The Da Vinci Code

A suspenseful and sufficiently intricate piece that was dangerously fashionable to criticize at the time. Traditionally excellent performances by Hanks, beautiful Audrey, and devilish Bettany in a story that is attractive both in terms of historical and contemporary, as well as relational and religious aspects. On first viewing, without knowledge of the source material, it is demanding for the viewer's attention, and it is only during the second viewing that one can calmly fill in the context. (28/07/2006)

The Da Vinci Code is flat, tedious and visually unappealing. And for me, as an atheist who at most acknowledges faith in himself, the plot is also unappealing. With the exception of Ian McKellen, the actors are bland and the only thing above average here is Hans Zimmer’s dark music. I haven’t read the book, and now I definitely won’t read it. Typical Hollywood tripe sold through brilliant marketing. (11/06/2006)

I like the book much more. It was readable, full of suspense, in places funny. Unlike the movie, which is long-winded and in places boring to tears. It’s as if the screenplay just sketched the path along which we were meant to set out and ignored any clarity in the plot, individuality of characters and integrity of story. A movie isn’t a book and I think they forgot about that here. I would also have expected more from the cast. Tom Hanks gives the bare minimum and Audrey Tautou just looks pretty. It was Ian McKellen who did most work, thoroughly enjoying his role of rich seeker. The others just don’t get much room. The Da Vinci Code certainly wasn’t the event of the year, but luckily the overall effect doesn’t seem as awful as I had feared. 60 %. Oh and btw, the music is amazing. Hans Zimmer played his heart out. (28/09/2007)

When the book came out and I was fortunate enough to get it very early and read it, I was literally thrilled. Brown's conclusions were almost unbelievable, everything made sense. Now, with the passage of time, I see that the boy is mainly skilled at research, on which he focuses, and then crystallizes the story from it himself. Let's face it, without those researches, there is no story, or rather it is a classic treasure hunt. He knows how to write it (i.e. use the found information), and that is appreciated. Ron Howard approached the film in a Hollywood way and quite boringly. The chase for riddles here sometimes sounds almost childish. It doesn't change the fact that it works quite well and it's a film that entertains. (19/04/2014)

A boring source material that is even more boringly adapted, not to mention the inability to create at least a small dose of tension and dynamics. The screenwriter mixes together truth with myths and legends and creates is an unspeakable mess for the viewer, especially if they haven't read the book and are not familiar with religion. Tom Hanks doesn't do special and Audrey Tautou is there just for show. Only Paul Bettany, who is properly weird, is somewhat good. Ron Howard also completely fails to handle the more action-packed sequences. I haven't seen such muddled and restless cinematography during a nighttime chase in Paris in a long time. In the last ten minutes, we can see maybe five twists in short intervals, which completely demolished it for me. The most muddled and incomprehensible blockbuster of this year. (03/06/2006)