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:
- [Full Frame]
- [Dolby AC-3 Surround Sound]
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 Blue-ray
Disc #2 -- Da Vinci Code: Bonus
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
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
Really nice movie!
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
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.
As usual, the movie's not nearly as good as the book, but the basic premise still stands strong and gives secularists like me more reason to remain secular. Hanks is great, yes...but so was Ron Howard in how he added clarifying visuals that naturally weren't possible in the book.
The book was definitely better, but that usually goes without saying. The movie managed to stick with the main story line (just some minor changes and 1 big change, that honestly irritated me) while having to drop a lot due to time constraints. Go in to the movie, knowing that it cannot be as good as the book, but is as enjoyable as the book, and you will be OK. Just don't expect to see Brown's novel on film. That couldn't be done without the movie being about 6 hours long, and even then, people are going to complain. Finally, consider the negative press surrounding the novel and the movie when you read reviews. Some people just can't seem to let others enjoy something if they have a problem with it. This seems to go double for those things that are somewhat controversial. Personally, as a christian, I don't see what all the fuss was about, but that was just me. All in all, I thought it was very well done and my wife, who didn't read the book enjoyed the movie as well.
You must have heard and read the book by now, after learning about the movie as well. The title tells it all that starts off with a murder and then misunderstanding involving the message the victim lefts behind and thus begins an adventure of a lifetime for Langdon, Neveau and others that are hot on their trail for the truth to the long hidden secret confusing our reality of what is right and wrong from the very beginning.
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!
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've read the novel twice, and seen the film adaptation twice. Both have alot going for them. If you're Christian (like I am), you'll find nothing much to offend you. Director Howard has gone to great pains to present the novel as hypothetical fiction, not fact. Of course, with no hot sex scenes, explosions, or aliens, most teens would call the film a "dud". But the film, much like the book, is for thinking people looking to be swept up in a unique, mind-bending, soul-searching mystery. I was very surprised by this movie's lukewarm reception...it's definitely worth a viewing.
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.
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!!!!!
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!!!
I have to say that they did a decent job pulling of this movie like they did especially because the book was obviously is more complicated than any would make out of a movie. However, if you never read the book do not watch this as a substitute. Its not a great movie overall and sadly this isnt Tom Hanks best role.
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.
Great movie Tom Hanks was great.
After finally viewing this film last night I thought it was alright. Movies such as this seem to be a great challenge for directors. This story been read by so many and I know the film is almost 2.5 hours long, but this could, and should have been a bit longer or expanded in the correct places. The first 200 pages of Dan Brown's book are adapted into about 20 minutes. All of the anagrams, the Fache (Jean Reno) stuff, investigating the crime scene. ALL of that goes by in an incredibly rushed 20 minutes. You have to give those 20 minutes your full, undivided attention or you'll miss important details. Langdon being Fache's number 1 suspect isn't the least bit surprising. You had just been introduced to both characters 2 minutes beforehand. The film finally decides to slow down and take it's time once we meet Ian Mckellen's character, Leigh Teabing. They should have added at least 30 minutes to the first 20 minutes, and probably put some of those extra minutes into the irksome flashy flashback sequences. The acting is pretty good. Tom Hanks has his weak points in the film, but he's given such little time to react to things, I don't blame him. He gets better as the film goes along. The same can be said about Audrey Tautou. If the film wasn't so swift, I'm sure they'd give great performances. Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Ian Mckellen and Alfred Molina all gave good performance. I'm not surprised that Dan Brown had Jean Reno in mind for Fache when he was writing the book. Ian Mckellen is great as the lovable and humble old man, Teabing. In my opinion, he has the best lines in the film. And Paul Bettany stands out as the albino monk, Silas. I think he gave the best performance in the film. Ron Howard does a good job in the directing chair but if he hadn’t rushed and gave more respect to the first 200 pages of Dan Brown's novel I'd probably give this film a higher rating. I do recommend this film but it’s better to read it before you see it.
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.
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.
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
...you'll either be totally lost, or you'll enjoy the film. If you HAVE read the book, you will be disappointed. Audrey Tatou is far too clingy to play feisty, intelligent, self-sufficient Sophie. Tom Hanks and Robert Langdon just do not mesh in my mind. Tom Hanks is a great actor, but he just does not strike me as intellectual enough to play the role of Langdon. The action brought none of the thrill of the book. I stayed up all night reading the novel, trying to finish it I almost fell asleep during the film because it had none of the excitement that I got (and still get on rereadings) from the novel. Of course, trying to make a movie from a book is always difficult - Da Vinci Code is probably one of those that is more difficult. So credit to the director, the author of the script, and the actors for trying - but no cookies for creating such a disappointing film.