Watch The Da Vinci Code For Free

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The acting in this movie is really good.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Based on the popular book by Dan Brown, this film tells the story a race against time to solve a centuries old riddle crossing through religion, literature, folklore and culture. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a professor/teacher/symbolist/literature expert/puzzle specialist who gets mixed up with a plot that put him both in danger, and in the driving seat to reveal one of religions biggest cover ups. It all starts in France, when a Louvre curator is killed. He is found in mysterious circumstances with mysterious codes on and about him. Langdon, along with Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) attempt to unravel the clues to the murder, and the clues to the cover up - this takes them through various locations all to do with Leonardo Da Vinci, as he was one of the perpetrators of the cover up. The cover up suggests that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child and there is in fact an active blood-line of decedents still alive. Throw in the mix various corrupt law enforcement agencies, various religious sects such as Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, various independent parties too - and you have a adrenaline fuelled mystery that spans the time of man and religion too.Directed by Ron Howard this film takes it's source material from the Dan Brown book of the same name. I have read the book but I wanted to review the film without the book in mind - so rather complain about differences or changes - I'm mainly going to be focussing on the delivery of the film rather than the contents of the book. Howard's choice of locations make the film visually pleasing, some lovely architecture has been really looked at from interesting perspectives. On first inspection his choice of casting too seems to have been a good choice; there are times where the lines are a little wooden, leaving me unable to connect or empathise for the characters - but for the most part performances are decent. Hanks and Tautou do well to carry the forward, while other appearances from Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Albert Molina (amongst others) all come off believable. Effects have been done tastefully for the most part, with emphasis on clues to help the audience along - sometimes practically spelling out the issue for audience members unable to understand. There's a decent pace for the most part but there are times where action drags a little - presumably to allow the audience to catch up. All in all this is a decent detective slash chase slash journey of a film. It's like an Indiana Jones style film with less action and more book smart. I'd give this a 7 out of 10. It wasn't awful but it's not totally my cup of tea. The hardcore book fans probably won't like some things about it, but as a standalone film it's got enough to keep viewers entertained.

Just wasted 2.5 hours of my life watching this crap. Poorly made, poorly thought out. Basically, a modern day fairy tale that gradually reveals itself through the movie to the point where it reaches fanaticism. At which I promptly turned it off. Cannot believe Hanks actually took this film. Whether it was the script he was given, the direction he was given, IDK, but Robert Langdon was one of the most boring characters I have ever watched.

I think the books are fun. They get into issues of art and secret societies going back ages. I'll admit that Dan Brown misses the point sometimes on some of his set-ups. But like most fiction, especially the genre he belongs to (I will throw in the likes of Preston & Childs), there are liberties taken. I'd like to know where those places in Game of Thrones are on our earth. Silly. Well. There is no scientific or historical accuracy in these films. The author created a world where evil has existed for centuries and he makes up a situation where this evil must be circumvented. I think what has happened here is because Dan Brown is not considered a fantasy writer, his work gets attacked as if her were a scholar. That trickles down to the movies and makes people so emotional. I liked the review by the woman and her boyfriend who had never read the book. They were willing to let their prejudices go. I didn't care much for the sequels, but there are other reasons for that. I think Hanks was quite adequate and the move is reasonable.

Tom Hanks behind Ron Howard's direction has led to some success in the past such as the entertaining, albeit super corny, Apollo 13. Here, Ron Howard has tackled a subject that few other mainstream directors would even think to. But the controversy over the subject matter seems unnecessary as even the characters within the story don't seem to believe the far-fetched and incredibly bogus plot. To begin, the acting is surprisingly dull. Tom Hanks, a legendary actor, never had "the scene" is this movie, making his performance distractingly off. At times, it looked like he didn't even want to be there, which only attributed to the sleepy tone of the film. Any actor could have portrayed Tom Hanks' character, making his presence feel like a waste of true talent. That being said, Ian McKellen was actually great. His introduction to the story and his deciphering of The Last Supper painting was among the films brightest moments. He brought a much needed pop of character to the story. Still, it was funny to see the lack of emotion within a group of people who were unfolding a secret that would lead to the most important discovery of all time. Now I do think that the story is completely stupid and rarely makes sense, but the film in it's entirety is admittedly entertaining. I can't say I was ever bored watching The Da Vinci Code as the story moved quickly from puzzle to puzzle and the group made new discoveries. This is where the movie shines and some fun can be had. But when we left our main characters, the story began to drag considerably. The parallel story lines just simply weren't intriguing and while they did provide the conflict and tension, motives were not clear and the sub-characters just weren't interesting. Watching our three main characters decipher ancient codes and riddles was actually quite interesting. While most of it is totally wack, these scenes did manage to hold my attention, resulting in some fun enigmas and hidden secrets. It's just too bad that the surrounding characters and atmosphere feel so insignificant, which makes the clues uncovered feel unimportant. The film also went on for way too long. The main story was done at the 2 hour mark, but it felt the need to continue for an extra 20 minutes where nothing was really accomplished. This extra 20 minutes did give us the answer to our main question, but it really felt unnecessary at that point as even our main characters had seemingly gotten over solving the mystery. And at that point, I imagine the audience has as well.Ron Howard tried so hard to piece together an alternate path in history, one in which we have to suspend our beliefs so high to a point where it feels artificial and clumsily manufactured. While it was entertaining to watch at times, the matter never felt pressing and the tension never felt real. The characters were just as believable as the ludicrous story, but if they had been even half as interesting, it would have been a much more memorable experience.