Customer Reviews

The Da Vinci Code (Full Screen Two-Disc Special Edition)

5 star:		(209)
4 star:		(151)
3 star:		(141)
2 star:		(66)
1 star:		(93)

 

 

The Da Vinci Code is a movie that has been the object of critics' scorn since Cannes. Therefore when I went in my expectations were quite low. I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed this intellectual treasure hunt. Action sequences boldly intertwine with quieter scenes where codes and symbols are being deciphered to lead to the next clue. At times we get the back story of what has happened to a persecuted religious sect through out the ages. The flashbacks to ancient Rome are brief but beautiful. In addition there are some gorgeous locations for filming, among them the Louvre and Rosslyn.

Hanks and Tautou perform like the pros that they are--it is interesting that two actors known for their whimsical charms were cast in such serious roles. Generally actors starring in thrillers will be those known for their laconic delivery and quietly passionate intensity. However, Tom Hanks was playing a professor of symbology and as such he did a fine job.

The supporting cast reads like a list of international superstars: Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Jurgen Prochnow--all were superb.

One of things I liked about this film is how it gave the audience the opportunity to view the world from the perspective of someone who is used to looking at symbols and their meanings, in particular of things that most of us don't even notice most of the time. It was an unusual and fascinating angle on perception.

This a movie that tries to pack some very deep concepts into the thriller/treasure hunt genre. Overall I think it succeeds rather well.

It's readily agreed that director Ron Howard's uneven adaptation of the Dan Brown best-seller will not win any major awards. When considering the expository nature of the source material, it's amazing that "The Da Vinci Code" came off as well as it did. Though overlong and rather talky in spots, Howard has crafted a diverting mystery-thriller that benefits immeasurably from Sir Ian McKellan's bravura performance. Audrey Tautou is the ideal Sophie, but Tom Hanks cannot overcome his miscasting as Professor Robert Langdon. Still, it's a brave attempt.

Prepare to be entertained. Having read the novel first, and also armed with the blasting reviews the film received, I kept my expectations low as I prepared to see this movie. However this is a very fine film. I found it respectful and tasteful in presentation of those sensitive issues which seem to be so threatening to so many. Besides it's just plain beautiful to look at. The scenery and cinematography is not to be missed, and keep your eyes moving about the backgrounds and details as you watch.

Of course, few films can capture better the scope and mental details we add as we read an intelligently written book, but one would really be missing out to avoid seeing this one. I don't believe the filmmakers were seriously looking to convert anyone, merely create enjoyable and thought-provoking entertainment. I'd personally rather have something to think about during and after a film other than not, which is so often the case today.

There are also some nice goodies packaged in this DVD set, and I'm looking forward to receiving my copy. If you have any interest in history whatsoever, or in mindbenders, you should enjoy this. Without the background interest? It is, after all, an action adventure movie filmed in incredible places! See it!

The fictional masterpiece --and historical disaster-- "The Da Vinci Code" is an extremely entertaining book (two years of reasearch and Brown couldn't figure out that Leonardo da Vinci was known as "Leonardo"... since "da Vinci" means "from Vinci" -- where Leo was born).

So, how did it fly as a movie?

Quite well, I'd say. You can't expect a bad movie when Ron Howard works with the likes of Hanks, Tatou and McKellen. Needless to say, the acting was above and beyond. The direction was superb and the story flowed with amazing ease. The tension was present with every turn as was the mystery behind it all.

However, as most book-to-movie adaptations, it loses some of it grandeur. The twists are less sharp and it's a bit more predictable. I must admit that the movie is pretty faithful to the book. However, in trying to place all of the book's riddles in the movie, the characters had less time to "de-code" them. Therefore, they seemed like all-knowing geniuses that casually figured out the most complex mystery in no time. The result? It gets confusing and tedious. The story is just as flawed and as poorly-researched in the movie as in the novel. I guess this also counts as a fidelity, depending on how you look at it.

If you expect a lot of in-depth "da Vinci" exploration, don't. Only a few works of Leaonardo make an appearance and his name is mentioned twice, exactly. If you think that this movie/book is as close to the truth as you can get, you must not get out much or haven't read any other book in your life. If you think that this is a well acted movie with a so-so plot and wonderful direction, welcome aboard.

If X-Men 3 is sold out, go see this movie. If not, rent it. It'd be a nice rental.

The radical and controversial reaction caused by the movie The Da Vinci Code was to be expected since the moment director Ron Howard decided to make it, for in the last couple of years few books have generated such an extreme polemic reaction that, four years after its publication, seems like it will never end.

My review will be limited to comment the movie, because it is not my intention to start a religious debate about the theories exposed in the novel. For me, The Da Vinci Code is just another fiction film, and as such, I will discuss it.

The Da Vinci Code is one of those movies like Indiana Jones, The Mummy, etc., that combines adventure, history, mythologym mystery and action. The plot revolves around Harvard History/Symbology Professor Robert Langdon, French Cryptologist Sophie Neveau and their quest to discover the hidden clues left by the Louvre's Museum Curator before he was murdered by an Opus Dei Monk called Silas. These clues are part of a secret that -if revealed- would supposedly change the course of history: the truth about the Holy Grail. Of course, there will be allies for Langdon and Neveau in this journey, like an eccentric Englishman (the always fabulous Ian McKellen) and some detractors, an Opus Dei bishop (Alfred Molina), members of the Catholic Church, a French policeman (Jean Reno) and a secret "master" that desperately wants to uncover the truth.

It's a long journey through history, religions, family secrets and complex puzzles and riddles. Screenwiter Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) does a great job compressing the detailed narrative from Brown's book, allowing himself to take some liberties with the plot, which results in unexpected twists, but welcome ones.

The characters in the movie are as plain as they are on the book, but each actor does the best they can with their parts. The exceptions are Sir Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany, whose characters are the richest and in consequence, the more interesting ones.

The Da Vinci Code is a good thriller-adventure movie, filmed in gorgeous settings, starring a very attractive cast and enhanced with a score by Hans Zimmer. His contribution is most notorious and grateful in the last ten minutes, where Howard offers a respectful and almost reverential finale to Langdon's journey, and with that, a spectacular ending to a very entertaining movie. Yes, a movie, just a movie, nothing else.

The Da Vinci Code, directed by Ron Howard, is an excellent adaptation of Brown's novel that leaves you with an odd mixture of quizzicality, wonder and contentment by the time the movie is over.

All the actors put in an excellent performance, but Audrey Tautou, the actress who plays Sophie Neveu, is exactly how I imagined her when I was reading the book and practically steals the show with the interpretation of her character.

As those who have read the book know, the plot goes into very controversial subject-matter, and that atmosphere of intrigue, mystery, religious zeal and hermeticism that keeps you in its grip from the first page to the last is expertly conveyed in the film. Lavish production, beautiful sets and locations (the Louvre!) and an ending that pretty much left me in a daze (I enjoyed the ending more watching the movie than when I read the book) make for a truly magical movie-going experience.

Not a religious manifesto, or underhanded attempt to undermine conventional religion. There were several handfuls of protestors outside the theater tonight, of a fundamentalist religious persuation. The placards all implied that the movie damaged the faith of the country in some way.

Had the urge to to remind them that this was and is a work of fiction. I guess they know that. I did.

Taken as such, the movie was quite good. The performances are not going to win anyone Oscars but the three hours were over almost before I knew it. The premise was entertaining and the movie well done.

I'll be very interested to see what kind of extras will be in the DVD version(s).

Leonardo Da Vinci is and was one of the most brilliant men in history. He was an artist, inventor, and architect of unparalleled genius.

While the novel (and now film) by Dan Brown titled "The Da Vinci Code" remains controversial due to it's subject matter, it is nevertheless an intelligent and entertaining piece of fiction (...or perhaps even nonfiction).

This film explored the history of Christianity and the power of religion, as well as the importance and significance of symbolism in all walks of life.

For those who read the book before they see the movie, you might notice that while the film is very well-made (I would expect nothing less from director Ron Howard) it does seem to have a problem with it's need for a large amount of exposition. It seemed to me that 70% of the film was straight exposition, or information/backstory that needed to be told in order for the events taking place to make sense. This was done mostly in interesting imagery, or flashbacks.

Basically, the book had a little difficulty translating onto film mainly because there was just so much information and material to explain. In the book format, the story was told beautifully, seamlessly, and with the perfect amount of explanation at the right times. Each chapter of the book ended in a cliffhanger, which is part of what made the book so electrifying and hard to put down. The film felt rushed in the sense that the characters had to give the audience a lot of information in a compact period of time, and by doing this it came across much less seamlessly. It also didn't quite have that intense "cliffhanger" kind of feeling.

However, I applaud this film and it's efforts to explore such difficult subject matter. Religion is a very touchy subject with many people, and its even *more* difficult to call religion and Christianity into question. People generally don't like their faith or religion questioned, and they certainly don't like being told that they may have been lied to about the truth of religiously significant events in the past.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, this film is enjoyable and thrilling for the intriguing work of fiction that it is. You don't have to agree with the ideas that the film and book introduce. Think what you will, but try to view the film with an open mind. Take it with a grain of salt, and enjoy it.

The film adaptation of Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code" can be viewed as a test to determine how receptive the readers mind is to new ideas. Be warned, some of the ideas presented in this story can be very uncomfortable for some people, depending on their religious convictions and on their receptivity. However, the material contained in his book is relevant on several levels.

First, the plot deals with a theme which is near the hearts of hundreds of millions of potential viewers, namely the history of the Christian Church. The story challenges readers with new information which may not agree with what they think they already know.

Second, the story is exquisitely well researched, drawing from documents as old as the 1st century, through medievel Holy Grail legends, through Renaissance paintings, and ties them together into what the British used to call "a ripping yarn".

Third, although most of the characters in the story are fictional, many of the concepts presented in the story are historically true. It is perhaps this last point which has created the greatest amount of controversy.

The movie (and the book upon which it is based) develops the idea that before Christianity, many religions embraced a balanced worldview in which the sacred feminine principle and the sacred masculine principle joined to maintain harmony. That this was once the case is evident from the mythology of many cultures, with their pantheons of gods and goddesses. However, Brown writes that Jesus embraced these ideas as well, a notion which would have been radical to patriarchal Jews of that time, and would certainly have stepped on the toes of the Jewish clergy.

Brown does a good job of supporting this idea, and echoes what is documented in many other historical non-fiction works, such as "The Chalice And The Blade" by Riane Eisler.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the story for some readers to accept is that in addition to his revolutionary teachings, Jesus lived as did other Jewish men in his culture, and took a wife, Mary Magdelene, and had children with her, descendants of whom survive in the present day. Documents written in the first century comment on Jesus relationship with Mary, however these were eventually suppressed several hundred years later following the Nicean council. Interestingly, the four canonical gospels do not specifically deny that Jesus married, and are completely silent regarding his life between age 12 and age 30. Any given reader will accept or reject this premise of a married Jesus depending primarily on what they choose to accept as evidence.

Whether a reader believes that Jesus married or not, the premise does make a great "what if" foundation on which to construct a thrilling story, in a manner similar to "what if" the Ark of the Covenant were still in existence, and an archeologist found it? (i.e. Raiders of the Lost Ark). One does not need to actually believe that the Ark still exists, or even that it ever existed, in order to be entertained. Such is the case with "The Da Vinci Code".

As was the case with films such as "The Last Temptation of Christ", many (although certainly not all) Christians do not like to hear that what they already believe may not be completely accurate.
For some people, anything which might require a readjustment in thinking is automatically branded a falsehood. These are the people who picket movie theatres protesting films which they have never seen, or who write reviews slamming books which they have never read.
In an ironic manner, these people become part of a policy of suppression which attempts to block access to alternative information which presents a different view. As one who prefers to weigh both sides of issues and decide for myself what makes more sense, all the protests and denials made me want to read the book, and see to the film, even more.

Although difficult for some to admit, the reality is that sometimes new information becomes available which renders previous understandings obsolete. For example, we now know that diseases are caused by germs and virus, and not by an imbalance in four humours as was once believed. We also now know that Earth is spherical, and orbits the Sun, instead of being flat and located at the center of the Universe, as was once widely believed by Christians (the ancient pagans knew better, as proven by their surviving writings). Some of the information in this book will be new information to some people, others already were aware of the historical elements which form the basis for this story.

I found the book to be sufficiently well written and interesting that I read it through in parts of three days. Nothing I read offended me, I read with an open mind and tended to think "Well, it COULD have happened that way".

When I read the book, I had not yet seen the movie, but was aware that Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan and Alfred Molina were cast in leading roles, so I tended to see them in their roles as I read.

When I actually saw the movie, I found that the story moved quite quickly, and kept me enraptured with beautiful imagery and stirring music. At times, the director caused a flashback to overlap the action on screen, so that you could see the character, and what they were remembering, at the same time. This was used in several of the scenes where Langdon was rearranging letters or images in his mind while attempting to solve a clue. At other times a similar technique was used to show modern action and action hundreds of years previously which occurred at the same location, on the screen at the same time. All of the characters were played with genuine depth, having complex, well developed personalities. Tom Hanks was very good as Robert Langdon, the expert symbologist. I especially appreciated the manner in which Audrey Tautou played Sophie Neveu, the cryptographer. In this role, she simply radiated a pure feminine quality, which, as the story developed, proved that she was the perfect choice for the role.
Sir Ian McKellan was also very good as Sir Leigh Teabing, a wealthy enthusiast in all things related to the search for Holy Grail.

Many of the twists and turns in the story came as complete surprises to me. Some of the people I was sure were sinister were actually motivated by noble intentions, and some of the people I thought were good guys turned out to be ruthless.

I strongly recommend this movie, and the book upon which it is based. For the maximum enjoyment, see the movie first, then go back and read the book for additional details.

I eagerly look forward to the movies release on DVD.

I liked the film version of DaVinci Code when it first appeared in the theaters, but this extended edition is really the one that should have been released. The new scenes give extra depth to the story line and explain a lot that was just skipped over in the theatrical release. The film looks great on blu-ray...very good blacks and the skin tones look quite natural. The many churches and other settings in the film look quite crisp and clear. The sound was never a surround blockbuster, but there is some nice surround with the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. Leigh's airplane flying overhead will make you duck when it flies by in the film. The surrounds are mostly used for music and some echo effects. On the whole, this version of the film is very watchable and enjoyable.