Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Brilliant and touching

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

OK, I only saw the last 45 minutes of this borefest, from the scene where Tom, Audrey Tautou, and Ian McKellen are in some church where tom throws the vile and Ian leaps for it. Best thing to shut the movie off after Ian falls to the ground. That leap was worth it. What follows is utter boredom, except for the part when Ian is thrown into the cop car and he's seen yelling out the window, embarrassing for Ian, but may find some laughs. I was laughing.I have not read the book, and I do not plan to watch the whole movie. I've read the Wikipedia and the user reviews for Best, Hated It, Loved It, and Chronological – about 10 each. I have nothing against rewriting accepted religious beliefs or conspiracy theories in movies. I just don't want them in real life. I believe all religion is a tool to control people, as in "give me your worldly possessions and you will have everlasting happiness after you die", or "Give me a hamburger today, and I'll pay you on Tuesday", or "I'll give you bigger better health insurance for a fraction of the price", or Well you get the point. It's a freaking con job. "We'll give the rich tax cuts, so that they will build bigger and better factories for you poor slobs to work" – Con job.Getting back to the The Da Vinci Bore. First Tom Hanks looks like he has his eyes shut, and someone painted eyes where he's closed eyelids are. Now, I respect Tom as an actor, because I've seen enough of his work to call him a good actor, not great, not that, but a good actor. So, first the acting sucks in this movie. Audrey Tautou, and Ian McKellen were also garbage.The story, from what I gathered from the reviews and Wikipedia is garbage. Some kind of mystery and that Jesus had children and descendants. I don't doubt that he did. Most kings and powerful people had kids. But, then we get a multi city tour of looking for clues, action, murder, mystery, (similar to James Bond, or Jayson Borne, or Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Avengers, or any other big budget spectacular nonsense). Only to find out that Audrey is the last of Jesus's descendants. OK! Take a look at the last scene with Tom after he realizes where Jesus's wife is buried. Wood comes to mind? Some user reviewer in the Loved It category with 10 stars vote, stated that the music was incredible. Well, no. Not incredible, only filler. For the money they spent on this crap they could have brought back Beethoven from the grave. Or just use Beethoven.This movie is garbage. It's filler. And that opinion has nothing to do with the religious implications. I've heard about this movie for years, of how great it was. And when I saw it was playing on HBO, I thought OK, I'll catch it. I'm glad I only saw the last 45 minutes. But I did spend time reading the reviews. Hated It (1 star) category has the best views with details of why they hate it. Loved It (10 star) category users love it, because they love it, to them it's just fantastic, but no substance.The name of the game is brainwash. Build it and they will come. But it must be promoted. Yes, they promoted this movie and people came. Propaganda. Tell the people it's great enough times and they will believe you. Tell the people up is down enough times and they will eventually believe you. A perfect example of this is the "movie" Star Wars VII, The Force Awakens. A cheap copy brainless excuse for the Disney film studios to put a product out that will make a profit. So what we have here is not art. Not thinking. They are telling you what and how to think. Freedom has a price. It's called thinking.

Personally, i did read Dan Brown's novel and i found it really interesting. Even though the author claims that some of the facts and events are real, we should not just stay there. Why not start reading the book and get the great things it provides? I cannot understand all the hate. It is a book of fiction we must not forget that.As for the movie, of course the greatness of the book cannot be put on screen, we all know that! All the details are not included and in some ways the story is a bit confusing-especially if you are not into it(consentrating in the movie). However. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou do their best and that is good spot.Adventure, action and some suspense scenes takes the movie to another level! I must admit that i was disturbed and thrilled in the same time.Lastly, we cannot forget the soundtrack and the sound design great Hans Zimmer made for this movie..I absolutely recommend Ron Howard's adaption.All the fans of mystery, suspense , conspiracy theories will find this movie brilliant!

Even if many people and critics denounce The Da Vinci Code as an average mystery-thriller, it is far more than that. For me there is hardly a more interesting premise than to combine real historical events with a compelling story that evolves around those things. Dan Brown manages to delicately explore famous artwork, architecture and sights and weave an interesting, complex and twisted story around them. The plot is basically a treasure-hunt including codes and puzzles that need to be solved in time, and this makes for a thrilling and compelling movie experience, which - if you are willing to get yourself into it - on top of that offers a big amount of knowledge. The thought provoking themes and theories that Dan Brown explores in The Da Vinci Code have even led me to start reading the bible, which makes all the protest from church officials and catholic groups around the world somewhat ridiculous considering this book makes people concern themselves more with religion and its scripture.Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman did a good job in adapting the novel by cutting the unnecessary stuff out (sometimes the novel goes in pages-long details about historical events) and keeping the right stuff in. While the story is compelling, the villain's plan is maybe a little bit over-complicated and ludicrous. The method of giving the historical background in old-fashioned flashbacks with voice-over was the right choice. It is these flashbacks where you can learn a lot about European religious history. Of course not all presented facts in the novel and the film are true, but if you choose to get yourself into the theories you may experience a fascinating movie with very surprising twists, some stunning visuals, extraordinary beautiful music and some interesting characters.Director Ron Howard did some great work on The Da Vinci Code, however, he does not manage to deliver a constantly solid film: There are scenes which are emotionally and intellectually involving like the one in Teabing's ballroom explaining Leonardo's Last Supper and the mystery about Mary Magdalene. Here Ron Howard merges the three characters Langdon, Neveu and Teabing together with the TV showing the Last Supper (which almost acts as a fourth character) in a very investing and lucid dynamic interaction which helps to clearly understand the somewhat complex topic without being too dry and fact-laden. Another great scene takes place in the chapel behind Westminster Abbey where Teabing confronts Langdon and Neveu, which features Langdon's reflection about Newton's achievements, shown in another stunning animation. The ending scene however, in which Langdon eventually solves the code and makes his way through the evening streets of Paris to the Louvre, stands out most: the magic of a Parisian evening, the beauty of the Louvre and its Pyramid - greatly captured by Salvatore Totino's cinematography - paired with the impact of the story and your desire for it to be finally solved, Tom Hanks reciting the poem and, above all, Hans Zimmer's wonderful score make for one of the most cinematic beautiful sequences I've ever seen.On the other hand, there are some scenes that feel a little bit rushed and unconvincing, like the unrealistically fast responds of the people in Langdon's auditorium at the beginning of the film, major parts of Langdon and Fache's conversation in the Louvre, the scene with Silas and Remy in the Temple Church, the Teacher's POV scene with Remy and some of the flashbacks concerning Silas and Sophie Neveu's past, respectively. The subplot concerning bishop Aringarosa, though important for the narrative, is not very interesting either.Nevertheless, Alfred Molina gives a solid performance as Aringarosa, as does Jürgen Prochnow as Andre Vernet, director of the Swiss Bank. Throughout the film, Etienne Chicot performs really good as the grim police officer Collet, whose authority appears somewhat stronger than in the novel, especially with respect to Capitaine Fache, who is not perfectly portrayed by Jean Reno in my opinion, with his lines sometimes sounding too forced and static. Similarly, Audrey Tautou's acting - while Sophie Neveu is a likable character and has her moments - is not always quite believable. Jean-Yves Berteloot's acting as Teabing's servant Remy is not really impressive as well. In contrast, Tom Hanks is, as usual, very pleasant and convincing; in my opinion he is the best actor working today and I deem him the perfect casting choice for Robert Langdon. While Paul Bettany gives a very dedicated performance as Silas, the best both written and acted character, however, is Sir Leigh Teabing, portrayed by the remarkable Sir Ian McKellen. Every second he is on screen he steals the show and is a pleasure to watch. This refers especially to the ballroom scene in Château Villette and the plane scene where he gives, as I perceive it, one of the best little speeches in movie history, concerning history and him "creating" it now.Nevertheless, what truly elevates all the scenes and makes some of them so emotionally impacting, is Hans Zimmer's amazing score. On the one hand the themes consist of old-fashioned ecclesiastical appearing choir movements - supplemented by bells - and, on the other hand, of modern fast-paced staccato choir pieces paired with heavy orchestration and synthesizer elements, resembling the thrilling treasure hunt against the clock. The main theme "Chevaliers de Sangreal" develops a single minimalist motive by continuous augmentation into a phenomenal climax. Hans Zimmer uses this sort of relatively simple but all the more effective technique quite frequently, like in Inception and Interstellar. The Da Vinci Code's original score is, I claim, truly Oscar-worthy. The Academy chose to ignore it, the Globes, however, did not.In conclusion, this is a very special, highly original movie which explores great themes, and it deserves more attention and certainly better ratings. If you let yourself in for it and are not too nit-picky, you may well have a truly rewarding experience with The Da Vinci Code.

Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code is brought to life under the direction of Ron Howard. Tom Hanks stars as the renowned symbologist Robert Langdon who is called to the Louvre to solve a murder mystery. Paul Bettany plays the devout albino assassin, Silas. The murdered curator leaves behind a set of clues that Langdon must solve in order to discover an ancient secret left behind by the artist Leonardo Da Vinci. Langdon is assisted by the curator's adopted granddaughter Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). Pursued by Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) who is convinced of Langdon's guilt, Neveu and Langdon follow the clues that have been left behind. Silas also uncovers mysteries as he chases Langdon and violently chastises himself. The symbologist and cryptologist together elude capture and travel throughout Paris as the clues lead them towards a greater mystery.Eventually, they encounter a scholar, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) who reveals the secrets that Da Vinci hid. These revelations may not be historically accurate but the conspiracy is intriguing enough to have achieved the popularity of the novel and film. As I remember, the mystery and intrigue were served better by Brown's writing but the controversy is entertaining enough.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com