muskrat for dinner. As policewoman/cryptologist Sophie Neveu, the radiant Audrey Tautou glows at about 40 watts, well shy of her usual 100. And Jean Reno and Alfred Molina seem almost embarrassed at the obviousness of their casting as a French policeman and scheming Opus Dei bishop, respectively. A partial exception to the mass listlessness is Sir Ian McKellan, who brings a hint of randy old goat to the role of conspiracy historian Leigh Teabing. (Minus, of course, any actual randiness, which would be unseemly in so noble an endeavor as this: When he informs Robert and Sophie that, by bringing him along on their adventure, they've given him "the best night of his life," one feels something akin to pity.)

I somehow managed to miss The Da Vinci Code when it was in theatres (I'm sure I must've been very, very busy), and my first exposure to the film actually took place in my local video store. As I was perusing the shelves, I overheard snatches of dialogue from the (unseen) movie playing on the store television--something about a murky, diabolical conspiracy that had changed the course of human history. Perhaps mis-hearing "Sion" as "Cylon," I thought for a moment it might be an episode of "Battlestar Galactica." In any case, it sounded like a fun, clever B-grade entertainment about science fiction or the occult. It was, of course, none of those things.

But all hope is not lost. Brian Grazer, who produced The Da Vinci Code , is also one of the executive producers of "24." And if there's anything for which Hollywood has shown considerable enthusiasm, it's the repackaging of proven moneymakers. Someday, perhaps, Jack Bauer will get his shot at cracking "The Van Gogh Cipher." If nothing else, at least his hair will be less distracting.

The Home Movies List: Adaptable

The Third Man (1949). One of the greatest alterations in cinematic history created one of the greatest endings. In Graham Greene's original treatment, the last scene has Anna and Holly (actually, "Rollo" in Greene's telling, another mistake) walking off together. Director Carol Reed won a fight with both Greene and producer David O. Selznick for his crueler, more beautiful conclusion. And thank goodness. The Name of the Rose (1986). Jean-Jacques Annaud's adaptation of the Umberto Eco bestseller wisely downplayed the theology and concentrated on the detective story. The problem for The Da Vinci Code is that, apart from the riddles and pseudo-revelations, there really isn't any story. (Also, though it's become a cliche to describe Eco's subsequent book, Foucault's Pendulum , as a smarter Da Vinci Code , it is in fact true. The 1988 novel begins where Brown's book ends, with the Magdalene coverup, before spinning out into a variety of ever more outlandish conspiracies. Though exponentially more erudite than The Da Vinci Code , the novel takes itself less seriously and concludes with a far subtler observation: that people will go to remarkable lengths even for those conspiracies that turn out not to be true.) L.A. Confidential (1997). The screenplay, by Brian Helgeland and director Curtis Hanson, is a masterpiece of compression, lopping off half a dozen or so of the manic subplots of the James Ellroy novel--a child-murdering serial killer, a partnership between Exley's (still living) father and a character based on Walt Disney, etc. If only Helgeland and Hanson had come up with a more compelling finish than the shootout at the Victory Motel.... Out of Sight (1998). If L.A. Confidential is a case study in subtraction, Out of Sight demonstrates the virtue of careful addition--in this case, a final scene tacked onto the original Elmore Leonard story that brilliant finesses its downbeat ending. The result is one of the most underrated films of the 1990s and still the best performance to date by just re-throned "Sexiest Man Alive" George Clooney. Layer Cake (2004). Those who are eager for another helping of the rough-hewn charisma of new Bond Daniel Craig (or who are waiting for Casino Royale to arrive on video) can find him in this Guy Ritchie-esque gangster flick. But be forewarned: Though Craig is good, this is a plot that could have used the Helgeland-Hanson treatment. The initial screenplay, adapted by J.J. Connolly from his own novel, ran to over 400 pages--or long enough for a six-plus-hour film. Even in 105-minute final cut, a number of clumsily amputated subplots still wave like phantom limbs.

This post originally appeared at TNR.com. .

Looking at Film from Every Angle

Review: The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Wesley Lovell

The Da Vinci Code

Akiva Goldsman (Novel: Dan Brown)

Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, Jrgen Prochnow, Jean-Yves Berteloot, Etienne Chicot, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Marie-Franoise Audollent

MPAA Rating

PG-13 (For disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content)

Buy/Rent Movie

Source material.

There are many elements of Dan Brown’s intriguing novel The Da Vinci Code that make it to the screen of Ron Howard’s new film. However, there are plenty of aspects that don’t.

What if the Holy Grail that has been sought for centuries were not a chalice after all? What if it were actually something much more empowering and significantly more dangerous to the church? Brown’s novel poses several questions and creates an intensely thought-provoking view organized religion.

As a reviewer, one can’t talk about the film version without touching on the controversy. The Catholic Church lashed out at the film before it debuted at the theater giving it a more impressive debut than it probably would have had. The church did far more to hurt its cause than bolster its message. However, what it amounts to is ‘much ado about nothing’. The film is a significant departure from the novel.

In the novel, Brown tackles the rogue religious sect Opus Dei whose members subjugate women and inflict brutal punishments on themselves for supposed sins. It is Opus Dei that’s the true villain in the book, not the church itself. However, the film doesn’t portray that. Instead, it portrays the entire church in a negative light.

The French-speaking part of the cast (Jean Reno as Bezu Fache and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu) is superb. Even Ian McKellen does a fantastic job (though he’s completely wrong for the part in the book-comparative looks department) as Grail-nut Sir Leigh Teabing. However, two of the more important characters to the film are poorly portrayed and significantly less ‘right’ for the part.

Tom Hanks telegraphs in his performance as Dr. Robert Langdon whose research catches the eye of Louvre museum director Jacques Saunière. It doesn’t help that screenwriter (if you could actually call him much more than that) Akiva Goldsman creates an ill-fitting backstory for Langdon. Hanks fails to capture the enthusiasm his character possessed in the book.

Paul Bettany is even more woefully cast. Bettany’s a fine actor but Howard’s reliance on him is regrettable. The albino Silas is hardly hulking as the book describes him and far less menacing at that. The film version is maniacal and razor-sharp despite the book’s version which is lumbering and brutal.

However, the disconnect between the novel and film doesn’t end with poor casting. The Da Vinci Code , while languid in places in the book, nevertheless kept the readers attention, waiting impatiently to reach the conclusion. The movie, however, ratchets up the ennui by making it seemingly more lengthy. Plodding to a finale that doesn’t even approach the quality of the book conclusion, we’re left with little more than a pale comparison. Only the “reveal” of The Teacher’s identity is handled better on film than in the book.

Fans of the book will miss a significant portion of the books charisma in the film. Some will enjoy the feature nonetheless and slap down their entry fee multiple times. But, as inmost cases, the book is better than the film and I recommend a review of the novel first. Don’t ruin the surprises by watching the movie.

Review Written

July 20, 2006

The Da Vinci Code

Review by brian eggert may 6, 2009.

The Da Vinci Code is a movie about ideas. And those ideas are very clever, at once intriguing and controversial enough to send audiences racing into their local library, or at least Wikipedia, to find out the real story. Unfortunately, the movie’s ideas mask any semblance of character development or believable narrative, as the ideas don’t have the time or room to allow for such things within the script—they’re too busy being fascinating. Dan Brown’s novel sold some 60 million copies because its breakneck pace and audacious ideas were easily accessible in a familiar formula for pulpy fiction. And with the amount of discussion generated by the book, its author’s merely so-so writing abilities were conveniently overlooked by readers. Nevertheless, the discussion remained, and books were sold in some 40 languages. And so, Hollywood couldn’t resist making the movie from a novel everyone read and thus knew the twist ending to. However meaningless this decision might’ve been, the result couldn’t be more disappointing.

Attempting to be a high-brow thriller, like Indiana Jones except without an ounce of humor, The Da Vinci Code comes from ultra-bland director Ron Howard, whose career is one of the all-time most overrated filmographies in cinema. Screenwriter Akiva Goldsmith tackles Brown’s material, though his previous output on Batman & Robin and Lost in Space suggests he should never be allowed near a computer or typewriter ever again. They signed lovable everyman Tom Hanks to star in a personality-less performance, despite personality being exactly what Hanks is known for. And along with the picturesque locales from Brown’s text, which have a beauty that is almost completely disregarded by Howard, we have a film that misses almost every opportunity to become the sure thing it should’ve been.

Professor of Symbology Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to the Louvre, where colleague Jacques Saunière (Jean-Pierre Marielle) was murdered by gunshot. But before he died, Saunière left a series of clues to finding his killer. As the title suggests, these clues are hidden among the museum’s various works by Renaissance painter Leonardo Da Vinci, including the way Saunière’s corpse resembles the position of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. Hard-headed police investigator Fache (Jean Reno) suspects Langdon is involved. Still, Saunière’s granddaughter and police cryptographer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou) trusts Langdon and helps him uncover both the mystery of Saunière’s murderer and one of history’s great covered-ups by the Catholic church.

The movie progresses through a series of exotic and historic venues where more clues are revealed, but then Langdon and Neveu are pursued, so they flee to the next backdrop and the next clue. On their tail are Fache and creepy albino Opus Dei zealot Silas (Paul Bettany), both taking orders from misguided Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina). In need of help, our heroes visit Anglophile historian Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian McKellen), who informs them of what they’re really looking for. McKellen steals the show in his supporting performance, both lively and clever, with more personality in his little finger than both Hanks and Tatou portray combined.

Much has been made of the story’s big reveal , which suggests that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ conceived a child, and the bloodline continues to this day, its heir kept secret by the Priory of Sion and continually hunted by Opus Dei—religious factions exaggerated and skewed by Dan Brown’s text, as if that matters. Liberties with history are taken, and some readers are particularly offended by this, accusing Brown and, later, the filmmakers of promoting religious heresy and historical inaccuracy. Though anytime anyone says anything contradicting Christian tenets or those of any other religion, they’re bound to be met with some strong reactions—that’s the nature of blind faith.

What those fanatical critics forget is that Brown’s book was sold in the fiction section of your local bookstore, and Howard’s movie is in the thriller genre. It’s not non-fiction, not a documentary. This is a fact-finding mystery told with all the trappings the genre offers, simply with a religious-themed hook, like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade . American historians didn’t balk at the absurdity of National Treasure when Nicolas Cage was finding secret maps on the back of the Declaration of Independence. Why is this any different? Because the central McGuffin is Christ’s long-lost bloodline. Had Brown made wild, thinly researched claims about some non-Christian subject, no one would have complained about historical or religious accuracy.

The book and movie take admitted liberties with history, but they also have some truth to them. Yet, because they demand that the audience question doctrine, ardent religious followers are upset because heaven forbid anyone questions their dogma, which serves as a hearty commentary on the fragility of religious belief. Whoever thought seeking knowledge by asking questions could be so dangerous? Then again, the Catholic Church’s history of atrocities toward people who ask the wrong questions is well documented. So the events in this fiction are rendered possible, if implausible, by association.

The bottom line is that The Da Vinci Code , for all the books and movie tickets it sold (the film earned some $217 million in United States ticket sales alone), still does not surpass the limitations of being an uninvolving thriller. Howard’s direction doesn’t have the personality, and Goldsmith’s writing doesn’t have the punch to enliven this story with fleshed-out characters. Instead, the two-and-a-half-hour runtime is spent chasing an idea, which, once revealed, really isn’t confirmed at all. The filmmakers were so concerned about doing justice to the book’s ideas that they forgot there’s an audience to entertain.

Related Titles

In Theaters

Recent Reviews

Challengers 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Civil War 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Patreon Exclusive: Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
LaRoy, Texas 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Blackout 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Monkey Man 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Short Take: Baghead 2 Stars ☆ ☆
Patreon Exclusive: The Public Eye 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Wicked Little Letters 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
The Animal Kingdom 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Patreon Exclusive: Immaculate 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
Late Night with the Devil 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire 2 Stars ☆ ☆
Road House 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
You'll Never Find Me 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆

The Da Vinci Code review – a decent crack at staging the bestseller

Theatre Royal Plymouth Nigel Harman and Hannah Rose Caton star as Dan Brown’s adventurers in a show that sometimes feels as if it is on fast-forward

D an Brown’s compulsive, contentious story of Catholic conspiracy, misogyny and murderous Opus Dei monks was nothing if not knotty in book form, and no less so in Ron Howard’s film adaptation . Now comes Luke Sheppard’s theatre production, which manages to navigate those complicated plot turns as well as the story’s many changes in time and place.

Nigel Harman is Robert Langdon, the professor and symbolist, with Hannah Rose Caton playing his fellow fugitive adventurer, police cryptologist Sophie Neveu. Judicious decisions are made in this adaptation by Rachel Wagstaff and Duncan Abel to cut away most of the police chase scenes; it means we lose excitement and intrigue but gain a clarity of story from its leanness.

Character development, on the whole, is minimal, as in the book and film, and the strengths lie in visual effects and stagecraft, from David Woodhead’s smoothly changing set to Andrzej Goulding’s striking video projections – of paintings, Fibonacci numbers and sketches – which give the show its fluidity and speed. Ben and Max Ringham’s electronic music adds to the energy and pace. There is plenty of Leonardo da Vinci thrown into the optics, too: we begin with a magnificently enlarged Vitruvian Man, along with luminous projections of the Mona Lisa and the Louvre itself later.

Plenty of Leonardo da Vinci thrown into the optics … The Da Vinci Code.

The projections signpost changes of time and place effectively, moving from the opening murder of art curator Jacques Saunière to crypts, country houses and a plane journey from Paris to London (clouds whiz by along the stage walls).

Actors sit along the sides, sometimes surging forward in choreographed sequences (lifting a character in the air, for example) that work well, but also occasionally chanting in a chorus that feels flat-footed and unnecessary.

Harman and Caton have the same platonic chemistry of the film and both actors suit their parts, though Caton is more vivid, bringing sensitivity and heart to her tragic backstory. Harman stays lesser known and seems oddly underused, though he is on stage for much of the show.

In a prime example of the challenges theatre still faces in our times, Danny John-Jules, cast as Sir Leigh Teabing, tested positive for Covid and was replaced by Andrew Lewis at the show I saw, which was the last night of previews. Lewis was originally cast to play Saunière so understudy Adam Morris played the murdered curator instead. The actors put in a solid effort, especially Lewis, who brings charm to a key character who is secretly obsessed with uncovering the conspiracy theory that Jesus is human, not divine.

But Joshua Lacy as the fanatical monk, Silas, puts in the most committed performance; he does not have the manic zeal of Paul Bettany’s Silas in the film – all for the better – and brings vulnerability as well as physical threat, with the air of a soldier suffering from trauma.

The first half of the show sprints through the plot, keeping us alongside, but the second feels as if it is on fast-forward, with scenes changing too quickly and flipping to flashback. And, despite the frenzy of action, the fight scenes are not convincing and it feels a little lacklustre by the end because there is no accompanying tension or jeopardy. But until then, it manages to streamline a complicated story with originality.

At Theatre Royal Plymouth until 12 February. Then touring until 12 November

Comments (…)

Da Vinci Code, The (United States, 2006)

Perhaps a better title for The Da Vinci Code might be Much Ado about Nothing . When you boil away the hype and hysteria, all that remains is a pedestrian murder mystery that isn't sufficiently challenging or scandalous to raise anyone's hackles. It's preposterous, overlong, and saddled with a sloppy denouement that defines the term "anti-climax." The film's two big "surprises" are telegraphed early, and the ease with which they can be guessed (using the "conservation of characters" process) leeches the movie of a large measure of its suspense. Individual scenes are entertaining in their own right, but the production as a whole is a lumbering mess.

I intentionally avoided Dan Brown's novel before seeing the movie (and don't intend to read it now that I have sat through the adaptation), hoping to provide a fresh perspective. Presumably, the book, which is often referred to as a "compulsive page-turner," is more riveting that its cinematic counterpart. The Da Vinci Code (the movie) is a mediocre thriller, with too few thrills and too much predictable action.

A murder in the Louvre sends Professor Robert Langdon, a visiting "symbologist" from Harvard, on the first steps of a dangerous journey that leads him into the heart of "the greatest cover-up in human history" - one that involves Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, cults, artwork, and a lot of things than happened 2000 years ago. His companion on the trek is French police officer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). They have been framed for the Louvre murder, and Captain Fache (Jean Reno), a humorless cop who's hiding something, is hot on their trail. Recognizing that they have uncovered the tip of a conspiracy that involves warring factions of the Catholic Church and the Holy Grail, they seek "Grail expert" Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellan), who joins their quest. (Sadly, the Monty Python troupe couldn't make it.) But the pursuit of Fache isn't the only thing they have to worry about. A murderous albino by the name of Silas (Paul Bettany), the "pet" of Bishop Sringarosa (Alfred Molina), has orders to eliminate them and take into custody an artifact they have in their possession.

The Da Vinci Code has strange rhythms for a thriller. Bursts of action are interrupted by lengthy periods of exposition. The crime is essentially resolved around the two-hour mark, leaving the movie nearly 30 minutes to muddle through to a drawn-out and predictable conclusion. Oddly, the "talky" parts of the film are more interesting than the kinetic ones. That's because, when it comes to explaining the conspiracy, The Da Vinci Code does an impressive job of blending fact, speculation, and pure fiction into a mix that is intriguing (albeit outlandish). The action sequences, on the other hand, are too straightforward to be more than distracting.

The scenes that really shine are those in which director Ron Howard brings his skills as a visual director to bear. When we first meet Langdon, he is lecturing on the meaning of symbols. The brief excerpt Howard provides of this talk is fascinating. Equally compelling is Teabing's dissection of "The Last Supper" and his explanation of the nature of the Holy Grail. And there's a little inventiveness in the way Langdon's visualization of Issac Newton's tomb is employed to break a code. Sadly, as a director, Howard also makes a major misstep with an unforgivable continuity gaffe (it involves a phone call). Although (I am told) this is explained in the book, the explanation is not provided in the movie, and it becomes an instance of slipshod misdirection.

Is The Da Vinci Code blasphemous or sacrilegious? It certainly takes a negative view of Catholic doctrine and Church policies. (Poor maligned Opus Dei.) And it calls into question cornerstone aspects of Christian faith. Some may find this distasteful, but the movie does not go out of its way to be insulting or condescending. The story is so outlandish as to be obviously fabricated, with a minimal basis in fact. The Da Vinci Code is fanciful enough that it requires no debunking - that much should be obvious to anyone attending the film.

The cast is impressive, and is headlined by megastar Tom Hanks, French beauty Audrey Tautou ( Amelie ), and respected British thespian (and everyone's favorite mutant or wizard) Ian McKellan. All do the best jobs they can with paper-thin characters. No one is given much of an opportunity to stand out. Paul Bettany brings a little menace to his role as the most visible bad guy, but he's never truly frightening. In fact, there are times when Jean Reno is more intimidating. The chemistry between Hanks and Tautou is lukewarm at best. If there's anything other than mild affection between them, it doesn't make it across. The Da Vinci Code is ultimately too plot-heavy to allow much in the way of character development, and that means it's not an actors' feature. Hanks is familiar, Tautou is lovely, and McKellan is eloquent - and that's all they have to be.

The prosaic story does not warrant the film's epic length. Two-and-one-half hour movies are supposed to be something special. This one is merely overlong. I can't help but wonder whether a shorter, sharper cut of The Da Vinci Code might have resulted in a more suspenseful production. The muddled ending is part of the problem, but so is the "treasure hunt" aspect of the journey. It becomes tedious when breaking a code or solving a puzzle merely uncovers another puzzle or code. After a while, this pattern becomes tiresome. Maybe it's fun to "play along" with characters in a book, but the movie experience isn't engaging. At least The Da Vinci Code is better in this respect than National Treasure .

In terms of its appeal, The Da Vinci Code isn't appreciably better or worse than its two summer 2006 big-budget predecessors, Mission: Impossible III and Poseidon (although it will likely score a higher total at the box office than either). Like those earlier releases, it's a relatively mindless affair that offers adequate entertainment value while displaying obvious, and often irritating, flaws. The controversy has made seeing The Da Vinci Code a more desirable night out than it might otherwise have been, but it won't take long before potential audience members recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. One could classify The Da Vinci Code as diverting, but it has sidestepped greatness by a wide margin.

Comments Add Comment

Rear Window (1954)
Sleuth (1969)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Neon Demon, The (2016)
Left Behind (2014)
Jade (1995)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Cast Away (2000)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Angels & Demons (2009)
Inferno (2016)
Circle, The (2017)
He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not (2003)
Amelie (2001)
Dirty Pretty Things (2003)
Coco before Chanel (2009)
(There are no more worst movies of Audrey Tautou)
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Hobbit, The: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Hobbit, The: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Cats (2019)
(There are no more worst movies of Ian McKellan)

THE DA VINCI CODE

"velvet fist".

What You Need To Know:

(PaPaPa, RHRHRH, ABAB, FRFR, CC, BB, H, Fe, PC, LL, VV, SS, N, MM) Very strong mixed, pagan worldview with strong references to paganism itself (including references to “male/female principles” of paganism, nature worship of paganism, the “sacred feminine,” and references to and distortions of spurious pagan Gnostic texts about Jesus Christ and His followers, but without all the goddess worship and pagan communion with God through sex mentioned in the book), plus very strong false revisionist history that has no or very little evidence in reality (including completely false references to alleged bloodline from the alleged marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ (none of which has any historical evidence whatsoever), where movie says that, in this supposed scenario, a pregnant Mary Magdalene left Jerusalem sometime shortly after Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross and traveled to France where the bloodline continues in secret today, strong Anti-Christian and Anti Roman Catholic content (which is watered down and sometimes even disputed when compared to the book), some positive references to Jesus Christ, prayer and God with strong moral elements (including hero says “Godspeed” to heroine at an important point, which is totally unlike the relentlessly pagan, anti-theistic and Anti-Christian attitude of the hero in the book and the book author, Dan Brown’s, attitude and voice in the book), and, unlike the book, the hero is not extremely Anti-Christian and actually throws skeptical, somewhat pro-Christian retorts to pagan professor who spouts much (but not all) of the anti-Christian and revisionist pagan attacks on Christianity, the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the book, plus woman expresses humanist beliefs at one point that she does not believe in God and man expresses humanist agnostic beliefs about the truth and divinity of Jesus Christ at the movie’s end (although he recounts an incident of prayer to Jesus Christ wherein Jesus may have saved his life) and says it does not matter whether Jesus Christ was human or divine but that people should decide for themselves one way or another what they believe, but he also tells alleged descendent of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ that she can “destroy faith or renew it” and tells her, “The only thing that matters is what you believe,” plus some false religion includes the aforementioned statement that it does not matter ultimately whether Jesus is divine or not and Christian monk doing bidding of secret cabal says things like “Christ give me strength” as he threatens and murder people he considers evil or people in the way of his goals, plus left-wing political correctness as pagan villain (who also appears as something of a madman at the end) talks about people he believes were oppressed by the Christian Church (especially the Roman Catholic Church), including “people of another color” and women, but this pagan villain is pictured in the movie (but not in the book) as part of the problem in the war between members of a secret cabal of powerful men in of the Roman Catholic Church and a group of vague pagans who oppose basic traditional Christian doctrine; six obscenities, one strong profanity and four light profanities, plus man says, “My God, forgive me”; strong violence includes man shot deliberately in stomach, images of naked corpse where man drew a pentagram on his chest from his blood before he died, monk tightens spiked chain around his upper thigh as a penance, monk flagellates his back with sharp whip that draws blood, some bloody images of self-flagellation, shootout with police where police go down and villain is shot to death and a bishop is wounded accidentally, fighting, hostage held with knife at throat, man dies of poison, man saves life of priest being attacked in flashback, evil monk brutally strikes nun and kills her, it is implied in a flashback that boy stabs father to death while father hit boy’s mother, man breaks another man’s neck when man is beating up priest, policeman breaks air traffic controller’s nose and kicks him brutally to get info on alleged killer’s plane, and people hold people at gunpoint; briefly depicted fornication in one scene during some kind of weird unexplained ritual that is actually explained as an act of pagan goddess worship in the original book and prostitutes along Champs de Elysses lean into open car windows of prospective clients; rear and upper male nudity, and woman’s bare back shown during sex scene; no alcohol; no smoking or drug use but woman buys heroin needle from junkie before he uses it and destroys it; and, lying, betrayal, deceit, conspiracies, man bows down at possible alleged, hidden grave of Mary Magdalene where above the grave are male/female pagan symbols of inverted pyramid and regular pyramid, but it’s hard to say whether man actually worships at the feet of Mary Magdalene whereas in the book he’s actually worshipping at the feet of a kind of goddess symbol of the “sacred feminine,” and man says, "History shows Jesus was an extraordinary man. Why couldn't Jesus have been divine and still have been a father?"

More Detail:

THE DA VINCI CODE book by Dan Brown is a hateful piece of false propaganda that slanders Jesus Christ, His apostles, Mary Magdalene, Christians, the Roman Catholic Church, and the God of the Bible. It contains numerous factual errors that can seriously damage people’s knowledge and understanding of history, the Bible, Christianity, monotheism, and truth. The book also attacks Jews and eliminates the Jewish identity of Jesus Christ, His apostles and Mary Magdalene, to the point of being Anti-Semitic.

Although the movie significantly waters down the unrelenting, anti-Christian attacks and virulent paganism, goddess worship and pagan sexuality of the novel, it promotes the book and contains enough falsehoods and scurrilous conjecture to distort the truth about Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christianity, and God. That, coupled with the book’s popularity and some Christians’ ignorance about their faith, leads us to believe that the movie, and the attention it draws, will increase some people’s hatred and prejudice against Christians and Christianity.

That said, the movie contains some strong positive statements and elements regarding Jesus Christ and God that were not in the book. The movie also significantly changes the hero in the book, Robert Langdon, into somewhat of a friendly but uncommitted agnostic on the pagan theology and pagan history presented by the book. This is a major change from the book, wherein Langdon comes across as a solidly pagan feminist who hates Christianity. In the movie, Langdon even defends Christianity two or more times.

It is clear, therefore, that the filmmakers, and the studio distributing and promoting the movie, have inserted a few positive things into the movie, and changed the most important character in the book, probably in an attempt to lessen the movie’s offense to Christians. It should also be noted that, in the book, an allegedly evil, top Vatican leadership is secretly fighting the pagan heroes in the book. In the movie, however, it is a small group of evil people in positions of power in the Roman Catholic Church who are secretly fighting the pagans, whose feminism and paganism is diluted. Not only that, but one of the pagan leaders is shown at the end to be somewhat of an obsessed, evil madman himself.

As in the book, the movie opens with the murder of the curator of The Louvre Museum in Paris, France. Before he dies, however, the curator leaves a bizarre set of clues at the murder scene. The police call in Harvard symbology professor Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks, to help decipher the clues.

At the murder scene, Langdon starts to do just that for the chief inspector on the case. They are interrupted by a pretty female cryptologist named Sophie, however, who secretly warns Langdon that he is the sole murder suspect. She also tells Langdon that the dead curator was her grandfather.

Through a clever ruse, Langdon and Sophie escape the gruff police inspector and go on a treasure hunt for the hidden grave of Mary Magdalene, the woman mentioned in the New Testament. Langdon tells Sophie that some people believe that Mary was the actual wife of Jesus Christ and became pregnant before Jesus died on the Cross. He also tells her that a secret cabal of knights and their descendents, called the Priory of Sion, are guarding the secret and that her grandfather may be the Grand Master of the current four leading knights. What Langdon and Sophie don’t know is that a secret cabal from the Roman Catholic Church and from the conservative church organization called Opus Dei have sent a murderous monk called Silas after the gravesite to help Opus Dei destroy all the evidence concerning Mary Magdalene.

With the chief inspector and the conflicted monk hot on their trail, Langdon and Sophie seek to find Mary Magdalene’s grave. Like the book, the womb of Mary Magdalene is supposed to be the real representation of the Holy Grail mentioned in myth and legend. The royal bloodline of Mary and Jesus also is part of the real meaning behind the Holy Grail, but the movie eliminates the book’s references to feminist pagan sexuality in connection with this theory. The movie also significantly dilutes the book’s goddess worship plot.

Some predictable twists and turns, and more violent confrontations, lead to the movie’s overlong climax and its conclusion, or denouement.

THE DA VINCI CODE movie is not quite as dull as many critics already have been saying. It is still, however, too long and talky, especially in the middle and toward the end. The movie also doesn’t have quite the same sense of urgency and excitement as parts of the book, though the movie does have its moments. Yet, like the book, some of the story’s twists can be seen a mile away. In fact, the story telegraphs two of its major plot twists by the midway point. Also, the jeopardy in the action needs to be ratcheted up much higher. Even if they did do that, however, the talky elements of the story’s exposition scenes would still be a fatal flaw.

Finally, the acting in THE DA VINCI CODE is serviceable, but not earth-shattering. Some of it, in fact, is a bit melodramatic, like some of the book’s dialogue. Ian McKellan does the best job, though not as good as his excellent performance in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Tom Hanks seems a bit bored and lackadaisical at times.

Thus, THE DA VINCI CODE probably deserves a lukewarm three stars. As with the book, a major problem is that the climax of the story, the murder of the curator, occurs in the very first scene. Then comes the treasure hunt by the hero and heroine, including the assistance they get from the Wise Old Man, in the form of the Ian McKellan character.

Because of its changes and additions to the book’s story, the movie version of THE DA VINCI CODE has a more mixed pagan worldview. The feminism and goddess worship from the book are almost completely absent. Even so, however, the movie’s mixed worldview still seems very strong. Its mixed nature contains strong positive references to paganism, as well as some positive Christian elements referring to Jesus Christ and an apparent answered prayer to Jesus (which is not in the book), positive references to God, some humanist statements of atheism and agnosticism, some light political correctness, and some light feminism.

Also very strong is the movie’s false revisionist history. This false history includes references to an alleged marriage and alleged royal bloodline between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. It also includes some false history regarding the famous Knights Templar from the times of the Crusades against the evil, murderous Cult of Islam, some false history regarding the origins of Christianity (including the New Testament documents and the Council of Nicea), some false art history regarding Leonardo Da Vinci, etc. Once again, however, the feminism and goddess worship from the book’s revisionist history are almost completely absent. Also, instead of defending the pagan point of view often as he does in the book, the Robert Langdon character in the movie actually sometimes defends the traditional Christian view of the historical record. He does, however, buy into the royal bloodline story of Mary Magdalene. He also doesn’t present a lot of facts to dispute Ian McKellan’s character’s phony stories about the Emperor Constantine and some believers inventing the traditional New Testament stories about Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the movie’s final scene overtly shows the audience (but not the characters) the hidden tomb of Mary Magdalene. Thus, the final scene gives a final credence to the movie’s Mary Magdalene story despite the hero’s skepticism.

Before that final scene, however, the hero in the movie (unlike the book) casts doubt on some of the Ian McKellan character’s diatribe against traditional Christian history and the Church’s alleged invention of Christianity. The movie hero also says “Godspeed” to the heroine at one important point. He also tells her that she can decide whether to “destroy faith or renew it” and tells her, “The only thing that matters is what you believe.” Finally, he says, “History shows Jesus was an extraordinary man. Why couldn’t Jesus have been divine and still have been a father?” These lines are not in the book.

Of course, the stories of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene before he died and even impregnating His alleged wife with child fail to deal with the actual historical record. They also cannot answer questions of what happened to the bones of Jesus Christ, why didn’t the Jewish and Roman authorities at the time ever make an effort to retrieve the actual body of Christ that disappeared, what happened with the stories about the empty tomb of Jesus Christ, and why aren’t Mary Magdalene’s followers today also searching for the bones of Jesus Christ to venerate and/or worship, especially since these alleged followers claim that Jesus Christ was the one who allegedly appointed Mary and her bloodline as his heirs. One would think that a secret cabal of powerful believers in such stories would make just as much of an effort to discover the bones of Christ and venerate them. Furthermore, the hero’s suggestion that Jesus Christ could have still been divine and fathered a child. If that is the case, then Jesus perhaps could even have been resurrected and His resurrected body gone to Heaven. If that is the case, however, then why be upset about Christians claiming that Jesus was divine and that He rose from the dead?

It also should be noted here that the book’s history of paganism and goddess worship has also been discredited. The evidence for a peaceful, matriarchal society of goddess worshippers in Europe is negligible at best. In fact, there is evidence from ancient cave paintings in Europe that early human societies descended from Adam and Eve worshipped a Lord of Creation. There is also lots of evidence that primitive societies, although they may have some pagan beliefs, also show evidence of a belief in an ultimate “Sky God,” or Supreme Being, who created the heavens and the earth. Such evidence is perfectly in keeping with the ethical monotheism and pagan apostasy depicted in the first chapters of Genesis, written by Moses.

Although Dan Brown’s pagan, radical feminist propaganda has been diluted and denuded, the movie’s own false history still will lead many people astray. It may also, as suggested above, increase some people’s hatred and prejudice against Christians and Christianity, as well as the Bible. Ultimately, by casting doubt on Dan Brown’s original story and pagan, radical feminist worldview in the book, the movie shoots itself in the foot. Fans of the novel, especially fans of the book’s Anti-Christian, Anti-Semitic pagan/feminine propaganda should be very upset about the changes and additions that Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman have made. Christians, however, should still be very upset about the Anti-Christian content and false revisionist history in this movie.

Thus, when all is said and done, MOVIEGUIDE® still advises people not to go see THE DA VINCI CODE movie. It’s not great entertainment. If you must go see a movie, go see OVER THE HEDGE, AKEELAH AND THE BEE, THE LOST CITY, SAVING SHILOH, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, or even POSEIDON instead. Or, better yet, watch INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, a much better, more heroic and more Christian-friendly story about a heroic search for the Holy Grail.

Now more than ever we’re bombarded by darkness in media, movies, and TV. Movieguide® has fought back for almost 40 years, working within Hollywood to propel uplifting and positive content. We’re proud to say we’ve collaborated with some of the top industry players to influence and redeem entertainment for Jesus. Still, the most influential person in Hollywood is you. The viewer.

What you listen to, watch, and read has power. Movieguide® wants to give you the resources to empower the good and the beautiful. But we can’t do it alone. We need your support.

You can make a difference with as little as $7. It takes only a moment. If you can, consider supporting our ministry with a monthly gift. Thank you.

Movieguide® is a 501c3 and all donations are tax deductible.

Da Vinci Code & the passing of Peter Higgs the day of CERN being restarted, April 8, 2024 (4-10-2024)

Podcast Episode

Add a plot in your language

User reviews

April 11, 2024 (United Kingdom)
See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

Runtime 5 minutes

Movie Reviews

Roger Ebert

Now playing

Carol Doda Topless at the Condor

The Long Game

Brian Tallerico

Asphalt City

Space: The Longest Goodbye

Accidental Texan

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Directed by

Based on the novel by

Until It’s Too Late: Bertrand Bonello on The Beast

O.J. Simpson Dies: The Rise & Fall of A Superstar

Which Cannes Film Will Win the Palme d’Or? Let’s Rank Their Chances

Second Sight Drops 4K Releases for Excellent Films by Brandon Cronenberg, Jeremy Saulnier, and Alexandre Aja

A 'Da Vinci Code' That Takes Longer to Watch Than Read

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Email not verified

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Movies / TV

The Da Vinci Code Reviews

Or browse by category:

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Common Sense Selections for Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

Explaining the News to Our Kids

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

A Lot or a Little?

Positive Messages

Positive Role Models

Violence & Scariness

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Parents Need to Know

Where to Watch

Community Reviews

What's the Story?

Is It Any Good?

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Movie Details

Did we miss something on diversity?

Suggest an Update

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear

The Da Vinci Code Review

Related Articles

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

The Da Vinci Code

Content Caution

In Theaters

Home Release Date

Movie Review

Positive Elements

Spiritual Elements

Sexual Content

Violent Content

Crude or Profane Language

Drug and Alcohol Content

Latest Reviews

The Long Game

The Greatest Hits

The Da Vinci Code

Be the first to rate & review this game!

The Movie Review: 'The Da Vinci Code'

Review: The Da Vinci Code (2006)