The Da Vinci Code

Plot synopsis:
A man revealed to be Jacques Saunière is being pursued by a mysterious hooded character known as Silas through the Grand Gallery in the Louvre in Paris. (Silas is later revealed to be a member of the ultra-conservative Catholic sect called Opus Dei that wishes to annihilate a secret society called the Priory of Sion, who is sworn to protect the Holy Grail. Proof that the Grail exists would ultimately reveal a devastating secret that would undermine the fundamental teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.) Silas demands the location of the Priory's clef de voûte or "keystone." Under threat of death, Saunière finally confesses that the keystone is kept in the sacristy of Church of Saint-Sulpice, "beneath the Rose." Silas thanks him, and then shoots him in the stomach.Meanwhile, American symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), who is in Paris as an AUP guest lecturer on symbols and the sacred feminine, is contacted by the French police, and summoned to the Louvre to view the crime scene. He discovers that the dying Saunière had created an intricate display using his own body and blood. Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) asks him for his interpretation of the puzzling scene. Langdon determines that the pentacle drawn on the stomach and the way the body was posed was similar to Leonardo da Vinci's drawing of the "Vitruvian Man." A cryptic message, written in blood, is found next to the body. It begins with the Fibonacci sequence of numbers, but not in the correct order.Silas calls a mysterious man known as "The Teacher", revealing that he has killed all four protectors of the keystone and that all confirmed the same location. He dons a metal cilice on his thigh and proceeds to flagellate himself with a whip for the sins of murder. Facilitated by Bishop Manuel Aringarosa, Silas then travels to Saint-Sulpice and is admitted by an elderly nun; left alone, he excavates beneath the floor of the church to find a stone saying only JOB 38:11. He confronts the nun, who quotes the passage: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." Realizing that he has been deceived, Silas is enraged and kills the nun.Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a cryptologist with the French police, enters the Louvre as well and slips Langdon a message which leads him to the men's room. There, Sophie meets him and tells him that he is being tracked, a GPS tracking dot has been (unknown by him) slipped into his jacket and that he is a primary suspect in the murder case because of a line of text found by the corpse ("P.S. find Robert Langdon"). Sophie however, believes that Saunière, who is revealed to be her grandfather, wanted to pass a hidden message on to her, and that he had wanted to bring Langdon into the equation so that he could help her crack the code.Having bought some time by removing the tracking device, the pair begin exploring the Louvre based on their deciphering the message written in blood. It turns out that the part of the message that reads O Draconian devil Oh lame saint is actually an anagram, which, when the letters are re-arranged, spells Leonardo da Vinci and The Mona Lisa. Searching near that painting, they find another encrypted message, So dark the con of man, that turns out to be an anagram for [i/Madonna of the Rocks[/i], another da Vinci painting found at the Louvre. Near that second painting, the pair find a key with a Fleur-de-lis.Pursued by the French police and cut off from the United States Embassy, the pair escape to the Bois de Boulogne where Langdon closely inspects the key. He notices an inscription on the side - an address. The address directs them to the Depository Bank of Zurich where the key is used for a safety deposit box.In the bank, they find Saunière's deposit box and open it using the 10 digit Fibonacci numbers in order (1123581321). Inside the box, they find a rosewood container, which contains a cryptex: a cylindrical container with five alphabetical dials which must be arranged in the correct sequence to spell out a 5-letter code word, in order to open and access the parchment message inside. Using force to open the cryptex would break a vial of vinegar inside, which would dissolve the parchment and destroy the message.Unfortunately, the police are called by a security guard and they are forced to leave. The bank manager, Andre Vernet, assists them in escaping by taking them as passengers in an armoured van to escape the routine checks of the police. In the back of the truck Langdon and Neveu have a lengthy discussion about the cryptex and Neveu says that her grandfather often played games with her involving cryptexes. Langdon says that the cryptex might hold valuable information or another clue about what they are trying to discover. Eventually, they come to a sudden stop and Vernet forces them at gunpoint to give him the cryptex. Langdon tricks Vernet and disarms him and he and Sophie escape with the cryptex in their hands.Langdon suggests that they visit his friend, Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), for assistance to opening the cryptex. Leigh Teabing turns out to be an enthusiastic seeker of the Holy Grail, which he believes is not actually a cup ("sangreal" as in Holy Grail) but instead Mary Magdalene ("sang real" as in Royal Bloodline), who was driven away because Jesus's followers didn't want to follow a woman after their leader was killed. Mary was pregnant at the time, and Teabing tells Sophie that a secret society--the Priory of Sion along with its military arm, the Knights Templar--was formed to protect the descendants of Jesus. Jacques Saunière was believed to be a part of this society and Teabing suspects that he was training Sophie to join it also. Silas, meanwhile, breaks into Teabing's mansion and attempts to steal the cryptex. Teabing uses his cane to knock Silas out and they escape again, taking the butler, Remy Jean, and Silas with them.The group escapes in Teabing's plane, following the next clue to London. This clue was found underneath the rose carved on the wooden box containing the cryptex. The message, which had to be read using a mirror, refers to "a knight a pope interred." Having barely slipped away from the London police (who were tipped by the French that fugitives were on board Teabing's private jet), Langdon and Sophie forego a visit to the library and, instead, use a fellow bus passenger's smartphone to do an internet search on keywords mentioned in the clue. The search results made them realize that the pope referred to Alexander Pope, who wrote the epitaph of Sir Isaac Newton (the knight). This leads them to Newton's tomb at Westminster Abbey.The small pyramid beneath the Inverse Glass Pyramid removed from underneath, revealing that there is no chamber as shown in the film's closing scene. It is revealed that Remy Jean is actually a follower of The Teacher as well, however he is killed by the mysterious man after freeing Silas. Silas is attacked by the police and, in the ensuing gunfire, accidentally shoots Bishop Manuel Aringarosa. In his grief, Silas dies in police-assisted suicide and Aringarosa is taken to the hospital, as well as being arrested by Fache for betraying him.As Langdon gets closer to solving the mystery, he is betrayed by Teabing, who is revealed to be The Teacher. Teabing explained that he wanted to find Mary Magdalene's remains to prove he was correct about the Holy Grail and threatens to shoot Sophie if Langdon does not crack the code. Langdon responds by throwing the cryptex into the air. Teabing catches it, but drops it, and it hits the ground. The vial of vinegar breaks and apparently spreads onto the document, destroying it.After Teabing is arrested, it is revealed that Langdon had cracked the code and removed the clue from the cryptex before throwing it. The code word had something to do with an orb located somewhere on the tomb, but Langdon later realized that, "There was every orb conceivable on that tomb except one: The orb which fell from the heavens and inspired Newtons life's work. Work that incurred the wrath of the church until his dying day. A-P-P-L-E. Apple."The parchment inside the cryptex had the following message: The Holy Grail 'neath ancient Rosslyn waits / The blade and chalice watch o'er her gates / Adorned by masters loving art she lies / As she rests beneath the starry skies. Using the clue, they travel to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland where Magdalene's remains had previously been hidden. In a secret, underground chamber, Langdon notices how the clue precisely describes this chamber, but the center of the room is empty, as if Magdalene's tomb has been removed.At the chapel, they meet other members of the secret organization that protected Mary Magdalene. It is revealed that Sophie is actually Magdalene's descendant and therefore is the current living descendant of Jesus Christ. They vow to keep her safe. As Sophie wonders if her secret should be revealed to the world despite the disappearance of Magdalene's remains (whereby DNA testing could have proven that Sophie is indeed a descendant), Langdon philosophizes that, if given a chance, would you rather destroy faith...or renew it? As Langdon and Sophie part ways, Sophie sets foot in a pond in an attempt to walk on water. Unsuccessful, she jokes, "Maybe I'll do better with the wine."Back in Paris, Langdon accidentally cuts himself while shaving and the line of blood on the sink reminds him of the Rose Line. He follows the Rose Line and, realizing that the clue from the cryptex also fits this new location, he determines that the location of the Holy Grail is buried under the pyramid in the Louvre. Langdon then kneels above Mary Magdalene's tomb as the Templar Knights did before him.

Tags: mystery, cult, boring, murder, flashback

Review:
But as a work of imaginative fiction, "The Da Vinci Code" certainly gives its audience the neck-twisting workout they've paid good money to receive.It would be pointless to reiterate the plot of a novel that has probably had the biggest readership of any literary work since "Gone With the Wind." Suffice it to say that a mysterious murder in the Louvre sends a Harvard symbologist and the dead man's granddaughter on a clue-driven search for the famed Holy Grail.
Along the way, the two uncover a grand conspiracy on the part of a renegade Catholic order to protect a secret that, if it were revealed, could shake the whole of Western civilization down to its very foundations.Despite the phenomenal - one is tempted to say "unprecedented" - commercial success of his work, Dan Brown is no great shakes as a writer; his characters are, almost without exception, drab and two-dimensional, and his dialogue, when it isn't being overly explicit in pouring out explanations, sounds like it was written by a first-year student in a Writer's 101 workshop.
Perhaps, it's the clunky literal-minded earnestness with which he approaches the subject that ultimately allows us to buy into it against our better judgment.Tom Hanks is stolid and passive as Dr. Robert Langdon, the college professor involuntarily driven into all this cloak-and-dagger intrigue, but Audrey Tautou has a certain subtle charm as Sophie, the woman who may play more of a part in the unraveling of the mystery than even she herself can imagine.
Jean Reno and Paul Bettany have their moments as two of the less savory players in the story, but it is Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an expert on all things related to the Holy Grail, who walks off with the film.
For those who haven't read the book, the movie version should be decent enough to make you want to pick up the novel and read more into the controversial theories explained.However, having being familiar with the plot and how the story unfolds, red herrings, character motivations, twists and all, it may leave those who've read the novel, a page-turner in every sense of the word, a bit wanting, that the pace could've been improved.
The book and the movie have provided an opportunity for the faith to renew itself, to debunk the myths and theories (which were developed loosely to make the story flow of course), and to generally point the curious to the direction and light the faith wants to show.Otherwise, this Ron Howard movie makes a good summer popcorn flick, with the usual thrills and spills you'd come to expect with its superb production values..
I came out of the theater ready to add this list to my favorites, and wanting to read the book to compare it to the movie.My boyfriend also thought the film was great.
He said they did a great job adapting the book to film, and although not everything was there, they did the best that they could with the time they had, and he was impressed.My friend was so excited throughout the movie, he kept wanting to talk to us about it.
I also happen to be a big fan of Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Ian McKellan.Having said that, I went in prepared to like this movie, even though I had somewhat lowered my expectations based on the barrage of bad reviews.
So, I personally didn't mind all of the explanation of history, symbols, etc.Critics have also found fault with Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou's portrayals of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu (respectively), saying that they delivered flat performances.
It's an adaptation of a very wordy, detailed, twisting, speculative novel that blends fact and fiction in a devastatingly effective way, and it's easy to get lost while watching the movie if you don't already know where the story is going.
However, this will be to the dismay of those movie-goers who haven't read the book, and are therefore expecting a traditional action thriller with traditional action thriller dialogue.If you go to RottenTomatoes.com, you'll see the huge disparity between what the critics have said, and what the users have said regarding this film.
Amid protests, pending lawsuits, and outright denouncements by Catholic officials, Ron Howard released his adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code.American symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and French cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) are on a trans-European quest to solve riddles left by Louvre curator, Langdon's hero and Neveu's grandfather, Jacques Saunier, as he lay dying.
Hot in pursuit of the thinking man's Bonnie and Clyde is Javert-ian French police captain Bezu Feche (Jean Reno), intent on pinning the murder of Suanier on Langdon and Neveu, and albino monk, Silas (Paul Bettany) under the command of a mysterious telephone voice known only as The Teacher.With a pedigree such as the most popular book in the world, two Academy Award winners (Hanks, Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman), French film superstars (Tautou and Reno) and Gandalf (Ian McKellen), you'd wonder how such a film could fail.Well, how about the miscast of Howard as director.
To those who haven't, I wish you a lovely time at the movies - it really is pleasant to see.Praise to Audrey Tautou, a beautiful splendid actress, and all the other actors that don't need any more praise, like Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Tom Hanks, who I didn't see fit the part at first, but who grew on me half-way through the movie, if not sooner.
Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of "what ifs" and "oh my god" moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material.
Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven.
Perhaps most memorably, Ian McKellen delivers a star turn as the scholar Leigh Teabing.Over twenty years ago, Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" was the equivalent in its time of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code." The subsequent film version of Eco's story was a disappointment in its attempt to equal the success of the novel version of "The Name of the Rose." In the case of Ron Howard's film version of "The Da Vinci Code," however, not only does the film do justice to the novel, but in many respects it is better!.
It's quite a long movie and every time I thought it was going to end something else happened.Ian McKellen was fabulous in this film and stole the majority of the scenes he was in delivering some excellent one-liners along the way.
After Wimbledon I wasn't sure of his acting skills but The Da Vinci Code proved him worthy of many of the actors in Hollywood today.Tom Hanks is one of my all-time favourite actors but I have to say he just didn't seem comfortable in the role of Robert Langdon.
Audrey Tatou was very good in her role and I couldn't have imagined a better actress for the role.Overall I felt the film was great, even with Ron Howard's inevitable cheesy scene...'Godspeed' from Tom Hanks.
I watched the movie with others that had not read the book, and they found the dialogue meaningful as well.Dan Brown has told a fascinating story and Ron Howard has done that story justice.
Media studies, more like) or the non-existent chemistry between him and his French sidekick - whose character, somewhat ridiculously, has to be portrayed as completely clueless in order for the film to spoon-feed lessons to the audience to make sure they're up on the plot.It all makes me glad I didn't pay to go and see this, a small consolation given that I'd already been drawn into wading through Dan Brown's book (for heaven's sake, man, overexcited schoolboy prose does NOT a novel make).Poor Ron Howard had an unenviable task to turn this scrag-mutton into something watchable and, to be fair, the end result of this film-making-by-numbers would probably have been passable - if only we hadn't been led to believe we'd all be going straight to hell drenched in petrol if we didn't agree that this twist on The Greatest Story Ever Told was, er, the greatest story ever told.Of course, writing this is probably a waste of time.
They all fit there part is what i'm trying to say.Director Ron Howard made the movie feel like the book, and it was directed wonderfully.
As an avid reader of both the Harry Potter books and the Da Vinci Code I would say that the D.V.C movie was much more enjoyable to watch and was more successful than the HP films.
But one thing's clear: the tremendous calls for boycott and banning of the film in our country, the Philippines, isn't really necessary as the film version barely makes the claims of the book any more credible.With Dan Brown's best-selling novel becoming a worldwide phenomenon, tremendous expectations abound, so it seems natural for director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman to feel a great pressure to transfer a faithful adaptation to the big screen.
The movie is a three-hour dull exposition that not even the chase scenes can't manage to save.You probably know the plot as much as anyone else, but here goes: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a Harvard Religious Symbology professor who is called upon by the French police after the curator of the Louvre has been murdered, leaving with him clues to centuries-old secrets supposedly hidden by Leonardo Da Vinci in some of his works.
The Da Vinci Code, directed by Ron Howard, is an excellent adaptation of Brown's novel that leaves you with an odd mixture of quizzicality, wonder and contentment by the time the movie is over.All the actors put in an excellent performance, but Audrey Tautou, the actress who plays Sophie Neveu, is exactly how I imagined her when I was reading the book and practically steals the show with the interpretation of her character.As those who have read the book know, the plot goes into very controversial subject-matter, and that atmosphere of intrigue, mystery, religious zeal and hermeticism that keeps you in its grip from the first page to the last is expertly conveyed in the film.
Friends of mine who hadn't read the book didn't like the movie much either and some were even confused because the story does not really unfold as well in the movie as in the book.Tom Hanks was the worst possible choice as Robert Langdon, I'm asking myself why him?
Its nearly like its sabotaged...On a good note, Ian McKellen and Audrey Tatou are great in their respective roles, but even that does not manage to save the movie.My recommendation: If the media-hype around The Da Vinci Code has got you all excited, keep the excitement alive by just reading / re-reading the book.
Personally, I did not read Dan Brown's novel, but I was familiar with the theories presented prior to its release.The two lead actors, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou, do a laughable job of portraying their respecting characters.
I love the book, being a great fan of conspiracy theories and a good ripping yarn, so I was straight off to the cinema as soon as I could after it opened.This is one of those films that you know the critics are going to hate simply because of the hype and the publicity surrounding it.
Having read the book, then go and watch an entirely different movie, with the knowledge of the fact that the Da Vinci code is terrible.
The audience chattered away, and the people next to me kept commenting how they hoped this movie would do the book justice.After the credits ran, I was plunged into a world with so much exposition in it that I couldn't tell whether or not I was watching a fictional movie, or watching a reading of a script done by actors who normally do good jobs but this time around proceed to seriously lack ANY emotion (with the exception of Sir Ian Mack, shine on Sir, shine on).At what would be the movies many tense dramatic points, I couldn't help but sneer, as to the sheer cockiness of Tom Hanks' character when explaining an integral plot point.The script was sloppy.
It was like watching someone on screen say "We need people to understand how and why we're acting the way we are, so here's how and why, we hope you don't get lost for the remainder of the film" The movie National Treasure, with Nick Cage, does a better job at explaining the whole Templar thing.
Not since The Return Of The King have I seen so many people get up, then sit back down because they thought the movie was over.I would not recommend this to anyone, fans of the book especially, for this film, sadly, is not worth your time, or mine..
I usually agree when lots of people trash a movie, but not this time.I enjoyed watching the film from beginning to end; though wordy, I the dialog was interesting; Tom Hanks hair WAS awful, but not his performance; and Ron Howard and the writers did a good job telling a complex story...I saw the movie at the ArcLight in Hollywood, which usually has some pretty film-savvy audiences.
Ron Howard (Apollo 13), is a great director that knows how to exploit the audience for the reactions he wants, however this is quite hard when the suspense and tension dies down before the final 'clue' has been given to Langdon.Tom Hanks (Langdon) and Tattou (Neveu) had no 'chemistry' what-so-ever, whether or not Ron intended to create 'passion' between Tattou and Hanks, who knows, because the scenes between the two characters look like a half-hearted job at romantic sequence with neither actor caring, nothing is there and it's clear as hell.
Following on from this, no tension or suspense, it probably will leave many in a confused state of "oh so that was the twist." It was met with a cold silence as it was forwarded to the audience so poorly, Hanks and Tattou didn't connect on any level needed for such an ending and it was something that could've been covered in 10mins and better.All in all, from somebody that hadn't read the novel all the way through, I thought it was a mediocre film at best.
Remove Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Audrey Tattou, Jean Reno, Sir Ian McKellen and re-shoot the ending, then you'll have a slightly better film.
But if you've read the book, the film offers little in the way of it's own variation on the story and pretty much just plays it like it was in the book, making it a bit of a dull and unsurprising thing after a while.
If you don't like the book, you're going to despise the movie even more.Now, that we've gotten this out of the way, let's talk about "The Da Vinci Code" as the nice little thriller it is.
Most of the time it feels like they're just pursuing this stupid religious conspiracy theory for a bit of a laugh (I'm not going to get into the fact that religion itself is a conspiracy theory, there's probably a character limit to these review things).Unfortunately, the script is possibly even worse than the narrative in the book.
I was delighted when I heard that the book was going to be made into a film, that Ron Howard would be directing, and that Tom Hanks would star.
Folks who haven't read the book are likely to be confused about who was murdered and the man's connection to the Louvre.) It was also a great treat -- as always -- to watch Ian McKellen in action.
And all said, "It was very faithful to the book", which may have been comforting to those who read it, but meant nothing to me.In watching the film, it took quite some time to figure out what was what, who was who, though some things in the plot were rather predictable.Audrey Tatou was wonderful and Jean Reno is always great to watch.
Also I was having a difficult time Acclimatizing with the characters in the beginning especially Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon but all that suspicion goes after a good half an hour when we start getting right into the crux of the story.There were some aspects I really liked about this film such as the use of flash backs which really worked in favour of bettering the story understanding.
Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" quickly became a best seller not only because of its easy-to-read narrative and its thrilling plot of conspiracies and riddles, it received notoriety due to the criticism it makes to the Catholic church and the harsh portrait it makes of the Opus Dei. While the only real fact in "The Da Vinci Code" may be its status as an entertaining and well-written work of fiction, it is more than enough to make the transition to film and it is in writer Akiva Goldsman and director Ron Howard's hands to make it possible.The now well-known plot starts with Professor Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) being killed in one of the halls of Louvre museum by the mysterious Silas (Paul Bettany), a religious man with dark purposes.