RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Tags for Da Vinci Code, The (2006) (Browse Tags)

Ratings Breakdown

  • 1
  • 3
  • 1

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

Da Vinci Code, The (2006)Get Rating Widget!

Overall Rating: 3.00 based on 5 ratings

(Add picture or description)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=excellent)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item

Reviews for Da Vinci Code, The (2006)  1-5 OF 5

Browse next item:
Dragnet (1987)
Sort items by:
GenghisTheHun (155)
You know, this has been the biggest buildup of any book-film combo since Jonathon Livingston Seagull around 1970. Remember that dud? Well you really can't do much with an existential seagull.

The hype aroud DVC has been enormous. This is supposed to be a cultural changing event, a blow to organized religion, etc.

Martha and I went to the flick. I was pleasantly suprised to see a more up-scale crew of watchers in lieu of the usual slack-jawed gaggle of mouth-breathers who interrupted their wacking off or maybe video games to come see the latest block-buster.

First of all, it was loooong, according to my watch over 2 1/2 hours. I can't sit that long and had to make a couple of bathroom breaks.

I hardly recognized Tom Hanks at first, but he did alright and the other cast members were ok also.

If you are a Christian and particularly a member of the Catholic Church, relax. This flick is going to do absolutely nothing. It is a glorified Mission Impossible.

It starts off with a bang with the murder in the Louvre, but then every fifteen minutes or so it stops to update you on what is happening. If you haven't read the book, you are gonna be lost. It reminds me of the Dune movie about 20 years ago.

Basically here we are supposed to have the greatest secret in human history, but then Leonardo gets it in his noggin to stick some clues out there so some 21st Century mopes can figure it all out. Yeah, sure.

The book was fine as fiction but laughable as fact. I am a historian and religion is one of my history beats. Brown cribbed a bunch of materials from various spurious Gnostic Gospels that were rejected 1800 years ago and sells it as fact. A total joke, but the ignoramus weak-minded will probably lap it up and have done so.

Of course a lot of anti-Christians and anti-Catholics out there provide a ready market.

The movie is worth seeing but is maybe a 3 1/2 knocked down to three for the disappointment with pouring 250 million dollars down this rathole.

The critics here and abroad have been yucking it up and savaging this flick and I can see why!
StarkTruth (64)
Gotta admit that I didn't know Tom was the star until the day before I saw this film. He portrayed the character just as I pictured him. Excellent choice! The cast was well chosen with one minor objection. The actress playing Sophie did not portray the character's personality well. I can only assume that it was the script she was handed and the instructions that she was given. She's very pretty, but come on... where's the piss and vinegar? Where's her wit and energy? Sophie is not a mouse. Bad choice there Ron. Sandra Bullock, adorned in auburn hair, could have carried the role much better.
The majority of the story followed the book with obvious sections omitted for times sake. That didn't seem to affect the flow until they threw in Silas' flashbacks. Again, poor choice. Those few minutes could and should have been left on the editing floor. It added nothing to the movie.
Deviating from the book might cause a stir among the many who've read it (and there are a few who have) but overall it's a pretty good flick. I don't see what all the fuss is about with the religious folk, and the free book they offered as we left the theater was nothing more than tripe written to denounce the factual flaws contained in this work of fiction. I was not there to seek truth, I was there to be entertained, and I was.
I look forward to the release of the DVD so I can watch the deleted scenes and hear the directors commentary.
Ridgewalker (116)
3.75...not quite a 4. Stark and I just returned from seeing "The Code". Let me preface this by saying that Stark has read the book 4 times. She brought home a copy for me to read a couple of weeks ago, but with the opening date approaching, I passed on the book. I'm also feeling really lazy these days and RIA is the limit of my attention span. Going in, I felt that I had a decided advantage over Stark, because it would not be a template to lay over the book, which I have not read.

Okay, the film. The first thought to pass through my much-used brain (I had to pay attention) was "National Treasure" (2004 with Nichlas Cage) without the Indiana Jones schtick. I am normally hypnotized by theories about The Prior de Scion, The Knights Templar and all the other now secret societies and this part of the over-all concept kept my head in the game. The concept of the film, which I'm assuming is no big secret by now is, from one perspective, a lunge at the profound. From another perspective it is so frivolous, that just about anyone could have cut and pasted the elements off the internet and linked them together with psuedo-historical significance. It would take a major dose of suspension of one's disbelieve to get carried away by all of this. But, there was some intrigue as Hanks "hanked" his way through the labyrinth of stylized mumbo-jumbo.
My other "first" impression, was 'why did Brown chose this subject'? As conceptually intriging as it is (an maybe that's the point?) it will be sure to offend true believers, as a film denying the holocaust would offend others. (Don't do it Mr. Brown.)
So, in the end, not impressive, not regretful. The extra .75 is for the free book they gave out. Would have bumped it up to a 4, but there were no pictures in it. Film only? A solid 3.
ma duron (59)
Surely a more muddled script will be hard to find - in any decade; many will be scratching their heads when leaving the cineplex. There are better things to do than trying to make sense of so much historical exposition and unresolved issues while making all else unfocused.

In the end, director Ron Howard and the scriptwriter seem to have avoided making clear any controversial statement as all villains turn out to be either irrational zealots of whatever persuasion or merely misguided souls; in the end, no rationale or explanation (such as: what brought about the criminal activity at this particular moment?) can assign blame to any contemporary organization or sect all that menacing, except from a historical perspective, perhaps. The feared threat to Christian faith is unfocused which, alas, has been given much undeserved prominence by those who, obviously, have not yet seen it.

Audiences will likely expect something much more challeging; the dialog is unremarkable by any standards, the foreboding music is unmerited and the acting, from all concerned, is no better than what you find in the standard action programmer.

Dan Brown himself might want to seek damages for having foiled his admitted attempt to discredit the historic Church, whose presumed role and responsibility concerning religious persecutions in general throughout millennia becomes lost in the narrative. Ironically, the flashbacks that accompany the didactic attempt to 'enlighten' the movie audience, are very brief but best rendered.

Most anything that is challenging and polemic in the book is, again, watered down from a basic lack of narrative focus. The dialog on paper was much more persuasive when on the page than when actually spoken on screen, even coming from Ian McKellen.

Although everyone's a villain in some fashion, so that it's hard to tell - or care - who is on which side and how much of the blame of the bloody mayhem can be assigned to any one.

This movie is no great shakes. Rent 'The Matrix' again, instead. So, there.
trebon1038 (55)
Without seeing the movie I can't really comment on Hanks in it, but what Im hearing on the coverage about the film is that one of the reasons it is being slammed so much is that the book was too complex to cram into a movie and according to many critics, they failed to do so. I think this happens with Tom Clancy books too. I do plan to see the film but not in the theater.4
1-5 OF 5View All
Add a rating badge for Da Vinci Code, The (2006) to your site!