one-nine-eighty Based on the popular book by Dan Brown, this film tells the story a race against time to solve a centuries old riddle crossing through religion, literature, folklore and culture. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a professor/teacher/symbolist/literature expert/puzzle specialist who gets mixed up with a plot that put him both in danger, and in the driving seat to reveal one of religions biggest cover ups. It all starts in France, when a Louvre curator is killed. He is found in mysterious circumstances with mysterious codes on and about him. Langdon, along with Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) attempt to unravel the clues to the murder, and the clues to the cover up - this takes them through various locations all to do with Leonardo Da Vinci, as he was one of the perpetrators of the cover up. The cover up suggests that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child and there is in fact an active blood-line of decedents still alive. Throw in the mix various corrupt law enforcement agencies, various religious sects such as Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, various independent parties too - and you have a adrenaline fuelled mystery that spans the time of man and religion too.Directed by Ron Howard this film takes it's source material from the Dan Brown book of the same name. I have read the book but I wanted to review the film without the book in mind - so rather complain about differences or changes - I'm mainly going to be focussing on the delivery of the film rather than the contents of the book. Howard's choice of locations make the film visually pleasing, some lovely architecture has been really looked at from interesting perspectives. On first inspection his choice of casting too seems to have been a good choice; there are times where the lines are a little wooden, leaving me unable to connect or empathise for the characters - but for the most part performances are decent. Hanks and Tautou do well to carry the forward, while other appearances from Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Albert Molina (amongst others) all come off believable. Effects have been done tastefully for the most part, with emphasis on clues to help the audience along - sometimes practically spelling out the issue for audience members unable to understand. There's a decent pace for the most part but there are times where action drags a little - presumably to allow the audience to catch up. All in all this is a decent detective slash chase slash journey of a film. It's like an Indiana Jones style film with less action and more book smart. I'd give this a 7 out of 10. It wasn't awful but it's not totally my cup of tea. The hardcore book fans probably won't like some things about it, but as a standalone film it's got enough to keep viewers entertained.

qmtv 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.

andreasboub 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!

stormhawk2018 When it comes to mysteries, it really does boil down to how interesting your film is. While The DaVinci Code is the definition of a film that you either choose to buy into or you will probably hate it, I still find that its intentions are in the right place and holds onto its audience from beginning to end. Viewing this film ten years ago upon its initial release and just now revisiting it for the first time since, I still acquired most of my sentiments. This is an overly religious film and although some may admire its acts, most of those who are not of the Catholic religion may just find it pretentious or uninteresting. Personally, I believe the film has a little for everyone. That being said, although I think The DaVinci Code tries very hard to be intriguing, it definitely is not without its major flaws. While I have not read the source material that this film bases its premise around, I never choose to compare. A film needs to work as a film first and foremost and if it happens to be a faithful adaptation on top of that, then it just pleases more people, plain and simple. For me, even if I have read a novel, I hardly ever draw comparisons. Following a murder at the Louvre, novelist/symbologist Robert Langdon and the victim's granddaughter Sophie Neveu must uncover the clues to secrets he left behind. From secrets locked away since the birth of Christ to uncovering the lies of their past, this film sends viewers on a roller-coaster ride of intense puzzles. That being said, the film as a whole does not live up its exciting premise. While many people may not quite fully understand what I mean by this, I can't help but call this film calming and nice to watch. There is a fine line between boring and calm, but I feel that this film walks in between those perfectly. The pacing of this film, along with the very enjoyable performances from Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, and Ian McKellan, are really something to admire here. Sadly, there are moments when these aspects tarnish themselves by focusing too much on the surreal, quickly making this film feel a little less believable than it should be. The big reveal in the final act will either have you chuckling or simply accepting it. Without getting into spoilers, there is a build-up as to who or what something is and if it even still exists. When it is revealed, it felt a little forced and the film lost me. Again, the pacing saves those aspects, due to the fact that it takes itself very seriously and the performances are believable. Ten years ago I would have strongly advised against seeing this film in theaters, but having time pass and revisiting this film after knowing what to expect and not enjoying it very much the first time around, I have come to respect this adaptation of The DaVinci Code. It is by no means a great film in any way, but it maintains its interesting elements throughout, masking the annoying side characters, the sometimes ridiculous plot, and the over- abundance of religion. I did admire some of the clever inclusions of the Catholic religion in order to make certain scenes more interesting, but when your entire film relies on a reveal that requires its audience to have certain beliefs, the film will definitely not please all audiences, and that aspect still remains to this day. All of that said, I do feel that this film gets better on multiple viewings The DaVinci Code still offers a generous amount of thrills and its mysterious aspects are still very enjoyable to watch. The film does get a little too self-indulgent with its beliefs, but if you are able to accept the fact that this film will not hold back, you may just find yourself enjoying it quite a bit. At 150 minutes, the film does feel its length due to its slow burn, but that is the aspect I admired most about this film. Its soothing performance from Tom Hanks, meshed with very intriguing dialogue throughout each scene when something is about to be revealed made me feel relaxed. For a specific audience, this film could possibly be the best film they have ever seen, but The DaVinci Code relies too much on that to carry the overall film. I did buy into the conclusion, but it was pretty silly. Overall, although I enjoy the film more upon each viewing, it really is nothing special in the end. It tries very hard to be great, and while certain aspects are exceptional, the film as a whole is fine. I find new things to like about this picture each time, so I may give it an even higher grade in the future.