код да винчи imdb
Код Да Винчи
США, Мальта, Франция, Великобритания | 2006 г. | 149 мин. | триллер, детектив
Рейтинг:
Кинопоиск 7,3 IMDb 6,6
Страна:
США, Мальта, Франция, Великобритания
Длительность:
Режиссер фильма «Код Да Винчи»:
Актеры фильма «Код Да Винчи»:
Содержание фильма «Код Да Винчи»:
Фильм «Код да Винчи» (The Da Vinci Code, 2006) — мистический триллер Рона Ховарда. Экранизация романа Брауна.
Сюжет фильма «Код да Винчи»
Лейтенант Жером Колле, работающий с капитаном полиции, Безу Фаша ( актёр Жан Рено ) вызывает американского символиста Роберта Лэнгдона ( актёр Том Хэнкс ). Он читает лекции по интерпретации символов в Париже.
Лэнгдону показывают тело и секретное сообщение, читаемое при чёрном свете. В нём неупорядоченная последовательность Фибоначчи.
Софи Неве ( актриса Одри Тоту ) — полицейский криптограф и внучка Соньера, рассказывает Лэнгдону, что Фаш установил на него трекер. Соньер оставил пометку: Найди Роберта Лэнгдона.
Сайлас работает для анонимна, Учителя, вместе с членами Опус Деи. Во главе этой организации епископ Арингароза.
Лэнгдон и Софи сбегают с криптексом.
Они приходят к другу Лэнгдона, сэру Ли Тибингу ( актёр Иэн Маккеллен ), эксперту по Святому Граалю. Тибинг утверждает, что Грааль не чаша, а Мария Магдалина.
Она была не проституткой, а женой Иисуса Христа. Мария была беременна во время распятия. Приорат защищает их потомков.
Опус Деи пытается уничтожить Грааль, чтобы сохранить доверие к Ватикану. Сайлас врывается в дом Тибинга. Группа бежит в Лондон на частном самолёте Тибинга с дворецким, Реми Джином. Ключ к разгадке криптекса — отвлекающий манёвр.
Реми утверждает, что он Учитель. Он освобождает Сайласа и берёт Тибинга в заложники.
Тибинг, которого называют Учителем, отравляет Реми и полицию за Сайласом. Тибинг хочет разрушить Церковь за столетия преследований и обмана. Он противостоит Лэнгдону и Софи.
Трио отправляется в Вестминстерское аббатство к могиле Исаака Ньютона, бывшего члена Приората.
Тибинг требует, чтобы пара открыла криптекс. Лэнгдон бросает криптекс в воздух. Папирус уничтожен уксусом. Лэнгдон решил код криптекса и удалил папирус. Код — ЯБЛОКО, которое помогло Ньютону открыть закон всемирного тяготения.
Подсказка в криптексе ведёт в Росслинскую часовню в Шотландии. Могила Магдалины разрушена.
Лэнгдон понимает, что семья Софи погибла в аварии. Соньер не был её дедушкой, а защитником. Она — последний потомок Иисуса Христа. Бабушка Софи, одна из членов Приората. Она обещает защитить её.
Лэнгдон осознал истинное значение ключа криптекса. Святой Грааль — саркофаг Марии Магдалины. Он спрятан под Пирамидой Инверсе.
Фото фильма «Код Да Винчи»:
Фильм, как и книга, был признан неоднозначным. Католическая церковь встретила его с особенно резкой критикой за обвинение в том, что оно стоит за двухтысячелетним сокрытием того, что на самом деле представляет собой Святой Грааль, и концепции, что Иисус Христос и Мария Магдалина были женаты и что союз произвел дочь, а также ее обращение с организациями Priory of Sion и Opus Dei. Многие участники призвали мирян бойкотировать фильм. В книге Дэн Браун заявляет, что Приорат Сиона и «все описания произведений искусства, архитектуры, документов и секретных ритуалов в этом романе точны».
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
участок
Бросать
Производство
Разработка
Съемки фильма
Съемки должны были начаться в мае 2005 года; однако из-за некоторых задержек съемки начались 30 июня 2005 года.
Современная подводная сцена компании Pinewood использовалась для съемок подводных сцен. Сцена открылась в 2005 году после четырех лет планирования и разработки. Вода в резервуаре фильтруется с помощью ультрафиолетовой системы, которая создает кристально чистую воду, и температура воды поддерживается на уровне 30 ° C (86 ° F), чтобы создать комфортные условия для работы как для актеров, так и для команды.
Были сняты альтернативные версии сцен бичевания обнаженного тела Беттани, в которых он носит черную набедренную повязку. Клипы этих версий появляются в History Channel «s Представленный Opus Dei документальный, радиовещательные летом 2006 года.
Место нахождения
Из-за отказа в разрешении на размещение Сен-Сюльпис всю сцену пришлось воссоздать виртуально компании Rainmaker UK, и хотя декорации были частично построены, координаты были в сантиметрах от того, что ожидали композиторы. и поэтому завершить весь процесс было чрезвычайно сложно.
Маркетинг
Фильма тизер был выпущен в мае 2005 года, за год до мирового релиза фильма и до начала съемок.
Выпускать
Критический ответ
По состоянию на 2020 год Код да Винчи имеет рейтинг одобрения 26% на веб- сайте с обзорами фильмов Rotten Tomatoes на основе выборки из 232 обзоров и средней оценки 4,80 / 10. По мнению критиков, «то, что делает роман Дэна Брауна бестселлером, очевидно, отсутствует в этой скучной и раздутой экранизации « Кода да Винчи »». Фильм был плохо принят на Каннском кинофестивале, где и дебютировал.
Хотя многие критики неоднозначно отнеслись к негативным отзывам о фильме, критики высоко оценили выступления Маккеллена, а также Беттани.
Театральная касса
Открытие выходных
Аудитория, опрошенная CinemaScore, поставила фильму среднюю оценку «B +» по шкале от A + до F.
Рейтинг и валовая
Цензура
Китай
Хотя « Код да Винчи» был принят китайскими цензорами, он был внезапно удален властями из поля зрения общественности в материковом Китае после «замечательного пробега в Китае, собравшего более 13 миллионов долларов» из-за протестов китайских католических групп.
Египет
Фарерские острова
Фильм был показан по частной инициативе Херлуфа Соренсена, несмотря на бойкот со стороны Хавнара Био. Фильм проходил в Nordic House на Фарерских островах с 8 по 9 июня 2006 года.
Индия
Пакистан
Пакистан запретил « Код да Винчи» за показ того, что официальные лица назвали кощунственными материалами об Иисусе. Христианские группы вместе с Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal провели акции протеста против фильма, призывающего к глобальному запрету.
Филиппины
Самоа
Фильм был полностью запрещен в Независимом Государстве Самоа после того, как руководители церкви, просмотревшие предварительный показ, подали жалобу цензорам фильма.
Соломоновы острова
Шри-Ланка
Шри-Ланка также запретила выпуск фильма. Он был запрещен президентским указом Махинды Раджапаксе после того, как Конференция католических епископов обратилась с призывом через послание.
Таиланд
Христианские группы в этой преимущественно буддийской стране протестовали против фильма и призвали его запретить. 16 мая 2006 года тайский комитет по цензуре постановил, что фильм может быть показан, но последние 10 минут будут сокращены. Кроме того, некоторые тайские субтитры должны были быть отредактированы, чтобы изменить их значение, и отрывки из Библии также будут цитироваться в начале и в конце фильма.
Однако на следующий день Sony Pictures обжаловала это решение, заявив, что снимет пленку, если решение о ее сокращении не будет отменено. Затем цензурная комиссия проголосовала 6–5 за то, что фильм может быть показан неразрезанным, но что отказ от ответственности будет предшествовать фильму и следовать за ним, заявив, что это художественное произведение.
Протесты и другие реакции
Ватикан
Кардинал Фрэнсис Аринце в документальном фильме под названием « Код да Винчи: искусный обман» призвал к возбуждению неустановленного судебного иска против создателей фильма. Ранее он был префектом Конгрегации богослужения и дисциплины таинств Ватикана.
Opus Dei
Заявив о том, что не намерены организовывать бойкоты, Opus Dei (католическая организация, которая занимает видное место в романе и фильме) 14 февраля 2006 г. опубликовала заявление, в котором просила Sony Pictures рассмотреть возможность редактирования будущего фильма. выпустил фильм, чтобы в нем не было упоминаний, которые, по его мнению, могут быть оскорбительными для католиков. В заявлении также говорится, что книга Брауна предлагает «искаженный» образ церкви и что Opus Dei воспользуется возможностью выхода фильма, чтобы рассказать о церкви.
Согласно заявлению Мануэля Санчеса Уртадо, пресс-служба Opus Dei в Риме, в отличие от опубликованного Sony Corporation «Кодекса поведения», компания объявила, что фильм не будет включать такой отказ от ответственности.
Американские католические епископы
Национальная организация по Альбинизму и гипопигментации (НОА) выразила озабоченность по поводу характера Сайласа содействия негативного изображения альбинизма.
Cast ответ
Ответ Тома Хэнкса
Хэнкс сказал Evening Standard, что те, кто работал над фильмом, «всегда знали, что найдется сегмент общества, который не захочет показывать этот фильм. Но история, которую мы рассказываем, полна всевозможных хулиганов и забавных поисков мусора. ерунда типа «. Он сказал, что было ошибкой «принимать любой фильм за чистую монету, особенно такой фильм с огромным бюджетом, как этот».
Он также сказал на Каннском кинофестивале, что он и его жена не видели противоречия между своей верой и фильмом, поскольку «Мое наследие и наследие моей жены говорят о том, что были удалены наши грехи, а не наши мозги».
Ответ Иэна МакКеллена
Также в Каннах процитировали Маккеллена, сказавшего: «Пока я читал книгу, я полностью ей верил. Умный Дэн Браун убедительно исказил мой разум. Но когда я записал его, я подумал:« Какая масса [пауза] потенциала тупица «.
Похвалы
| Награда | Категория | Получатель (-и) и номинальный (-ые) | Результат |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64-я премия «Золотой глобус» | Лучшая оригинальная музыка | Ханс Циммер | Назначен |
| 12-я награда Critics ‘Choice Awards | Лучший композитор | ||
| 49-я ежегодная премия «Грэмми» | Саундтрек с лучшим саундтреком | ||
| 33-я награда «Выбор народа» | Любимый драматический фильм | Код да Винчи | |
| 27-я Золотая малина | Худший директор | Рон Ховард | |
| 11-я спутниковая награда | Лучшая оригинальная музыка | Ханс Циммер | |
| Лучшие визуальные эффекты | Кевин Ахерн | ||
| Лучший звук | Энтони Дж. Чикколини III, Кевин О’Коннелл и Грег П. Рассел | ||
| Лучшие DVD Extras | Код да Винчи | ||
| 2006 Teen Choice Awards | Лучший фильм: Злодей | Иэн МакКеллен |
Домашние СМИ
Фильм вышел на DVD 14 ноября 2006 года в трех редакциях:
Все наборы DVD включают вступительную речь режиссера Ховарда, десять короткометражек и другие бонусные материалы.
В Австралии, Новой Зеландии, Испании и Латинской Америке ( код региона DVD 4) набор из двух дисков также включал расширенное издание фильма, включающее более двадцати пяти минут дополнительных отснятых материалов, в результате чего продолжительность просмотра составила 174 минуты.
В Гонконге и Корее (регион 3) расширенная версия была также выпущена на DVD в виде набора из двух дисков. Также были выпущены два подарочных набора с работающей репликой криптекса, журналом реплик и многим другим. Диск «Французско-испанский регион 2» также получил специальный подарочный набор.
28 апреля 2009 года расширенная версия фильма на двух дисках на Blu-ray была выпущена в Северной Америке. Хотя регулярного выпуска DVD с расширенной версией в Соединенных Штатах или выпуска для региона 2 в Великобритании не существует, версия расширенной версии была выпущена в Германии.
Код да Винчи также был выпущен на UMD для Sony PlayStation Portable 14 ноября 2006 года.
Сиквелы
Ангелы и демоны
Inferno
Смотрите также
использованная литература
Источники
Ниже приведены справочные источники, повторяющиеся в алфавитном порядке:
User Reviews (2 075)
People seem to hate this movie for some reason, and I remember when it came out, it was really controversial in that it got many bad reviews.
However, years later around three years ago I caught it for the first time on basic cable, and I honestly didn’t see what all the criticism was for. Not only was it immersive and intriguing, for the most part, but it had a pretty powerful ending and reveal at the end. It isn’t great, so maybe the hype was what triggered so many negative reviews, but it also isn’t bad.
I never read the whole book, but understood the premise. If you really want to enjoy this film, you probably should set the book aside and set beside any offense you may take as to the religious conjecture, and just view it as a mystery movie in and of itself. I really enjoyed the ending- the whole final fifteen minutes or so.
I’ve read the book, and the movie’s not so bad. Obviously there are many things I’d do different, but in the end it’s 2,5 hours of good entertainment, and isn’t that what the ratings are all about? Personally I think Tom Hanks wasn’t passionate enough for Robert Langdon. That’s why it’s not a 9 for me.
A lot of people are too harsh on this one. Mostly because they know the book and have very high expectations. I have to see my first book-to-film where the film is better.
Also, you’re not going to hell for watching this movie or reading the book. It’s based on a novel, which is based on a few loose theories, but in the end all it wants to do is to entertain. And that is exactly what both the book and the movie did for me.
Playing Sir Leigh Teabing, the great British actor, Sir Ian McKellen, does not disappoint as he delivers the legend of «The Da Vinci Code.» The theory that is known as ‘the Da Vinci code’ is what Sir Leigh Teabing teaches to the would-be living descendant of Jesus of Nazareth.
Howard’s direction is a marvel. Hanks, whose films I usually don’t like in the least, plays the only character he’s taken that I became enthralled by, Dr. Robert Langdon, and Audrey Tautou as French Agent Sophie Neveu is certainly a gorgeous, fresh face in a major US film who aptly held a captivating leading role.
Though I can certainly understand why «The Da Vinci Code,» is so controversial in US society, because the theory of there being a child conceived by Jesus and Mary Magdelene is not what the Roman Catholic Church wants to believe or witness even being publicly proposed. The very idea of the God-man being so human as to be married somehow threatens «the Church,» and its dogma. Strange how it fortifies and invigorates my own (Christian) spirituality! Regardless, this movie is one of my favorites! My rationale for finding favor in it has nothing to do with religion. I have found it fascinating and riveting because it is one heck of an intriguing story that was expertly directed, acted, and filmed. The excitement was ever so understandable within the film itself. The characters of the Opus Dei group made the motion picture’s tension build like a very well written suspense as they scrambled for what Teabing wound up with.
Though I am reticent to admit it, Hanks and Tautou made for quite a good screen match. Though their performances are excellent, they can’t touch their elder British screen pro, Sir Ian McKellen’s. I’m now convinced more than ever that McKellen has been the most versatile actor of our time: From the most watched children’s series «X-Men» as comic book/sci-fi’s evil «Magneto;» to numerous Shakespearean characters, such as King «Richard III,» «Iago,» & «Edward II;» to one of the best Hitlers ever in «Countdown to War;» to a Nazi war criminal cornered by a high school kid in, «Apt Pupil;» to the good wizard «Gandalf,» in the highly acclaimed, «Lord of the Rings,» trilogy; to the gay film director of «Frankenstein,» James Whale, in the biopic that was utterly overlooked at the Oscars, «Gods and Monsters;» I know whenever I spend my time with a motion picture that McKellen plays in, I’m in for the best script & performance that an actor of his acumen and towering stature would pick.
So it is no surprise to me that the character of Sir Leigh Teabing is the one who recants the story of the ‘Da Vinci code’ and does so as a historian who is an expert in the study of it.
I also liked the fact that this movie does come to a convincing end. Not one that convinces me of the Da Vinci code theory, necessarily, but an ending that leaves the characters themselves with open questions. There’s no room for a sequel. Yet, the movie is so well done it leaves me wanting more.
It’s not that this motion picture is a classic, by any means. But rather, that it is a terrific story, with a great deal of suspense, action, intrigue, and at times more than a little horrific and scary.
Most of all, «The Da Vinci Code» is now and will continue to be legendary.
From the way the critics have gone after «The Da Vinci Code,» you’d think that Ron Howard himself had been jealously guarding the location of the Holy Grail all these years and was just now revealing it to all the world for his own nefarious (i.e. commercial) purposes. Actually, despite all the critical hostility and rancor, this turns out to be a reasonably entertaining adaptation of a reasonably entertaining novel, far from a classic or a work of art, but hardly the pile of cinematic refuse so many of the reviewers have led us to believe it is.
As a work of history, the novel is a passel of nonsense, and only those with a bent towards conspiracy theory overload would be foolish enough to believe a minute of it. But as a work of imaginative fiction, «The Da Vinci Code» certainly gives its audience the neck-twisting workout they’ve paid good money to receive.
It would be pointless to reiterate the plot of a novel that has probably had the biggest readership of any literary work since «Gone With the Wind.» Suffice it to say that a mysterious murder in the Louvre sends a Harvard symbologist and the dead man’s granddaughter on a clue-driven search for the famed Holy Grail. Along the way, the two uncover a grand conspiracy on the part of a renegade Catholic order to protect a secret that, if it were revealed, could shake the whole of Western civilization down to its very foundations.
The movie is very faithful to the novel in this respect. It moves quickly from location to location, never giving us too much time to question the logic (or illogic) of the narrative or to examine the many gaping plot holes in any great detail. Writer Akiva Goldsman has encountered his greatest trouble in the scenes in which the action stops dead in its tracks so that the characters can lay out in laborious detail the elaborate story behind the clues. Yet, this is as much the fault of the nature and design of the novel as it is of the man given the unenviable task of bringing it to the screen. Moreover, perhaps in the interest of time and keeping the action flowing, Robert and Sophie come up with solutions to the myriad riddles much too quickly and accurately, with a «Golly, gee, could it mean_______?» attitude that borders on the ludicrous. But, somehow, Howard makes most of it work. Perhaps, it’s the clunky literal-minded earnestness with which he approaches the subject that ultimately allows us to buy into it against our better judgment.
Tom Hanks is stolid and passive as Dr. Robert Langdon, the college professor involuntarily driven into all this cloak-and-dagger intrigue, but Audrey Tautou has a certain subtle charm as Sophie, the woman who may play more of a part in the unraveling of the mystery than even she herself can imagine. Jean Reno and Paul Bettany have their moments as two of the less savory players in the story, but it is Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an expert on all things related to the Holy Grail, who walks off with the film. His scenery-chewing shtick pumps some much needed life into a tale essentially populated by underdeveloped stick figures.
The religious controversy surrounding both the novel and the film is as ludicrous as it is unjustified. Anyone whose belief system could be seriously shaken by this absurd mixture of unsubstantiated myth-making and plain old-fashioned wild speculation couldn’t have had a very solid foundation of faith to begin with.
Last Tuesday, when The Da Vinci Code premiered at the Cannes Film festival, it was met with a chilly reception from the reviewing elite. It has been called «plodding,» «stale,» and «uninspired,» thus, dashing the hopes of many movie goers who were hoping to see one of their favorite novels brought to life by one of their favorite directors, and starring one of their favorite actors. Since I’m not a slave to snobby film reviewers, I went to go see it for myself despite the negative hype. And as the credits rolled at the end of the movie, I felt increasingly unsettled; not because of the quality of the movie, but because one question lingered in my head: What’s not to like? Am I crazy for actually being entertained by what I just saw? How could the critics pan what I, and those around me, seemed to enjoy? Okay, so that’s more than one question.
First, I have to qualify myself. I read the book and I LOVED it; couldn’t put it down. I loved the history, the speculation, the riddles and puzzles, and the masterful blend of fact and fiction. Additionally, I’m not religious, although I was definitely familiar with Christian historical icons such as Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary Magdelene before I read the book. I also happen to be a big fan of Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Ian McKellan.
Having said that, I went in prepared to like this movie, even though I had somewhat lowered my expectations based on the barrage of bad reviews. All of this proved to be a winning formula for me, apparently.
If you’re like me and you loved the book and you like the artistic team that pursued making it into a movie, then you’ll most likely come out satisfied. You won’t mind what many critics have called «overly-long exposition» and historical flashbacks, because that’s pretty much what the book consisted of. And in the book, it was absolutely engrossing! So, I personally didn’t mind all of the explanation of history, symbols, etc.
Critics have also found fault with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou’s portrayals of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu (respectively), saying that they delivered flat performances. But once again, whoever read the book will remember that both of these characters weren’t that dynamic on the written page, either. Of course, Sir Ian McKellan, with the juiciest role of Holy Grail scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, chews up the scenery every time he’s shown on screen. Sir Leigh Teabing was also one of the richest characters in the book.
I think that the people who won’t like this movie are people who didn’t read the book, and are going into the theater expecting a regular movie, which it’s not. It’s an adaptation of a very wordy, detailed, twisting, speculative novel that blends fact and fiction in a devastatingly effective way, and it’s easy to get lost while watching the movie if you don’t already know where the story is going. Sure, Ron Howard uses digitized, grainy flashbacks of ancient pagan rituals and societies to move the narrative along and to keep the audience on point, but I can see how it could be overwhelming to those who only know the bare bones of the plot. However, those who found it fascinating in the book will find pleasure in seeing the visual accompaniment to what they’ve already read.
In short, you go see this movie (or read the book) for how it challenges popularly-held beliefs; not for its rich, engaging character development. It’s a quest for the «truth», and in terms of the IDEAS expressed, they did a dag-blasted good job of translating those ideas onto the screen. Those who often complain that movies don’t stay true to the books that they’re based on will find comfort in the fact that Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard have stayed incredibly close to the original text when translating it onto the screen. However, this will be to the dismay of those movie-goers who haven’t read the book, and are therefore expecting a traditional action thriller with traditional action thriller dialogue.
If you go to RottenTomatoes.com, you’ll see the huge disparity between what the critics have said, and what the users have said regarding this film. While the cumulative critics rating is a dismal 22%, the combined user rating is a 74%, which is way above average for the site. That should speak volumes to whoever is skeptical about seeing the movie because of the bad reviews.
The bottom line is that it’s definitely a movie worth watching if only to see how the creative team behind it went about turning the best-selling novel into celluloid. It’s also a treat to see something in popular culture challenge popular religious ideals so skillfully, even if only in the form of fiction.
My advice: go see for yourself.
First the good points. Ron Howard has chosen some great locations, and produced a sumptuously photographed film, with a thought-provoking, well-paced storyline which sticks pretty faithfully to the book. For me, Silas (Paul Bettany) is the strongest character in the film, graphically portrayed as a faithful servant of Opus Dei. His role is certainly one heck of a contrast with his recent leading role in Wimbledon!
Unfortunately, for me those good points are outweighed by a wooden dialogue which poor old Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have virtually no hope of making anything meaningful from. There is simply no chemistry between the 2 leading characters and some of their lines made me cringe because they were so embarrassingly weak. At no point did I feel involved in what should be a powerful and emotional story; it simply failed to engross me in any way. Bored is a strong word, but I was verging on it by the end.
In summary, disappointing.
This movie is becoming as controversial as the book. Since the day it was announced that it’s gonna be made, there were protests against it being done, and it has escalated to calls for boycotting, or banning the movie altogether. I’ll not waste time and go into its controversies, nor discuss what’s real and what’s not. Neither will I explain in detail the plot, as I believe most of you readers would already have some vague idea of what it’s about, or have read the book, since it’s on the bestsellers list for months.
Rather, I’ll evaluate the movie as it is, on how well it entertains. Those who wish to preach in my comment box, prepare to have those comments deleted, at my discretion. This is the stand I shall take, that this movie is entirely fictional, based on events which are used loosely, for the sole purpose of weaving a storyline that tries to be believable. I think some have already mentioned it’s too successful in doing that, and may mislead people into thinking its theories presented, are real. However, don’t take it too seriously, and if you wish to, use another proper platform to debunk the myths, not my movie review blog.
The structure of the movie, is exactly the same as the book. There is no change to the ending, despite some rumours that it will be different. Naturally, some of the detailed explanation that’s given in the book, especially many three-way dialogue between Sophie- Robert-Leigh, have to be summarized in order to pace this movie into 2 1/2 hours. Herein lies the challenges. For those who’ve read the book, the movie offers nothing new, other than the gratification of watching events and characters play out on the big screen. For those who haven’t read the book, the movie version should be decent enough to make you want to pick up the novel and read more into the controversial theories explained.
However, having being familiar with the plot and how the story unfolds, red herrings, character motivations, twists and all, it may leave those who’ve read the novel, a page-turner in every sense of the word, a bit wanting, that the pace could’ve been improved. Undoubtedly the pacing sags when it’s time for some dialogue heavy moments, but I suppose that is unavoidable when you’re revisiting material.
However, its presentation of these controversial dialogue moments coupled with special effects, that will make you go wow. Truly, the technique is nothing original, and some of the visuals used looked like Return of the King and Kingdom of Heaven rejects, but as a whole, combined with the narrative, it helps to present the controversies in a more palatable manner.
Casting, I felt, was spot on. Tom Hanks makes Robert Langdon pretty accessible, given Hanks’ everyman demeanor, and Audrey Tautou makes a believable Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen, probably THE actor with 2 summer blockbusters back to back (the other being X- Men 3), is convincing as the rich grail hunter Sir Leigh Teabing. Paul Bettany is chilling as the albino killer Silas, and Jean Reno and Alfred Molina round up the star studded cast as the detective Captain Fache and Bishop Aringarosa.
Much is said about the haunting soundtrack, but as far as I’m aware, there’s nothing scary about it. Silas, in his scene of self-cleansing, is horrid enough though, as are some scenes of unexpected on screen violence that hit like a sack of potatoes falling from the sky.
Otherwise, this Ron Howard movie makes a good summer popcorn flick, with the usual thrills and spills you’d come to expect with its superb production values.
Now, to the review. I’m not here to give you any spoilers or story info, since that’s all been done in the other reviews.
I have never read the book. I went to see the movie with my boyfriend, who read the book recently, and some friends (one of whom has read the book at least twice, and is so into the story that he has researched the symbols and meanings thoroughly and participates in Da Vinci Code games, forums, etc). So we actually had at least 3 differing perspectives here.
I really loved the film. Having no story to compare it to, I didn’t feel like I had to have read the book to understand the story. Nothing felt missing or incomplete. I came out of the theater ready to add this list to my favorites, and wanting to read the book to compare it to the movie.
My boyfriend also thought the film was great. He said they did a great job adapting the book to film, and although not everything was there, they did the best that they could with the time they had, and he was impressed.
My friend was so excited throughout the movie, he kept wanting to talk to us about it. He pointed out some things from the book that weren’t there as well, but he understood it couldn’t all be there. He also said that watching the film put a new perspective for him on the movie, since he imagined things looking and feeling different in his head. Seeing the movie allowed him to look at it differently, which made it exciting all over again.
So, in summary, this seems to be a great movie no matter how deep you are into the Da Vinci Code. I normally wait for movies to go on DVD to rent, but this is one that I’d recommend you see in the theater. the atmosphere makes it more fun and also you can talk about this with others after seeing it, instead of catching up to everyone later and possibly getting spoilers before you watch. Again, I highly recommend this movie! A+
The first five minutes, when I’m supposed to believe that an old man, after being shot in the stomach, strips himself naked, draws a circle on the floor and a star on his chest in his own blood, writes a message in code (also in his own blood) that leads to a painting with another coded message that leads to another painting with yet another coded message, several of which are written in invisible ink (he just happened to have a bottle on him when he was shot?). Then he lays down in the circle and dies in the pose of the Vitruvian Man. I’m surprised he didn’t also pause to make a sandwich and finish that novel he’d been working on.
Monty Python could have done a better job with this movie.
So I suggest not writing this off as a Hollywood hack film, simply because it’s the bandwagon thing to do. Before you go and see The Da Vinci Code, let all the negative and positive hype surrounding this production cancel each other out, clear your mind, and judge this film fairly. Do NOT judge it on its usually weak director, do NOT judge it entirely on the source material and do NOT judge it on your religious beliefs. All this will be rewarding.
I have not read the book so I will not attempt any kind of comparison.
Plot essentially goes like this: In the middle of the night, Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned as an expert to a crime scene in Le Louvre where a terrible murder has been committed. The victim’s body is self-placed in such a bizarre, symbolic way next to one of the world’s most famous paintings that the investigation gradually unlocks age-old mysteries that many do not wish to be unlocked.
The Da Vinci Code is a chilling, thrilling and well-sewn together mystery thriller that often keeps you on the edge of your seat. The cast do not disappoint either. Paul Bettany is genuinely creepy as Silas and thereby reinforces the stereotype that all albinos are evil. While Audrey Tatou is annoyingly frail as Sophie Neveu, she is captivating and lovely and is able to project both charisma and presence on screen in this film. However, Tom Hanks did not at all feel like the protagonist in the story and I am unaware whether that was intentional or not but I’m guessing no, in which case Hanks definitely fails in both attracting and keeping our interest.
To counter the good parts, two big minuses in The Da Vinci Code are its wooden and sometimes even placeholder dialogue and its distinct lack of humor. I felt the actors were much too serious for this kind of film, which is first and foremost an adventure story, fast-paced and constantly unlocking new mysteries. The issues in the film were serious enough and needed more comedy to balance them.
As I write this review, more and more bad points about it spring to mind. This is strange, since I remember sitting in the cinema with my friends just a few hours ago and being thoroughly entertained and captivated by the whole thing. So, never mind the occasionally insultingly far-fetched plot and plot-twists by Dan Brown; The Da Vinci Code is a nicely done and very entertaining film in which nothing feels missing or incomplete.
I just watched the film, and even though I liked it, I must confess, I too expected more. I can’t precisely point out what was missing and what I was expecting, but some it has some details that weren’t there, some small imprecisions, some little things could have been better.
Praise to Audrey Tautou, a beautiful splendid actress, and all the other actors that don’t need any more praise, like Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Tom Hanks, who I didn’t see fit the part at first, but who grew on me half-way through the movie, if not sooner. A huge praise to Paul Bettany too, for his astonishing and disturbing performance as Silas.
From reading the reviews so far, it seems to me that the most scathing reviews are from people who also didn’t like the book. Fair enough, though I have to say I don’t understand why you’d go see a movie based on a book you didn’t like.
I thought this movie was well-cast and well-played. The direction was good, and the cinematography was excellent. I think the film’s drawbacks are directly related to the difficulties inherent in adapting a novel to a screenplay, and particularly a novel that is as didactic as this one. There was a lot of explanation in the book, and it would have been impossible to include it all in the film version. I think they did the best they could to balance the need to explain what’s going on and the need to keep the film under three hours.
There are those, of course, who are offended at the premise of the original novel, and they should not be expected to like the film. There are also those who didn’t like the movie on its merits as a film. They’re certainly entitled to their opinion. For my part, I don’t see how anyone could have done much better bringing this particular book to the big screen.
If you take the most popular book in recent years, you should have the most popular movie since The Lord of the Rings, right? Wrong. Though the film was hotly debated, its cinematic quality and popularity aren’t nearly as high as one would expect. Amid protests, pending lawsuits, and outright denouncements by Catholic officials, Ron Howard released his adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code.
American symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and French cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) are on a trans-European quest to solve riddles left by Louvre curator, Langdon’s hero and Neveu’s grandfather, Jacques Saunier, as he lay dying. The riddles and subsequent quest allegedly lead to the true identity and whereabouts of the famed Holy Grail. Hot in pursuit of the thinking man’s Bonnie and Clyde is Javert-ian French police captain Bezu Feche (Jean Reno), intent on pinning the murder of Suanier on Langdon and Neveu, and albino monk, Silas (Paul Bettany) under the command of a mysterious telephone voice known only as The Teacher.
With a pedigree such as the most popular book in the world, two Academy Award winners (Hanks, Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman), French film superstars (Tautou and Reno) and Gandalf (Ian McKellen), you’d wonder how such a film could fail.
Well, how about the miscast of Howard as director. Howard lacks the vision to properly adapt the novel and bring it to life. Some of the blame does go to his Cinderella Man scribe Akiva Goldsman for not writing a fitting script. But Howard’s awkwardness is more prominent. If we were going to pick name directors for this film, Steven Spielberg would have been better choice, but I think David Fincher (Se7en and Fight Club) would have been perfect.
The whole production felt rushed. Having just read the book, a lot of plot points were fresh in my mind, and that may have clouded the comprehension of certain things, which I think Howard and Goldsman were counting on. Looking back on it, the first 30-45 minutes were very rushed, and I don’t think things were adequately explained. They were still referenced and used in the movie, but not explained well. It suffered from the, what I call, Godfather syndrome: referencing things from the book at the wrong time. They could have taken their time with the film, and it would have told the same story, and been a lot better.
Hanks was out of place as Landon, our hero. He doesn’t have or project the same presence about him that Langdon should have. Might I suggest seasoned conspiracy theory veteran David Duchovny? As with Mission:Impossible:III, the supporting cast was impeccably put together, and the one true weakness of the cast is unfortunately the keystone (maybe it’s just a bad year for actors named Tom).
Slightly better than your average summer fair, but still doesn’t hold up when put against the equally action oriented yet wholly more insightful X-Men franchise.
Screened overnight for Australian media.
What is conspicuously absent from either man’s resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel, I can now see why.
What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard’s film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven’t read the book, a couple of obligatory ‘big twists’ in the story are very obvious from early-on.
Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany’s evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.
Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would’ve made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag «Years Most-Anticipated», its a boring dud.
Dan Brown’s international bestseller «The Da Vinci Code» has enjoyed phenomenal success because it taps into a wellspring of so many different and fascinating topics. The novel touches upon the early history of Christianity, the mysteries of the medieval Knights Templar society, numerology, and, above all, the archetype of the Grail Quest. The strength of Ron Howard’s film lies in its integrity of striving to be faithful to Dan Brown’s novel. The fidelity is apparent in each of the following areas:
SCREENPLAY: Akiva Goldsman’s script includes nearly all of the major scenes from the novel. To his credit, Goldsman provides dialogue on the Knights Templar, Mary Magdelene, Leonardo’s «Last Supper» mural and other details from the novel.
DIRECTION: Ron Howard’s stylish approach to the film includes interesting camera angles, especially in the aerial shots of such great location sites as the Louvre in the Paris and the Rosslyn chapel in Scotland. It was clear that Howard wanted not merely an action picture, but a leisurely paced retelling of Dan Brown’s story. There was also the thoughtful use of close-ups in the more intimate moments with a brilliant analytical scene dissecting the controversial «chalice» apparent in Leonardo’s «Last Supper.»
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Overall, the film was appropriately dark and moody. The flashback sequences were shot in a grainy style that contrasted with the action-packed story of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. Salvatore Totino deserves the highest praise for his tasteful yet imaginative camera work.
ACTING: Tom Hanks was not overly charismatic as Robert Langdon. But that is precisely the bookish Everyman who is the protagonist of Dan Brown’s novel. As Sophie, Audrey Tatou was more dynamic than Robert, as appropriate to her character as well; there was a sparking and even radiant quality to this young performer. The supporting cast was solid with Jean Reno especially successful in developing multiple layers of characterization in the morally conflicted detective Bezu Fache. Perhaps most memorably, Ian McKellen delivers a star turn as the scholar Leigh Teabing.
Over twenty years ago, Umberto Eco’s novel «The Name of the Rose» was the equivalent in its time of Dan Brown’s «The Da Vinci Code.» The subsequent film version of Eco’s story was a disappointment in its attempt to equal the success of the novel version of «The Name of the Rose.» In the case of Ron Howard’s film version of «The Da Vinci Code,» however, not only does the film do justice to the novel, but in many respects it is better!
Firstly, this is only the second review I’ve ever posted on IMDb so am unsure as to what constitutes a spoiler to you guys so have checked the box just to cover myself. To be honest though, the whole film is a spoiler so just don’t bother.
I can’t begin to write here how appalled I was that such a hyped and eagerly anticipated (not by me I must hasten to add) film could be so bad.
I wasn’t one of the ‘trillions’ that read Dan Brown’s book, and I think the film makers just assumed that everyone in the audience had read the book, and more to the point, loved the book; «so hey, we don’t have to worry too much, whatever we do we’re gonna make shed loads, just get it done!». I deteste these films which come out of Hollywood, which seemingly are made purely for profit and let all the important attributes needed to make a true, decent film, fall to the way-side.
It literally took about 15 minutes for me to decide that this film was a complete piece of crap. The dialogue used to move the plot along was ridiculous. In those first 15 minutes Tom Hanks (whom to my mind has only ever made a handful of decent movies at best) is giving a lecture to students. Then he gets taken aside to be told his friend was murdered, can he please come have a look. OK, strange but lets go with it. Then a french policeman tells him he must help immediately and it wouldn’t be wise not to. Then a girl appears from nowhere and tells him he must come with her as the policeman is trying to kill him. Oh but wait, we can’t go out the front door or anything, we have to go this way. Oh and by the way can you read codes by any chance? Oh you can? Wonderful! Then please de-code this before we go, it’ll help greatly.
And so the plot goes on and on and on like this, no explanation, no reasoning just blind commands that he follows again and again from anybody that cares to give him one. At no point in this opening 15 minutes does Tom Hanks question what people are telling him, he just believes them, does what he is told and moves onto the next stage. It was like watching a computer game, with the main character being told do this, do that, don’t go here and quick come this way, by supporting characters just to progress onto the next level. It was mind-numbingly boring. Does no-one else agree even slightly with this?
The strange thing is I briefly started to read the opening chapter or two of the book whilst I was away last month with my girlfriend, and my first impressions were that it read like a movie script so something doesn’t quite add up.
When I heard that they were bringing out a movie of the best selling book I decided I would see the movie first as I always enjoy books more and didn’t want to be disappointed. It’s not easy for a film to grip an audience and I thought Ron Howard did an excellent job with his film. It’s quite a long movie and every time I thought it was going to end something else happened.
Ian McKellen was fabulous in this film and stole the majority of the scenes he was in delivering some excellent one-liners along the way. I loved his passion for England and was very pleased to see he hasn’t lost his talent. Paul Bettany was also tremendous in this film and it made me see him in a different light. After Wimbledon I wasn’t sure of his acting skills but The Da Vinci Code proved him worthy of many of the actors in Hollywood today.
Tom Hanks is one of my all-time favourite actors but I have to say he just didn’t seem comfortable in the role of Robert Langdon. He wasn’t terrible but he just didn’t come up to par with some of his previous roles which I felt was a shame. Audrey Tatou was very good in her role and I couldn’t have imagined a better actress for the role.
Overall I felt the film was great, even with Ron Howard’s inevitable cheesy scene. ‘Godspeed’ from Tom Hanks. After seeing the film I decided to read the book and I can see why some people prefer the book. However I think it is much harder for a film to grip then it is a book and so for that reason I gave The Da Vinci Code 9/10. I would say anyone should go and see it, just accept it as a film, not as an adaptation of a book.
At first, im not an english speaker so sorry if i make mistakes.
I have to clarify that my rating it’s an 8/10 because i feel that the performances are no bad, but they could be better. I didn’t read the book, but i think it’s basic knowledge that MOVIES AND BOOKS ARE FICTION, i don’t watch a movie for learn something, sorry but that’s from a 10 years old, so if you’re criticizing the film for not being fully in line with reality you’re missing some things.
The only flaw I find is that an old man after being shot cannot move, write those clues and draw the star on his chest.
The movie is entertaining so it fulfills its promise. The shots of the suspense scenes are well done and transmit, which is the most important thing. The characters are good, they are not the best I saw, but they are concise. I liked that they didn’t get carried away with the cliché of the main characters falling in love and that there is a closed second ending.
I loved this movie, it keeps me focus for the 2,5 hours.
In addition to that, director Ron Howard’s heavy hand does not help, and the almost three hours of projection never seem to end. Without knowing how to deal with such a script full of dialogues, Howard tries to compensate the hype with the specific action sequences, but even these turn out to be bureaucratic and unimaginative, limited to the old car chases and shots that pass by scraping by the heads of the heroes. At times, the filmmaker’s desperation to give some agility to the long exposure scenes arouses pity: observe, for example, how Tom Hanks gets up during a conversation and goes to the corner of the room for no reason except to allow some movement occurs on the screen. In contrast, Howard is right to reuse some of the visual tricks he used in A Beautiful Mind to illustrate his protagonist’s reasoning and explanations, such as highlighting letters in a sentence or adding figures from the past at the bottom of the picture. In the same way, editors Daniel Hanley and Mike Hill (regular collaborators of the director) try to give some rhythm to the narrative through flashbacks that appear almost as flashes during the projection, offering, in a few seconds, information that aims to make the characters more complex. However, the most they can do is create an unfortunate visual pollution, since the countless flashbacks (unsaturated and grainy) cross the film in disorder without reaching their goal, since they are too synthetic to fulfill their purposes.