The Da Vinci CodeDirector: Ron Howard
- Editorial Reviews
- Product Details
- Special Features
- Related Subjects
- Cast & Crew
- Scene Index
Dan Brown's controversial best-selling novel about a powerful secret that's been kept under wraps for thousands of years comes to the screen in this suspense thriller from director Ron Howard. The stately silence of Paris' Louvre museum is broken when one of the gallery's leading curators is found dead on the grounds, with strange symbols carved into his body and left around the spot where he died. Hoping to learn the significance of the symbols, police bring in Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a gifted cryptographer who is also the victim's granddaughter. Needing help, Sophie calls on Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a leading symbologist from the United States. As Sophie and Robert dig deeper into the case, they discover the victim's involvement in the Priory of Sion, a secret society whose members have been privy to forbidden knowledge dating back to the birth of Christianity. In their search, Sophie and Robert happen upon evidence that could lead to the final resting place of the Holy Grail, while members of the priory and an underground Catholic society known as Opus Dei give chase, determined to prevent them from sharing their greatest secrets with the world. Also starring Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina, The Da Vinci Code was shot on location in France and the United Kingdom; the Louvre allowed the producers to film at the famous museum, but scenes taking place at Westminster Abbey had to filmed elsewhere when church officials declined permission.
- Release Date:
- Original Release:
- Sony Pictures
- Region Code:
- [Wide Screen]
- [Dolby AC-3 Surround Sound]
- Sales rank:
Cast & Crew
|Tom Hanks||Robert Langdon|
|Audrey Tautou||Sophie Neveu|
|Ian McKellen||Sir Leigh Teabing|
|Alfred Molina||Bishop Aringarosa|
|Jean Reno||Captain Bezu Fache|
|Jean-Yves Berteloot||Remy Jean|
|Etienne Chicot||Lieutenant Collet|
|Jean-Pierre Marielle||Jacques Sauniere|
|Marie-Francoise Audollent||Sister Sandrine|
|Rita Davies||Elegant Woman at Rosslyn|
|Fausto Maria Sciarappa||Youngest Church Official|
|Harry Taylor||British Police Captain|
|Clive Carter||Biggin Hill Police Captain|
|Garance Mazureck||Sophie at 13 Years|
|Daisy Doidge-Hill||Sophie at 8 Years|
|Lilli-Ella Kelleher||Sophie at 3 Years|
|Crisian Emanuel||Sophie's Mother|
|Charlotte Graham||Mary Magdalene|
|Xavier De Guillebon||Junkie|
|Tonio Descanvelle||Bank Guard|
|David Bark-Jones||Hawker Pilot|
|Serretta Wilson||American Woman|
|David Saracino||DCPJ Agent|
|Lionel Guy-Bremond||Officer Ledoux|
|Yves Aubert||Louvre Computer Cop|
|Dez Drummond||London Police|
|Mark Roper||London Policeman|
|Brock Little||American Embassy Cop|
|Matthew Butler||Westminster Cop|
|Roland Menou||DCPJ Technician|
|Tina Maskell||Silas' Mother|
|Peter Pedrero||Silas' Father|
|Mario Vernazza||Young Constantine|
|Agathe Natanson||Ritual Priestess|
|Daz Parker||Peasant Mother|
|Andrew Robb||Peasant Father|
|Tom Barker||Peasant Boy|
|Maggie McEwan||Peasant Girl|
|David Bertrand||French Newscaster|
|Bob Badami||Musical Direction/Supervision|
|Sam Breckman||Production Manager|
|Dan Brown||Executive Producer|
|Allan Cameron||Production Designer|
|William M. Connor||Asst. Director|
|Jean-Michel Ducourty||Art Director|
|David Ford||Special Effects Supervisor|
|Candide Franklyn||Camera Operator|
|Todd Hallowell||Executive Producer|
|Giles Masters||Art Director|
|Kathleen McGill||Associate Producer|
|Kevin O'Connell||Sound/Sound Designer|
|Daniel Orlandi||Costumes/Costume Designer|
|Daniel Pagan||Sound/Sound Designer|
|Louisa Velis||Associate Producer|
|Hans Zimmer||Score Composer|
1. Start [6:33]
2. Silas Repents [6:22]
3. A Body in the Louvre [4:26]
4. Find Robert Langdon [7:19]
5. Anagrams [4:16]
6. "Here You May Come, But No Further." [11:03]
7. Aringarosa Convenes the Council [1:41]
8. Unlocking the Vault [6:40]
9. Precious Cargo [7:12]
10. Seeking Sanctuary [4:09]
11. The Establishment of Divinity [4:59]
12. The Grail Revealed [8:21]
13. Examining the Keystone [6:23]
14. The Escape [5:04]
15. Sub Rosa [1:08]
16. Welcome to England [3:45]
17. Incident in Temple Church [7:01]
18. A Pope Interred [5:14]
19. Betrayals Unveiled [6:17]
20. Breaking the Cryptex [3:43]
21. The Tomb of the Grail [8:20]
22. Royal Blood [5:56]
23. Questions of Faith [5:25]
24. The Knight Kneels [5:37]
Audio: English 5.1
Audio: English Dolby Surround
Audio: French 5.1
Audio: Spanish 5.1
The Pursuit of Happyness
Curse of the Golden Flower
All the King's Men
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
Seinfeld Season 7
Coming to Blu-ray
Disc #2 -- Da Vinci Code
First Day on the Set With Ron Howard
A Discussion With Dan Brown
A Portrait of Langdon
Who Is Sophie Neveu?
Close-up on Mona Lisa
Filmmaker's Journey Part One
Filmmaker's Journey Part Two
The Codes of the Da Vinci Code
The Music of the Da Vinci Code
DVD-Rom: The Da Vinci Code Puzzle Game PC Demo
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews
Really nice movie!
This was an excellent movie! Ron Howard has done it again! Well acted by all. The concept is intriguing and keeps you on the edge of your seat till the end,
I have enjoyed Tom Hanks' movies since Splash (1984). Over that period, his performances have been, on balance, brilliant and diverse. That said, this is his weakest project.
This movie lives up to the book and will keep you on the edge of your seat. Casting was perfect even though I had reservations about Tom as our hero it turned out that he was smashing in the part. Audrey Tautou (Amalie) is beautiful and supremely talented and is exceptional as Sophie. Jean Reno (Leon the Professional) as the evil Captain was splendid as always, and there could be no better choice for the creepy Silas than Paul Bettany (Master and Commander). The incomparable Ian McKellen and Alfred Molina round out the impeccable cast in this incredible fast moving film. I'm one of those people who believe that Jesus was in fact married. If you study history you would know that in the time of Jesus a grown man who chose not to marry was an outcast. One did not flout this tradition. And logic asks why wouldn't he be married? There is much the church doesn't tell you as it is in their best interest for the " believers" not to know. Anyway, If you haven't seen it it's a show-stopper the religious aspects notwithstanding.
When this movie came out I wanted to read the book first. Glad I did! This movie bore me. The book was so much better!!! Movie went way to fast and missed so many important parts! Disaster! I gave it a 2 because I did kinda like the ending in this one compared to the book, it was a little bit of a toss up between the two. In the end read the book and dont bother with the movie you'll be so disapointed!
I thought this movie was wonderful, just like the book (except for part of the ending). I don't know why this movie doesn't get more stars...and better reviews!
I watched this in the theater, after reading the book. The movie very closely follows the book and was easy to follow the plot and characters. Very thought provoking, even though it is fiction. Definitely recommend it to everyone.
This movie wasn't that great. I've never read the book, but the story was ok. The actual movie was extremely boring and hard to follow. As much as some people believe this not a "theory," in all actuallity, it could be one. I wasn't actually there when Jesus was around. Anyways, this movie just needs more energy and a better plot.
it's just a book, guys- and just a movie. Like it for the plot and see that there are some things that we can take out of it, some things that can make us question the way that our society is going, and some things we can just dismiss as entertaining fiction. The plot is strong, the background was obviously well-researched, and the filming is great. Don't take it to heart, no matter what you believe, because it's just a movie. We need to stop taking everything too seriously and realize that we're ONE world. Not christians versus non-christians. This movie does try to address the gap that's building between us to try to have us remember that we are still ONE world. If the premise of the movie bothers you, try to lighten up a little and see it at face value. It's always difficult when something challenges your own beliefs, but what kind of world would we be if we couldn't do that once in awhile? What if the world could be better?
I am a fan of both Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. They are each incredibly talented directors and actors. They always seem to choose very diverse scripts and fascinating story lines. Unfortunately, I think this movie fell short for both of them. EVERYONE heard so much about this movie due to the book arriving on the scene first. Talk about giving away the ending first...There was nothing new, fresh, or interesting when the time came to view this over-hyped movie. The location and scene shots were great but, the story line, plot and end result fell flat. I didn't feel Tom Hanks had any passion for the movie either - first roll I had seen him ever UNDERPLAY - think back to Philadelphia, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan - he knocked these rolls out of the ballpark...yet in this movie he was lack luster. Wonder why? Had the movie come out first, then the book...well, there you might have had one of the best selling moviews of all time. They got it wrong and so, the final numbers were good, but not spectacular. Clearly, the story line itself is pure fiction and nothing based in real facts and historical data, but many in today's world are so unknowledgable about history and so hungry for any answer that fills a void for them that they latch onto books and movies like this as the "real truth". We can't be upset or worried about such people, they are harmless at best and unhinged at worst. Read the book if you choose, see the movie if you choose...just keep real life in perspective. This is one to see but, not one to keep and remember. Three stars for who they are but, not what they did.
I read this book in about two days because I couldn't put it down!!! It was packed with action. I will say that the first 3/4 of the movie was just as exciting but it unfortunately did start to unravel towards the end. I absolutely recommend it! you can't take everything you read or see so seriously...Sometimes things are out there for entertainment. You take from it what you want. Awesome story!!!!!
As a biblical scholar myself, now a member of the AHA, and critic of fundamentalist claptrap, I was well aware of the story in some circles that Jesus of Nazareth [Jesu HaNotzri] had actually been married and possibly fathered children, some of whose descendents might be alive today. The book Holy Blood, Holy Grail attempts to prove such a theory. Anthony Burgess, the author of A Clockwork Orange wrote a novel of the life of Jesus and had a married Jesus in it. In reality, the early church fathers are indeed guilty of a massive coverup, one done so well and so thoroughly that the historical Jesus is lost forever in the mists of time. In fact modern Xianity is nothing but a blend of Judaism and Paganism. There was another Godman born on Dec 25th, born in manger and visited by three Magi and given gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh...and this story is quite a bit older than the gospels of Jesus Christ and I am talking about the incarnation of the Zoroastrian God Ahura-Mazda known as Mithras. The concept of Heaven, Hell, Last Judgment and Ressurection of the Righteous is all of it alien to primitive Judaism, but some elements of it were incorporated into Phariseism and Talmudic Judaism later on. In fact the Greatest Story Ever Told is in reality the Greatest Coverup in History, the books in the Canonical New Testament were adopted by vote from a large mass of writings and judged by a priori notions, but more to the point political notions of which doctrine of Christ would best keep the common rabble in line, so thought Constantine and his successors when Xianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and had the full might of Rome behind it. From a Judaic standpoint, there is nothing at all impossible for Jesus to have been married or fathered children, nor would any of this constituted any sin anyway. But thanks to almost 2000 years of Church propaganda a married Jesus, or a Jesus with a sex life or father of children is a concept so odd to modern ears as to be rejected out of hand. Yet in actuality, it was not only possible, but probable. Quite a few of the Biblical prophets were in fact married, and some of Jesus' disciples like Peter were married men. This is seldom if ever mentioned in sermons nowadays. Peter married? How ridiculous! But for those who take the canonical Bible as literal truth would be well advised to re-read Luke and its references to Peter's Mother-in-Law, which would be impossible if Peter were a bachelor. The character Martha is a possible candidate here. There was a great fraud perpetrated on humanity by the Church that turned the man Jesus into a Godman and 2nd person of the trinity which totally destroys the historical Jesus. But little hints remain even in the canonical gospels that the historical Jesus was a bit more political than most people would imagine. During the arrest prior to his crucifiction we find that his disciples were armed with swords. Other places Jesus is quoted as saying "I came not to bring peace but a sword". In fact, Jesus the political revolutionary and freedom fighter opposing Rome is in fact the real Jesus, and of course being married is not at all unlikely and his father, as the extracanonical Gospel of Thomas suggests rather blunty is known to us all---not produced by a rape, nor illegitimate as the Talmud suggests, Jesus was in fact born not in Bethlehem but Nazareth, born and raised as a Carpenter by his blood father Joseph. It was there all along. And how is this not truth when both of the rather conflicting geneologies in Matthew and Luke name Joseph. Some ancient Greek texts actually say outright if put into King James English "...begot Joseph, and Joseph begot Jesus". There is just the beginning of the greatest lie and coverup in history, a total perversion of the truth, mostly by the man Paul who found a means of making a name for himself and gaining influence over other people. For those who disagree with my statements that Jesu
Thank you very much for the review that was written before mine. We as an audience, or as a reader (depending on how you attain your knowledge of the movie/book) must remember that Dan Brown wrote this book as a work of fiction. There is not one source that can be found that has Dan Brown asking us to believe that the characters or events are real. Come on guys, you must take into account that this is not the first piece of literature that has a fictious plot about religion, and you must accept that it will not be the last. You either have an imagination, or you don't. But if you are the latter, then I suggest you stick to nonfiction!!!
Having read Dan Brown's book, it was to be expected that the movie version might be a bit disappointing, but this time, Ron Howard has not even remotely lived up to his fame (and reputation). The cut is such that the storyline is difficult to follow (let alone understand) for anyone unfamiliar with the book. More than half of the action takes place in the dark , and Tom Hanks is struggling to provide a half-way convincing performance. Even the twists and turns appear to be rather lame, and at the end, one has to ask the question: why all this hype? Watched it once, but not likely to see it a second time.
I enjoyed the movie very much and like others have stated that trying to turn a book into a movie is very hard to do especially this one being so complex and hard to do and while this cannot be taken for fact
Tom Hanks is the only thing going for this movie. Otherwise it's a hapless, funny, dumb, stumbling, scratch-your-head movie with a stupid plot and an actress that runs around all day and night in heels and doesn't complain. Oh wait, she must not be able to feel pain because she's so special.
Great movie Tom Hanks was great.
I was on a date the first time I saw the 2006 movie ¿The Da Vinci Code.¿ It was in a movie theater, and at the time I was much more focused on the girl I was with than on the movie.
I had not read the world famous book of the same title, and the movie didn¿t hold too much appeal, but at the time it seemed like the best movie theater option to take a girl to, so I went. Literally, the very next day I couldn¿t remember many, if any, of the plot details, but that could have been because, like I said, my attention was diverted.
Two years later I was browsing a bookstore, when I stumbled across The Da Vinci Code book, which was written by Dan Brown and published in 2003. Having nothing else to read at the time, I decided to buy a copy so I could see for myself what all the fuss was about.
I finished the nearly 500 page book in less than a week. Needless to say, it was a page-turner.
After finishing the book, I decided to watch the movie for a second time. This time I would actually pay attention, so I could see if the film version could visually depict the countless twists and turns of the book in a way that would give me the same number of goose bumps as the written version had.
I know it is rare for a film adaptation of a popular book to live up to its written counterpart, but the producers of ¿The Da Vinci Code¿ movie obviously had spent some bucks and pulled out all the stops to make the movie good, or at least to make it a blockbuster.
Ron Howard, the director of such great films as ¿Apollo 13¿ signed on to direct, and universally loved Academy Award winning actor Tom Hanks was cast as the lead, Harvard professor turned Holy Grail hunter Robert Langdon.
I popped the DVD into my computer and strapped myself to the couch in preparation for a thrill around every corner. I fell asleep about 45 minutes in. When I woke up I reluctantly powered through the rest of the movie.
I concluded the movie version of ¿The Da Vinci Code¿ was basically a poor man¿s ¿National Treasure,¿ a film with a similar historically based treasure-hunting premise starring Nicholas Cage.
¿The Da Vinci Code¿s¿ main problem was that the filmmakers tried to squeeze all of the details of the 500-page book into a two and a half hour movie. None of the twists were fully developed or focused on, and consequently, many of the lines seemed like they were forced in for additional exposition.
Even with these extra lines, however, the movie was convoluted and hard to follow at times. And I had read the book. I can¿t imagine trying to follow the story without reading the book.
Tom Hanks was exceptional in the movie, and Audrey Tautou, who played Langdon¿s love interest, Sophie Neveu was good as well, despite seeming like a knock off version of Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Overall the film wasn¿t terrible, and it remained fairly true to the book, but I would not recommend it. I would, however, recommend reading the book and renting the movie, ¿National Treasure¿ instead.
Did the Knights Templar hide the Holy Grail in the Louvre? Is Roselyn Chapel a Templar shrine with hidden secrets carved on its chapel columns and roof? Could Mary Magdalene be the Holy Grail and her crypt hold clues to the past? Yes! ~~ if you believe the essence of the tale. A provoking film that, if viewed with clear mind, intelligence, imagination & thoughtful conscience, persuades that these long~veiled historical footnotes are true. Delightful in its telling; provoking in it's historical and religious premise, "Da Vinci Code' is superb.