The Da Vinci Code

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. (06/11/2006)

Like the book, the picture is rather “naive" and rather than quality, we get solid craftsmanship instead. Thanks to the flatness of the characters, the actors have very little acting to do, which is highlighted by it being rather garrulous and so the entire movie relies on vocal performances. Although this could easily be cut down a good few minutes, in the end it is watchable without great damage to your health. But the only actually positive side of the whole Code is Zimmer’s soundtrack, which makes even the most boring dialog scene seem as if it is something fundamentally important for the story. The creators tended toward the secrecy storyline, which is therefore given the most space and so only a fraction of the movie is devoted to cracking the code and this becomes just a necessary evil with no power behind it, which is a great shame. OST score: 4/5 (05/30/2006)

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. (06/03/2006)

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. (09/28/2007)

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. (04/19/2014)