The Da Vinci Code is an incredible book, and still one of my favorites in terms of story, concept, and a massive amount of details backing up their claims - that's true for any Dan Brown book. The concept itself is strong enough to warrant a movie, but any fan of the book knows they'll never be able to captivate the details put in the book. In a sense, it's an un-filmable story - but nevertheless something people need to see, because it's still immensely interesting. The book reads like the most entertaining persuasive speech ever told - it's so captivating that you, as a reader, begin to question religion and what's true or not. That's because Dan Brown doesn't just use his own imagination, in a way, he also cites his material with the works of others - and everything is backed up. He didn't come up with the concept, he just popularized it.

The movie could never match up to the book, I knew that when I first saw it - but I never knew how they'd pull it off for a condensed story. Yeah, the movie is 2.5 hours long, but it feels rushed because they seem to use all the details Dan Brown did...but only the main topics without the explanation necessary. In short, the movie is convoluted because the viewer might have a hard time grasping all the historic events and figures the movie talks about - which is a lot without offering a real breather. The book made me google something or other after every chapter, the movie is just interesting.

I love the fact that they made The Da Vinci Code a film, it's not a story that deserved to be left to the pages, nor is any other Dan Brown book. I hope one day, they'll also make The Lost Symbol, which is my favorite of the stories so far...but I'm beginning to doubt it. If you've never read the book, do it. This movie serves as more of a companion than anything else, but it's still worth the watch, regardless of how convoluted the movie is.

My major gripe with this movie was how strictly it attempted to adhere to the book, even though that's what I wanted it. Confused? I bet. There were things they included in flashbacks that I thought were just there to throw a bone to those who have read the book. They made absolutey no sense to someone who hadn't. I would bet there was not a single person who hadn't read the book who was able to pick up anything about the monk's and the Bishop's past. The flashback left me kind of confused. I could cite several of these but I think you get my point. I'm not sure why they changed some of the other things also. Like Langdon being at a book signing when the French police grab him. This throws the whole timing of that evening off since he was at his lecture, then says he was supposed to meet Sauniere and waited for an hour...etc. Just didn't flow right. A little more detail on his "escape" from the Louvre would have been nice too. The book did a nice job here. Also omitted the gun standown at the DaVinci painting. Changed the ending....blah blah. Still enjoyed the movie but left feeling they could have done so much better.

Each breath you take is a sin. No shadow will be safe again, for you will be hunted by angels.

The Da Vinci Code is directed by Ron Howard and adapted to screenplay by Akiva Goldsman from the novel of the same name written by Dan Brown. It stars Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow. Music is scored by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.

When a man is murdered inside the Louvre, his body is found to be surrounded by cryptic messages. The police call in American symbology expert Robert Langdon (Hanks) to decode the clues. When he is joined by Parisian cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Tautou), it quickly becomes apparent that nothing is as it first seems and a mystery begins to unravel that could shake Christianity to its very core.

Extended Cut (Blu-ray) Version Viewed.

I haven't read the book! And I love treasure hunt/clue chasing movies! So I came to Ron Howard's hugely successful film (over $600 million in worldwide profit) bereft of literary pressure and with only a modicum of genre expectation. Perhaps this is why I'm apparently only in a small percentage of film lovers who really enjoyed the film? In spite of those gargantuan financial figures.

Ultimately it's very safe film making, with a director and cast guaranteeing professionalism, but it weaves a magical mystery tour full of cryptic clues, secret organisations and cover ups. Yes, there is a good deal of corn thrown in as well, which inevitably stops the adaptation from being hyper intelligent. There's also an understanding on my part as to why many feel it's just too talky, but was the film ever going to be unfurled as an action movie blockbuster for the popcorn munching crowd, like National Treasure et al?

It is a clever conspiracy thriller full of twists and turns with a outlandish revelation at the finale. It's also very appropriately performed by the cast (serio brooding and fret), and when McKellen joins the fray after an hour of film it has a little class as well, while Zimmer's score is a majestic blending of choir, strings and synths. I maintain that the film didn't deserve the critical whacking it got, but again I say I had a blank canvas going in for my first viewing.

I wasn't sold to it because of controversy or had a saliva tinged mouth having worshipped at the altar of Dan Brown, I expected exactly what I got. A flawed but ever so intriguing adult mystery thriller, and not even Hanks' hair stopped me having a great time with the movie. 7/10

A big-budget, big-name, big-screen adaptation of one of the decade's biggest literary phenomenons. Given such gravitas, it shouldn't be surprising that the whole thing frequently threatens to buckle under the weight of its own expectations.

And threaten it does, in typical bloated, self-indulgent fashion, but like a Weeble it's able to sustain such wobbles intact. The intense, brainy series of puzzles and mysteries at its heart are largely to thank for that - though the figurines dancing around their outskirts are persistently fake and irritating, there's something deeply interesting about the riddles themselves that's able to power the film instead.

The plot comes and goes as it pleases. Ian McKellan gets to deliver all the sizzle, in a profoundly thought-provoking monologue on the roots of Christianity, then abruptly changes his tune in one of an endless series of stupid, unnecessary swerves. In that sense, it feels like a film that thinks it needs to do more than it does. Tom Hanks, thrust into an unfamiliar role as a thriller/action lead, never feels completely at-home, and Audrey Tautou (best known from her work in Amelie) is flat and unconvincing, a major disappointment as his co-star.

There's the sparkle of something powerful glimmering at the heart of The Da Vinci Code, but actually unearthing it amidst so much padding and space-filler is a task on par with one of the film's most difficult brain teasers.

Writing this review might be considered an act of vanity. Until recently I was among the very few who hadn’t seen The Da Vinci Code, or even read the book. But now I have done so — watch the movie, that is. I still have no plans to read the book. But is there anyone left out there who might benefit from a review?

Mostly I thought the movie was rather silly. Oh, I know that the book was researched about as well as your average documentary, and that the plot is intricate and suitably complex for a thriller. Like a spy thriller, it develops that the two heroes can never be sure who they can trust. In fact, the short answer seems to be “No one!” There are plenty of plot twists, reverses and surprising revelations, some nifty but others that are utterly predictable. But it lost some of its credibility for me near the beginning when the female lead drove her car at a high rate of speed in reverse in and around traffic, faster than most drivers could manage driving forward. Really?

There is a lot of action in the movie, but it lacks the exuberance and humor of a classic like Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess religion is a serious business.