A Da Vinci-kód

Lapos, unalmas, vizuálisan nem vonzó. És számomra, aki ateista vagyok, aki legfeljebb a saját hitét ismeri el, sztori szempontjából is unalmas. A színészek, Ian McKellen kivételével, unalmasak; egyedül Hans Zimmer sötét zenéje színvonalas marad. Nem olvastam az előzményeket, és most már nem is fogom. Tipikus hollywoodi film, marketing szempontjából zseniálisan eladott semmit. (2006.06.11)

Howard is innocent here. The plot, which is primarily about talking and talking, probably couldn't be filmed better. Even the actors do a solid job considering what the script allowed them to do (both Hanks and Tautou were fine, not to mention McKellen). And those two and a half hours did go by pretty quickly. Why 2* then? The problem is the rambling source material and, logically, the script. Brown confuses apples with pears, history with myths, creates conspiracy theories as a skillful manipulator, which are nice to listen to (and read), but at their core they are pulled from the proverbial ass and are closer to stupidity rather than controversy (but what can you expect from a man who confuses bits with bytes in his “Digital Fortress”, right?). How am I supposed to enjoy such a film when what it presents - from the premise to the unbelievable characters - is one big pile of nonsense? At the end, when the twist is revealed, I was just waiting for Monty Python to show up and sing a song. I can understand the big sales, a hearty media and advertising campaign can do wonders ("Film of the Century!" etc.), but I wonder, did this "poor man’s Daniken" really sell 60 million copies? Well, to each their own, but everyone gets what they deserve, of course. (2006.05.27)

Writer Dan Brown is definitely not going to become the new Umberto Eco, yet his book is quite readable. Unfortunately, the film version is rather unfortunate, given the literal adherence not only to individual scenes but often to the lines themselves, which somehow lose their meaning and logic without further explanation. This then becomes a continuous sequence of dialogues, from which the most fervent conspiracy theories, which so annoy the bigwigs in the Vatican, are suppressed into the background. Still, hats off to Ron Howard for making it flow relatively well despite the exorbitant runtime. If it wasn't for the awkward car chase that steals from The Bourne Identity and the rather clumsily filmed flashbacks, the film would have been more than decent because the scene where Langdon contemplates the cipher and the memory of Issac Newton's monument forms in front of him is amazing, as is the final kneeling. Tom Hanks is not suitable for the main role at all (the wannabe youthful look does not suit this actor), while on the other hand, Paul Bettany is excellent as the albino, including his precisely chosen accent. It’s a thriller worth a single watch, and if it hadn't had the heavy advertising, the copies in the video stores would have been covered in dust after a few months. (2006.06.24)

Like the book, the picture is rather “naive" and rather than quality, we get solid craftsmanship instead. Thanks to the flatness of the characters, the actors have very little acting to do, which is highlighted by it being rather garrulous and so the entire movie relies on vocal performances. Although this could easily be cut down a good few minutes, in the end it is watchable without great damage to your health. But the only actually positive side of the whole Code is Zimmer’s soundtrack, which makes even the most boring dialog scene seem as if it is something fundamentally important for the story. The creators tended toward the secrecy storyline, which is therefore given the most space and so only a fraction of the movie is devoted to cracking the code and this becomes just a necessary evil with no power behind it, which is a great shame. OST score: 4/5 (2006.05.30)

A suspenseful and sufficiently intricate piece that was dangerously fashionable to criticize at the time. Traditionally excellent performances by Hanks, beautiful Audrey, and devilish Bettany in a story that is attractive both in terms of historical and contemporary, as well as relational and religious aspects. On first viewing, without knowledge of the source material, it is demanding for the viewer's attention, and it is only during the second viewing that one can calmly fill in the context. (2006.07.28)

Big mouthfuls don't always look good on screen... but here it's pretty good. I just missed the Audrey Tautou charm I'm used to from other films. Otherwise it was mysterious, cryptic, action-packed, and enigmatic enough... that, combined with Tom Hanks, was enough for me. (2011.02.09)

I like the book much more. It was readable, full of suspense, in places funny. Unlike the movie, which is long-winded and in places boring to tears. It’s as if the screenplay just sketched the path along which we were meant to set out and ignored any clarity in the plot, individuality of characters and integrity of story. A movie isn’t a book and I think they forgot about that here. I would also have expected more from the cast. Tom Hanks gives the bare minimum and Audrey Tautou just looks pretty. It was Ian McKellen who did most work, thoroughly enjoying his role of rich seeker. The others just don’t get much room. The Da Vinci Code certainly wasn’t the event of the year, but luckily the overall effect doesn’t seem as awful as I had feared. 60 %. Oh and btw, the music is amazing. Hans Zimmer played his heart out. (2007.09.28)

A boring source material that is even more boringly adapted, not to mention the inability to create at least a small dose of tension and dynamics. The screenwriter mixes together truth with myths and legends and creates is an unspeakable mess for the viewer, especially if they haven't read the book and are not familiar with religion. Tom Hanks doesn't do special and Audrey Tautou is there just for show. Only Paul Bettany, who is properly weird, is somewhat good. Ron Howard also completely fails to handle the more action-packed sequences. I haven't seen such muddled and restless cinematography during a nighttime chase in Paris in a long time. In the last ten minutes, we can see maybe five twists in short intervals, which completely demolished it for me. The most muddled and incomprehensible blockbuster of this year. (2006.06.03)

When the book came out and I was fortunate enough to get it very early and read it, I was literally thrilled. Brown's conclusions were almost unbelievable, everything made sense. Now, with the passage of time, I see that the boy is mainly skilled at research, on which he focuses, and then crystallizes the story from it himself. Let's face it, without those researches, there is no story, or rather it is a classic treasure hunt. He knows how to write it (i.e. use the found information), and that is appreciated. Ron Howard approached the film in a Hollywood way and quite boringly. The chase for riddles here sometimes sounds almost childish. It doesn't change the fact that it works quite well and it's a film that entertains. (2014.04.19)