The Da Vinci Code (2006) - Rotten Tomatoes

The Da Vinci Code2006

The Da Vinci Code (2006)



Critic Consensus: What makes Dan Brown's novel a best seller is evidently not present in this dull and bloated movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code Videos

The Da Vinci Code Photos

Movie Info

The murder of a curator at the Louvre reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected since the days of Christ. Only the victim's granddaughter and Robert Langdon, a famed symbologist, can untangle the clues he left behind. The two become both suspects and detectives searching for not only the murderer but also the stunning secret of the ages he was charged to protect.

Watch it now


Tom Hanks
as Dr. Robert Langdon
Audrey Tautou
as Agent Sophie Neveu, Sophie Neveu
Ian McKellen
as Sir Leigh Teabing
Alfred Molina
as Bishop Aringarosa
Jürgen Prochnow
as Andre Vernet, Bishop Manuel Aringarosa
Jean Reno
as Capt. Bezu Fache, Capitaine Bezu Fache
Etienne Chicot
as Lt. Collet
Jean-Pierre Marielle
as Jacques Saunière
Seth Gabel
as Michael
Rita Davies
as Elegant Woman at Rosslyn
Fausto Maria Sciarappa
as Young Church Official
Denis Podalydès
as Flight Controller
Harry Taylor
as British Police Captain
Clive Carter
as Biggin Hill Police Captain
Garance Mazureck
as Sophie at 13 Years
Daisy Doidge-Hill
as Sophie at 8 Years
Lilli Ella Kelleher
as Sophie at 3 Years
Crisian Emanuel
as Sophie's Mother
Charlotte Graham
as Mary Magdalene
David Bark-Jones
as Hawker Pilot
Serretta Wilson
as American Woman
David Saracino
as DCPJ Agent
Lionel Guy-Bremond
as Officer Ledoux
Yves Aubert
as Louvre Computer Cop
Rachael Black
as Policewoman
Dez Drummond
as London Police
Mark Roper
as London Police
Brock Little
as American Embassy Cop
Matthew Butler
as Westminster Cop
Roland Menou
as DCPJ Technician
Hugh Mitchell
as Young Silas
Tina Maskell
as Silas's Mother
Peter Pedrero
as Silas's Father
Mario Vernazza
as Young Constantine
Agathe Natanson
as Ritual Priestess
Daz Parker
as Peasant Mother
Andy Robb
as Peasant Father
Tom Barker
as Peasant Boy
Maggie McEwan
as Peasant Girl
Sarah Wildor
as Priestess
David Bertrand
as French Newscaster
Joe Grossi
as Old Church Official
View All

News & Interviews for The Da Vinci Code

Critic Reviews for The Da Vinci Code

All Critics (233) | Top Critics (56)

By the end, the film degenerates into wishy-washy relativism of the school that says "the only thing that matters is what you believe", a real cop-out after the hectic Grail quest preceding it.

September 26, 2017 | Full Review…

What seems credible on page is ludicrous in action.

May 14, 2009 | Rating: D+ | Full Review…

Completing the trail of cryptic clues simply becomes an end in and of itself -- think Sudoku: The Movie -- with little in the way of whimsy, star chemistry or excitement to enliven the dour plod.

June 24, 2006 | Full Review…

Even as a visual aid, The Da Vinci Code is a deep-dyed disappointment. Paris by night never looked murkier.

June 22, 2006

If you take this stuff seriously, one way or another, you're sure to be duped. You've got to hand it to Mr. Brown: So dark the con of man, indeed.

June 3, 2006 | Rating: 3/5 | Full Review…

... a first-rate thriller ...

May 24, 2006

Audience Reviews for The Da Vinci Code

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 focussing 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 theatres, 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.

KJ Proulx
KJ Proulx

Super Reviewer


Film adaptations of bestselling books are very often rushed, sub-par affairs. When a book becomes a bestseller, being widely advertised and talked about everywhere, the pressure is often on to make the film quickly, before the hype begins to fade and chances of a big opening weekend are dashed. Directors often react to this tight tournaround by slavishly reproducing on screen the words that are on the page, resulting in works like One Day and the first two Harry Potter films which don't use cinematic storytelling effectively to justify their stories outside of their hype. You'd like to think that Ron Howard, one of the most successful and populist directors around, wouldn't fall into this trap. He is, after all, the man who produced a cracking drama in Apollo 13 despite sticking rigidly to the in-flight transcripts of the Apollo crew. Having turned his talents to subjects as varied as mermaids, firemen and mathematics, you wouldn't bet against him being a dab hand at the theological thriller. But whatever the appeal of its source material, The Da Vinci Code is a total clunker. Like so many of its predecessors, any discussion of The Da Vinci Code has to begin with a dismissal of the religious hysteria surrounding it. It's certainly not the first film that's drawn the ire of the Catholic Church, and based upon said church's ridiculous response, it won't be the last. We are dealing with an organisation which stationed nuns outside screenings of The Exorcist in America, sprinkling paying punters with holy water as they went in and giving them support numbers to call on their way out. By calling for a boycott of the film, the Catholic Church (or individuals and elements therein) played completely into the hands of both the filmmakers and the church's critics. Such a gesture, on whatever grounds, serves to paint Christians as thin-skinned sheep, seeking to shut down a debate which they should be having and encouraging. The smart thing that any Christian should have done then, and should do now, is to give the film a fair run, if only so it can prove how ridiculous it is, and then use it to start a dialogue that potentially could open up the Gospel to people for real. The claims of Dan Brown's book have been comprehensively dispelled by numerous authors and documentary filmmakers, with even sections of the church pointing out inconsistences and misappropriations in his work. There is no evidence at all that Jesus had a physical bloodline, or for a physical relationship with Mary Magdalene, or for the existence of a Holy Grail, whether physical or conceptual. But even if any one or more of these were true, to worry obsessively over them is to miss the point, focussing on superficial matters rather than the deeper truth of Christianity. Of course, from a filmmaking point of view, it doesn't matter in the slightest that Brown's ideas are fanciful beyond belief. Many films have used bizarre, apocryphal or just downright silly aspects of religion to tell a gripping story and often illuminate a deeper truth. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has very little basis in historical fact, but it's still a powerful statement about faith and the dangers of placing material gain before spiritual fulfillment. Likewise, The Last Temptation of Christ speculated on Jesus having sexual relationships, but it used this provocative idea to explore temptation, desire and the burden the Messiah faced during his time on Earth. The most illuminating comparison here, however, is with The Ninth Gate, Roman Polanski's preposterous late-1990s thriller about a gateway to demonic power contained in books. While its initial premise was promising and its first ten minutes forbidding, the film quickly descended into a quagmire of plot holes and poor special effects, culminating in a totally botched ending. But while The Ninth Gate sees Polanski showing contempt for both his audience and the material, The Da Vinci Code commits the far lesser sin of well-meaning incompetence. The first and biggest problem with The Da Vinci Code is that it treats its audience like idiots. Every single detail of the plot is spoon-fed to us as if we are incapable of joining the dots ourselves. While there is a lot of terminology to deal with, and therefore some exposition can be justified, having actors do nothing but explain the plot does not make for compelling drama. The screenplay comes from Akiva Goldsman, who did a good job on A Beautiful Mind but also wrote Batman and Robin. A related problem is that the film takes itself far too seriously. Any theological thriller worth its salt has to acknowledge the suspension of disbelief needed to accept its ideas, or at least must offer something on a structural level to keep our attention if we can't. But while Last Crusade could be enjoyed as both a big adventure and a moral insight, The Da Vinci Code demands that you take it seriously and comes out all the more po-faced and boring as a result. Brown did the production no favours in this regard, claiming that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate." Had the film taken the approach of its stars, positioning itself as a good story containing a lot of nonsense, that would have been much more appealing. Instead, the expository tone and grave delivery of the actors robs us of any thrills and reduces the whole thing down to a drudging lecture. This drudgery is reflected in the visuals. Salvatore Totino is a workable cinematographer: he worked with Howard on The Missing and Cinderella Man prior to this, as well as shooting Any Given Sunday with Oliver Stone. But whatever sharpness and brightness he brought to those productions has been replaced here with dimly light, poorly-composed scenes where the actors and camera barely move. It's no wonder that Mark Kermode's natural response was to scream "turn the light on!" when reviewing the film on BBC Radio 5Live. The one genuinely enjoyable scene in the film comes when Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou drop by the house of a grail expert, played by Ian McKellen. This is the one part of the film where Howard allows his actors to unspool freely and relax into the sillier aspects of the plot. While the arguments being put before us are still complete hokum, it's watchable hokum and it actually feels like the plot is going somewhere. But once that scene is over, it's back to the pompous and ill-informed conspiracies for what feels like another seven year. The performances in The Da Vinci Code are bafflingly below-par. Even if Hanks' terrible haircut can be tolerated, he still spends most of the film stumbling from scene to scene totally confused, like it was his very first film. Tautou has none of the grace or joie de vivre that she showed in Amelie, coming across as annoying and out of her depth. Paul Bettany is wasted in a role that becomes meaningless when played dead straight, and Alfred Molina is largely phoning it in. Only Ian McKellen gets the room he needs to express himself, and we miss him whenever he's not on screen. The Da Vinci Code is a dismal and disappointing thriller that is more insulting for its poor scripting than its theological pretentions. Howard's direction is utterly lacklustre, most of the cast seem puzzled as to why they are there, the script has very little nuance and the whole thing is far too grim and serious. If you want a serious examination of Christian theology, this is definitely not the place to come. The only thing this film can produce is boredom or unintentional hilarity.

Daniel Mumby
Daniel Mumby

Super Reviewer


The curator has been murdered at the Louvre in Paris. Robert (Tom Hanks) goes on an all night hunt for the truth. I loved Dan Brown's book. Slightly disappointed by this adaptation. Too short and not enough detail.

Candy Rose
Candy Rose

Super Reviewer

The Da Vinci Code Quotes

News & Features