sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Fandango At Home
+4
The Da Vinci Code
The Da Vinci Code
+4
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code

2006
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
2h 29m
Based on Dan Brown's popular and controversial novel, The Da Vinci Code begins with a spectacular murder in the Louvre Museum. All clues point to a covert religious organization that will stop at nothing to protect a secret that threatens to overturn 2,000 years of accepted dogma. (Sony)

Directed by:

Ron Howard

Screenwriter:

Akiva Goldsman

Starring:

Audrey Tautou, Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Etienne Chicot, Seth Gabel, Clive Carter, Jean-Yves Berteloot

Franchise:

Robert Langdon

Genres:

Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Mystery

Countries:

France, Malta, USA

Languages:

English, Spanish, French, Latin
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

The Da Vinci Code

2006
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
2h 29m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 32.15% from 13193 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(13278)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 31 Jul 2009
1
1st
A film based upon one of the worst books ever published was always going to be a real shitter. Forget the books subject matter as its totally irrelivant, because most of all this is a dull, excruciatingly boring movie, and the dialouge is (obviously considering its origin) absolutely terrible. Needless to say it's a film for people with less brain cells than fingers.
Rated 31 Jul 2009
chemtrailschemtrails
Rated 03 Oct 2009
15
4th
Pretty fucking bad
Rated 03 Oct 2009
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 18 Sep 2009
56
13th
I was ultimately bored with this movie by the end of it and didn't really care about what was happening in it. Oh no Jesus slept with someone or something? Guess that means this crazy albino monk is going to come after you for finding out.
Rated 18 Sep 2009
sliderccslidercc
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
91st
The Haters(critics) should go sleep with their bibles. Good film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
cclzaCCLZA
Rated 10 Feb 2007
45
16th
Not as bad as the critics make it look, but yeah, it's a total waste of plot. Lets thank Ron Howard and of course the biggest miscast ever: TOM HANKS as Langdon.
Rated 10 Feb 2007
wicheWiche
Rated 26 Feb 2009
36
13th
Awesome, superb, intriguing, very nicely done, great characters and astonishing scenes. So far the book... I wish the film would have been more like it but actually the movie is really bad, some scenes are really bad and Tom Hank is so annoying as Robert Langdon. He really puts nothing into his role. He annoyed me from the firt minute..
Rated 26 Feb 2009
slrsoapboxSlrSoapbox
Rated 12 Jan 2007
35
10th
I'm not sure what's stupider. This film (which wastes Hanks, Bettany and Molina) based on an absolutely terrible book, or the ridiculous controversy around it. I think it's a tie.
Rated 12 Jan 2007
grimace98grimace98
Rated 30 Dec 2006
40
30th
Angry anti-religion stuff: awesome. Shots of Audrey Tautou looking so forlorn and distressed that I want to hold her and write her love poems so she won't kill herself: awesome. Weird Tom Hanks hair and sort of insane Jesus plot: not awesome.
Rated 30 Dec 2006
quintonjaminQuintonjamin
Rated 12 Jul 2024
60
50th
Not great, but I actually enjoyed the historical conspiracy aspect of the film. It’s too long, but I’ll probably watch the sequels.
Rated 12 Jul 2024
ununniliumUnunnilium
Rated 07 Jan 2023
24
13th
A badly paced thriller (and way too long), a badly structured mystery (that the audience can't participate in), and a woefully centrist story about religious oppression (that still feels like college freshman levels of "defeated with facts and logic"), with a subdued Tom Hanks in a role that belongs to an over-the-top Nicholas Cage. Christopher Lee does an amazing job giving the audience something to invest in, and his presence makes the runtime bearable, but it's just not worth your attention.
Rated 07 Jan 2023
mwdM.W.D
Rated 10 May 2014
20
14th
What is going on with Tom Hanks' hair? This is one of the most distracting haircuts I've seen on an actor... Is it a wig? It's almost as bad as those dreadlocks worn by Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Seriously who decided this was a good look?
Rated 10 May 2014
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 31 Dec 2012
75
37th
Fast-paced, shallow, silly, easy to follow - the film version is everything the book was, but in a shorter and slightly less stultifying experience. Ron Howard is better at working with this kind of material than Dan Brown was, although nothing he does hides the inherent weaknesses in story and character (especially any time bad guys are on screen). On the plus side, the cast is alright, the plot is entertaining enough - all in all I have seen much worse thrillers, and many of them.
Rated 31 Dec 2012
cmonsterCMonster
Rated 03 Sep 2011
30
12th
After the book this was a disappointment, but not surprising. The book reveals the mystery at a great pace and being that reading takes more time than a film it gave you time to digest it. So it was interspersed with action. The entirety of it goes to fast, but doing it slower may not have been a fix. Some books just don't fit well as films. Also Angels and Demons should have been made first since it actually takes place first.
Rated 03 Sep 2011
greatscott85GreatScott85
Rated 29 Jun 2011
33
9th
While the novel wasn't exactly Shakespeare, it at least managed to be an entertaining, well-paced lark, unlike this plodding, dull slog of a big-budget movie adaptation. What happened, Mr. Howard?
Rated 29 Jun 2011
cpryorcpryor
Rated 30 May 2011
50
16th
Boringggggggg
Rated 30 May 2011
magbMagb
Rated 25 Apr 2011
50
15th
my god
Rated 25 Apr 2011
davisty69davisty69
Rated 16 Jan 2011
75
19th
Doesn't touch the book
Rated 16 Jan 2011
slantmagSlantMag
Rated 02 Dec 2010
10
9th
"Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a marriage made in mediocrity." - Nick Schager
Rated 02 Dec 2010
laetitiaLaetitia
Rated 28 Oct 2010
56
9th
Boring and stupid.
Rated 28 Oct 2010
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 23 Jun 2010
45
36th
Dull and forgettable. Whilst the book was enjoyable, it functioned more like a puzzle than an actual story. Goldsman (who wrote 'Batman & Robin') fails to adapt the story, and basically just jotted down the greatest hits, making all characters paper thin and plot driven. This film won't offend anyone, but it's hard to see it as anything but redundant.
Rated 23 Jun 2010
overratedoverrated
Rated 10 Jan 2010
13
6th
I don't really remember much. Something something Jesus something something. To be honest I was enthralled with Tom Hank's coiff for most of the film.
Rated 10 Jan 2010
gyngerbredeGyngerbrede
Rated 12 Aug 2009
10
3rd
Worthless.
Rated 12 Aug 2009
qvtQVT
Rated 30 Dec 2008
10
15th
Sat through it. Ugh.
Rated 30 Dec 2008
enderender
Rated 12 Oct 2008
55
40th
Not nearly as good as the book, and the book wasn't that amazing...
Rated 12 Oct 2008
amadeamade
Rated 27 Jul 2008
20
0th
The most appallingly idiotic plot ever devised.
Rated 27 Jul 2008
jebJeb
Rated 25 Jul 2008
45
29th
Is better left just a novel...
Rated 25 Jul 2008
justinpdJustinPD
Rated 12 May 2008
30
3rd
Dull. Boring. Nothing much happens. The real mystery here is why the hell is this two hours ?
Rated 12 May 2008
ihatemoviesIHateMovies
Rated 05 May 2008
30
12th
Putrescent.
Rated 05 May 2008
tripwyreTripwyre
Rated 17 Apr 2008
37
18th
For a film with subject matter so taboo, it's a wonder it comes off so dull. Howard, by not wanting to run the risk of offending anyone, never runs the risk of entertaining them either. McKellen is the only reason the film is worth watching. Sure he does a wee bit of scenery-chewing, but his presence manages to single-handedly pump life into this stagnant adventure. The movie dazzles every time he's on-screen, he somehow makes it fun. Too bad it carries on for another 25mins after his exit...
Rated 17 Apr 2008
doctor7doctor7
Rated 28 Feb 2008
40
24th
Well it's not HORRENDOUS like the average review seems to make it sound but that's not to say it's very good either. The flaws are not in the acting or the minor dialog problems (which are there but not of movie-ruining quality) but rather just how absurd the plot twists and riddles get. By the end I felt like it could've been watching the old Adam West Batman with The Riddler as this week's villan.
Rated 28 Feb 2008
erbasalviaerbasalvia
Rated 05 Dec 2007
10
7th
atroce
Rated 05 Dec 2007
senseisensei
Rated 14 Oct 2007
40
6th
Tom Hanks's hair is Da Vinci's only redeeming quality, but damn if it isn't one big fucking redeeming quality.
Rated 14 Oct 2007
masterfxMaster_FX
Rated 12 Sep 2007
30
17th
It's a boring story about Gandalf playing tricks on Forrest Gump.
Rated 12 Sep 2007
unforgivenunforgiven
Rated 14 Aug 2007
10
1st
a masterpiece of bad screenwriting. boring as hell
Rated 14 Aug 2007
eveeluneveelun
Rated 14 Aug 2007
64
28th
Pretty silly overall, but not nearly as bad as the universal critical rejection would lead you to believe. The biggest problems are the arbitrary developments in the story and the formulaic twists, which become unnecessary and cumbersome during the last forty five minutes or so. Ian McKellan is spectacular, as always.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
pippip
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
5th
fucking dreadful
Rated 14 Aug 2007
akstanwyckakstanwyck
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
11th
While the book was a page turner, albeit a guilty pleasure, this movie is too ponderous and serious. Mckellen and Bettany are very good--Molina's a cartoon villain. Hanks and Tautou are boring, basically. The book is better! The movie is glossily made, with some cool flashbacks to the past. But lighten up!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
gheulgheul
Rated 10 Jul 2007
50
22nd
Boring and stupid.
Rated 10 Jul 2007
paradiselostParadiselost
Rated 14 Jan 2007
40
9th
SEE how Tom hanks' thoughts are visualised with imaginary neon letters. WATCH the very same letters rearranging themselves to form some stupid anagram. HEAR how he delivers an exciting expostion about the crusader knights. DONT see this movie.
Rated 14 Jan 2007
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 18 Dec 2006
2
21st
Tom Hanks is so miscast it hurts (never thought I'd say that). The religious controversy that this stirred up is nothing short of laughable. But my God Audrey is sure nice to look at, as always. The movie is a joke but so was the book, what'd you expect?
Rated 18 Dec 2006
sexcopterSexcopter
Rated 08 Dec 2006
15
1st
Quite simply, one of the drabbest films I've ever seen. Certainly not amazing, but there's nothing offensively bad here, which eliminates the "so bad it's good" factor. A miscast Tom Hanks, who rarely fails to deliver a quality performance, becomes a black hole of charisma, and none of the on-screen relationships that are set up actually generate any kind of electricity.
Rated 08 Dec 2006
war_machineWar Machine
Rated 19 Jun 2024
60
25th
Symbolsdiff+votedonjesusdivinitylol+marymagdalene'swombisthegraillolwasntprostitute-daughter+paganssextoheaven-keystoheavenruletheworld-witchtrialsfreethinkingwomen+ofcourseitlostmyattentionagainlol+cantbelieveit'snotoveryet:Piwasdone30minago+shesthelastlivingdescendantlol
Rated 19 Jun 2024
warionumber1WarioNumber1
Rated 06 Jun 2024
36
0th
Review:Meh, the book was decent, but this could have been a LOT better. Best Time to Watch:Unless you like really complex thrillers, this isn't for me. Even so, I only watch it every blue moon,if ever.
Rated 06 Jun 2024
alsweiderAlsweider
Rated 11 Jan 2024
65
26th
Wäre mit etwas mehr historischer Glaubwürdigkeit interessanter gewesen. Hat aber auch ohne diese Ungereimtheiten in Bezug auf Geschichte und Kirche ein paar Längen. Ansonsten ganz gut gemacht.
Rated 11 Jan 2024
0real020REAL02
Rated 18 Nov 2023
60
21st
Me esperaba algo mejor.
Rated 18 Nov 2023
thatyoungmthatyoungm
Rated 13 Oct 2023
65
6th
I didn't really enjoy the Da Vinci Code book, which felt like it was stealing from other, better adventure franchises, and the movie isn't any better. Tom Hanks (even with the terrible hairpiece,) does what he can with the character of Robert Langdon and there are a few moments of signature Hanks wit and charm, but the movie itself is a murky, sometimes confusing, sometimes really dumb slog.
Rated 13 Oct 2023
jessjess125Jessjess125
Rated 12 Sep 2022
80
48th
It follows the book pretty well, I don't hate it
Rated 12 Sep 2022
ceyhunk26ceyhunk26
Rated 11 Jun 2022
57
39th
Plot 13/20 Fiction 10/20 Casting/Acting 12/20 Worldbuilding 10/20 Entertainment 12/20
Rated 11 Jun 2022
lell186lell186
Rated 04 May 2022
4
63rd
I came into this completely cold and enjoyed myself, I'm not sure I agree with all of the negative reviews.
Rated 04 May 2022
eduardozeroEduardo_Zero
Rated 21 Feb 2022
12
1st
Fraquíssimo. Não é bom em nada. Não constrói clima, não entrega algo crível pois tudo parece muito caricato. Fala de um tema sensível mas não escolhe um lado e por tanto não sabe o que fazer.
Rated 21 Feb 2022
waltermittyWalterMitty
Rated 31 Aug 2021
70
23rd
2 hours and a half of something that should have remained just on the papers. Boring, absurd and without any kind of rhythm. I save just the performances of the actors
Rated 31 Aug 2021
metismetis
Rated 06 Aug 2021
65
32nd
2015.1.2
Rated 06 Aug 2021
gargom04Gargom04
Rated 15 Jan 2021
49
2nd
Opinión personal: 5.5 Actores: (5Hanks+6.5 Audrey+6.5+JeanReno4+6.5)=5.5 Planos: 4 Guión: 5 BSO: 6.5 FX: Director: 3 iluminación:4 Doblaje:0 Efectos especiales:2.5=2 Total: 49
Rated 15 Jan 2021
pfannkPfannk
Rated 15 Dec 2020
90
88th
Love the Holy Grail plot.
Rated 15 Dec 2020
jordanchasejordanchase
Rated 21 Nov 2020
70
31st
21.11.2020 Kartal
Rated 21 Nov 2020
dasmaymaydasMaymay
Rated 18 Aug 2020
37
13th
The majority of this is not as (unintentionally) hilarious as its first 2 minutes, which is a shame as it would have been a decent so-bad-it's-good flick. If you ignored the mountains of cheesy dialogue and exposition in the style of the old Batman show, the overused special effects, the lack of characterization and humanity, the confusing action scenes and some egregiously dumb plot twists, you could pretend this was a decent mystery thriller. Somehow falls apart even more in the last 20 min.
Rated 18 Aug 2020
peyrinpeyrin
Rated 07 Jul 2020
40
15th
I remember enjoying this book when I was like 12 years old and into the whole ancient riddle gimmick. Dunno if I just grew up or this movie just sucks. Maybe both.
Rated 07 Jul 2020
amorfusAmorfus
Rated 03 Jan 2020
90
63rd
Great mystery movie. Keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time.
Rated 03 Jan 2020
enigmazweb24enigmazweb24
Rated 23 Oct 2019
98
95th
I'd probably need to rewatch this movie as a 28 year old man in order to give it truly accurate rating, but when I saw this at age 16 or so, it blew my mind. The mystery and stakes are intriguing, and it's a good way to keep yourself entertained for a few hours
Rated 23 Oct 2019
hazelhawkshazelhawks
Rated 26 Aug 2019
44
20th
Obscenely self-serious production sucks most of the fun out of the novel, at least until Ian McKellen pops in. Still, not quite as offensive as Polanski's ransacking of Club Dumas.
Rated 26 Aug 2019
medinavimedinavi
Rated 16 Jul 2019
59
18th
Bu kadar iyi oyuncuyla bu kadar eğreti bir çekebilme başarısında tabi ki aşırı ağır elli anlatının çok payı var.
Rated 16 Jul 2019
gatoquentegatoquente
Rated 30 Apr 2019
92
47th
My SCORING: 99-96=Great; 95-90=Very good; 89-85=Good; 84-80=So-so; 79-70=Boring; Below 70=Forget it.
Rated 30 Apr 2019
vv238vv238
Rated 02 Oct 2018
24
19th
The source material is at the very least fast-paced and engaging on the most basic level, even if it is not an intellectual work of art. This is plodding and easily forgotten.
Rated 02 Oct 2018
bhajansunlobhajansunlo
Rated 04 Mar 2018
25
2nd
The book is pretty good, How did this go so wrong?
Rated 04 Mar 2018
mwestcottmwestcott
Rated 02 Jan 2018
65
32nd
My affinity for this film is almost entirely based on the stellar casting. At first I would have thought Tom Hanks in the role would have been just a cash grab. Which it is, but it's an enjoyable cash grab. Ron Howard seems to have a passion for the project and Ian McKellan is flawless as usual. Even the long run time does not bother me. That being said, most of the dialogue is either exposition or attempting to make a conversation out of Dan Brown's need to educate us in flawed history.
Rated 02 Jan 2018
aksharanandaAksharananda
Rated 12 Nov 2017
73
4th
Though I always love Tom Hanks, this movie underwhelmed the possibility they had in production. Whether comparing to national treasure or not, or comparing the questionable genius of Cage to the clear strengths of Hanks' acting, these are worthy to be judged together in the same room.
Rated 12 Nov 2017
jordanraidenjordanraiden
Rated 25 Sep 2017
11
12th
6/5
Rated 25 Sep 2017
luordluord
Rated 03 Aug 2017
48
24th
About as bad and preposterous as the book. Only made more annoying by everyone who buy everything it says. Hanks has always been as good as the material he's given and here he's... not good, of course.
Rated 03 Aug 2017
zoranZoran
Rated 22 Jul 2017
30
0th
Shit !
Rated 22 Jul 2017
yoshinarutoYoshinaruto
Rated 17 May 2017
40
11th
It can be smart at times, but thinks that it's smarter than it is. In reality it's a slightly smarter popcorn flick, but without any thrills. For me, Tom Hanks felt miscast, Paul Bettany's character seemed relatively unimportant and over used for what he was, and the movie felt too long during the third act. It was at times entertaining, and mildly clever, but not nearly as much as it wanted to be.
Rated 17 May 2017
lumpnboylumpnboy
Rated 02 Apr 2017
5
0th
I didn't have a headache, but pretty much agree with Lisa about the rating. And that despite the searing realism of the film's ultimate reveal that religion is a bunch of made-up stories, whereas the publicly-unknown truth gives some woman a genetically-determined ability to maybe stop a random French person from using heroin.
Rated 02 Apr 2017
zapperlifeZapperLife
Rated 11 Jan 2017
38
34th
Revisited (2)
Rated 11 Jan 2017
arossaross
Rated 21 Nov 2016
65
23rd
pretty mediocre even though I would normally like something like this
Rated 21 Nov 2016
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 19 Nov 2016
59
24th
I tried watching this on like three different occasions and tuned out at different times each time. Its boring and long and doesn't live up to being anything controversial, other than Tom Hanks hair.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
philamentalphilamental
Rated 01 Nov 2016
42
12th
Ironically a film about solving puzzles ends up feeling like it wasn't able to put all it's own pieces together. A top cast and director, and based on a best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code just isn't very entertaining. McKellen manages to inject some life into proceedings and his first scene where they visit him at home is sadly the sole high point in the film. There's a reason I haven't seen this in 10 years. Hopefully this mini review might remind me it's not worth a third viewing.
Rated 01 Nov 2016
bratingsbratings
Rated 29 Oct 2016
41
24th
Both intellectually engaging and unintentionally funny, Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code is a shoddy and structurally flawed adaptation that features an unusually distant performance in Tom Hanks.
Rated 29 Oct 2016
nrooNroo
Rated 03 Sep 2016
48
17th
If this was a svelte 100 or so minutes it'd be a schlocky fun time, but here we are.
Rated 03 Sep 2016
backwardsuitbackwardsuit
Rated 10 Aug 2016
42
8th
I Know What You Did Last Supper (copyright a BBC radio 5 live listener). Very stupid but very boring.
Rated 10 Aug 2016
cussotcussot
Rated 29 Jul 2016
50
2nd
A poorly written, inane book made into a dumb movie. Surely this should have been funny?
Rated 29 Jul 2016
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 06 Jun 2016
60
40th
The Da Vinci Code isn't a horrible movie by any means, and in fact it has a great cast and a solid director. Yet it feels off. Maybe it's the jumbled story, which can be hard to follow, or just the fact that the dialogue gets bland. But as much as it detracts from the film, it's still pretty good, on the shoulders of Howard, Hanks, and McKellen.
Rated 06 Jun 2016
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 03 Jun 2016
2
21st
Its preposterousness might be tolerable if it wasn't so cloyingly aggrandized and self-serious, bogged down in constant exposition and a tangle of twisting motivations.
Rated 03 Jun 2016
seenmanyseenmany
Rated 24 May 2016
86
72nd
liked it
Rated 24 May 2016
joelwatchesmoviesjoelwatchesmovies
Rated 25 Mar 2016
5
24th
Everyone likes a good treasure hunt, and the one here intrigues from the beginning (a murdered man's cryptic last words), with a fugitive plot adding extra urgency and excitement, even if Hanks and Tautou don't wow. But as the clues and twists pile up and the pivotal secret is elaborated upon ad nauseum (the exposition gets excruciating) it all starts to just "sound so stupid", to quote the film's Sophie. What began as a decent adventure thriller becomes bloated and self-important schlock.
Rated 25 Mar 2016
sopachuco13sopachuco13
Rated 28 Feb 2016
80
62nd
The Da Vinci Code is a good suspenseful movie. It's something that would be good to watch on a rainy Saturday when you don't have anything to do all day but vege out and watch movies. This adaptation of the best-selling novel has a great cast and good direction. Everybodies favorite, guy from around the block, Tom Hanks does a good job in the starring role. I'm not sure if there character is supposed to be lifeless or if it's just a product of him being a professor. I'd watch it again.
Rated 28 Feb 2016
gnalkhereGnalkhere
Rated 24 Oct 2015
40
6th
?
Rated 24 Oct 2015
duncanramageDuncanRamage
Rated 08 Sep 2015
40
5th
Uncompelling in every way. The main characters move from plot point to plot point so that the crew may aim the camera at the true stars of the film, the various beautiful pieces of art and architecture in Europe. As to any religious message, or lack thereof, the film only asks you to practice some introspection at your motives in belief, before settling itself into a comfortable agnosticism. McKellen has a lot of fun in his role; his moments let the film keep treading water instead of sinking.
Rated 08 Sep 2015
mfitzgeraldM.Fitzgerald
Rated 06 Aug 2015
38
26th
The Da Vinci Code is a movie about people explaining things.
Rated 06 Aug 2015
sonenossonenos
Rated 19 Jul 2015
90
87th
For its genre it is gorgeous.
Rated 19 Jul 2015
rymRYM
Rated 28 Mar 2015
43
9th
2.15/5
Rated 28 Mar 2015
dikrisdikris
Rated 12 Feb 2015
85
74th
awsome
Rated 12 Feb 2015
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
Rated 11 Feb 2015
30
8th
I thought the book was fine, but the movie came out and totally bombed in the face of all the controversy and hype. If you're going to be controversial, at least DESERVE it. In a way, I think the movie was bad enough that the controversy surrounding the novel actually disappeared.
Rated 11 Feb 2015
andrew3000andrew3000
Rated 11 Oct 2014
10
9th
Poorly written book transformed into an equally shitty movie; Ron Howard doesn't dumb down the source material, no, but he also doesn't make it any better, and once you get past the kinda-cool plotting there's literally nothing to enjoy here.
Rated 11 Oct 2014
whotempwhotemp
Rated 26 May 2014
50
3rd
- 4/15/12
Rated 26 May 2014
rttntomatoesrttntomatoes
Rated 03 Jan 2014
25
8th
What makes Dan Brown's novel a best seller is evidently not present in this dull and bloated movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code.
Rated 03 Jan 2014
theescapistTheEscapist
Rated 30 Dec 2013
73
65th
Decent mystery thriller. The storyline is interesting though occasionally unbelievable. I feel like this could have been better but it still manages to be fairly entertaining.
Rated 30 Dec 2013
tarwebroodtarwebrood
Rated 27 Nov 2013
47
17th
2013-11-27
Rated 27 Nov 2013
wonderstruckwonderstruck
Rated 10 Nov 2013
80
35th
I really enjoy Dan Brown's books but this movie just... It didn't work out the way it should, but if I hadn't read the book yet, I'd totally love it, so 80 it's a good score for me.
Rated 10 Nov 2013
alienindieAlienIndie
Rated 28 Oct 2013
68
58th
Book gets 76.
Rated 28 Oct 2013
glm01glm01
Rated 19 Oct 2013
63
27th
62.500
Rated 19 Oct 2013
orangeamelOrangeAmel
Rated 13 Sep 2013
71
54th
Tom Hanks looks good (I know,the hairline... just shut up, he still looks damn good in his long hair,quite dignified - thanks to it - too), he also acts believable most of the time.As for the story...the book had six hundred pages, it's obvious the story shown there is waaay better than here.So, watch it if you're not a book lover - it will entertain you, but I definitely recommend the original. I also regret Jean Reno had only a side role, but + for the beautiful architecture in the background.
Rated 13 Sep 2013

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...