If you saw the DaVinci Code, please rate it.

[Papa Deuce]

Poll coming

 

[Jungle Skipper]

I saw Thursday night at work. Wasn't a great film by any means...its was simply run of the mill. I liked it, but I had a lot of problems with the direction and acting. and the book was, like most occasions, 10 times better.

Worth a viewing though...

Cheers,
Jungle Josh

 

[Cool-Beans]

Didn't read the book but found the movie a little boring and very predictable.

Liked the old English guy very much, though.

 

[PrincessCLM]

Didn't think it was AS bad as the reviews said it was going to be. But in no means did I think it was an extraordinarily great movie.

 

[Papa Deuce]

bumping it up..... I gave it 1.5

 

[Holly]

I gave it a 2.5. It wasn't terrible, but it also fell a bit flat.
I could never get used to Tom Hanks a Robert Langdon and kept waiting for him to rip out with, "My name's Forrest, Forrest Gu-UMP."

Now the friend I saw it with, who has never read the book, absolutely loved it.

 

[Viking]

I rated it 3. Tom Hanks has a very wide range as an actor, but unfortunately didn't fully use it this time. They originally wanted Bill Paxton to play that part and he may have been the better choice, but he wasn't available.

 

[bicker]

Remarkably good. It was well worth the trip to the theater. Tom Hanks is a great Robert Langdon, IMHO.

 

[momof3disneyholics]

It wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be.

 

[Sparx]

I clicked 4, but I meant to click 3.5.

 

[Aimeedyan]

I chose a 2. It's nowhere near an Oscar caliber or any other truly fine film which I would give a 4. The film fell flat; the acting was wooden and the screenplay was just poor. The cinematography was beautiful, as was the soundtrack, but that was about it. The serious parts drew giggles from the audience because they were so absurd and over-acted LOL.

Could have been much better.

 

[PixieDust32]

I loved the book and I liked the movie. Now cannot wait for Angels and Demons the movie.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

I rated it 3. Tom Hanks has a very wide range as an actor, but unfortunately didn't fully use it this time. They originally wanted Bill Paxton to play that part and he may have been the better choice, but he wasn't available.

I completely agree with this. And it was a disappointment because I really, really like Tom Hanks.

 

[declansdad]

Saw it last week and while I don't think it was a classic, it was enjoyable.

If you go in thinking that it is going to be action packed then it will be a disappointment. It did move along though and held my interest. I didn't hear any giggles in the wrong places.

I tought Tom Hanks did a good job. Langdon is not suppose to be an action hero just a professor that gets caught up in a murder investigation. The star of the movie, I thought, was Ian McKella. I thought he did a fantastic job.

 

[NewJersey]

LOVED the book...the movie was not bad like the reviews said. Tom Hanks didn't really use his potential with this film..he just walked through it. The British guy was great so was the French girl. I gave it 3.5 stars because it was very enjoyable and entertaining!

 

[KristaTX]

I gave it a 2, but mostly because I like Tom Hanks and thought Audrey Tautou was good. It's really worse than a 2. The story tanked for me. I didn't read the book (maybe that would have helped ), but I found the movie plot to be totally convoluted. I kept getting confused as to what group was trying to do what, and about who was "good" and who was "bad". It was just very confusing to me. For instance, I never did understand if that man was her grandfather or not. And what was up with "grandpa's" sex that the little girl witnessed? And exactly who besides her grandma were those people at the end at the Templar place (I think) who came out to guard her? Where had grandma been all those years? And why did Tom Hanks blood look like a sword in the sink? It felt like it just kept going and going and going and didn't know how to end .

 

[bicker]

According to the film, the man murdered in the Louvre was not her grandfather. The real grandmother (at the end of the film) said that the Grand Master took the little girl in after her parents and brother were killed, apparently by the "bad guys," and hid her, to make the "bad guys" think that the last scion was dead. She also explained that the other folks in the church with her were members of the Priory, protectors of the royal line of Jesus.

The film also made the connection between the grandfather's sex act that she observed and ancient pagan rituals, from which Christian rituals were derived.

Langdon's blood wasn't a "why" thing -- it was simply a random chance that he saw a pattern in. Remember earlier in the film how they made the point that Langdon had something similar to an eidetic memory, so little things like that could help him see patterns within patterns that help him resolve mysteries.

The film is a mystery. As such, it is supposed to have twists and turns, that only get resolved at the end.

 

[Rajah]

I really enjoyed it. Gave it a 3.5 for the entertainment value.

 

[jspahn]

I gave it one star.
I've read the book twice - loved it! So I was really looking forward to the movie as you could guess. I was terribly disappointed in it. Things were changed and some important parts left out completely.
How could Ron Howard turn such an exciting book into such a boring movie??

 

[Jeanny]

I liked the movie..... I'll make my own decision about a movie... just because a person/critic doesn't like it, doesn't mean I won't. I don't think it was as bad as some reviews said it was.