 | ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids. |
 | OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids any age. |
The Da Vinci Code
- Review Date: November 13, 2006
- PG-13
- Genre: Thriller
- 2006
Common Sense Media says
Slow-moving, talky translation of popular novel.
Parents say
QUALITY
Kids say
QUALITY
What parents need to know
Parents need to know that the movie opens with a brutal murder and includes several other bloody scenes, including a naked man beating himself. The subject matter is too convoluted to interest young kids, so unless you want to shush them, leave them home. A couple of characters use mild profanity, although most of the cursing shows up in French and in subtitles. SPOILER ALERT: The film's plot, based on Dan Brown's best-selling novel, suggests that the Catholic Church has for centuries repressed the "truth" that Jesus was human, married Mary Magdalene, and fathered a daughter. Some viewers may find the issues raised -- Jesus' divinity and the Church's cover-up -- upsetting.
What's the story?
When world-renowned symbologist Dr. Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called by Parisian policeman Capt. Fache (Jean Reno) to consult on a murder case, the scholar is briefly flattered, then daunted when he learns he is a suspect, owing to a note left by the victim. Along with the victim's granddaughter, cryptologist Sophie (Audrey Tautou), Langdon tries to decipher the message, which begins with the victim's arranging of his own body to approximate Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. "Symbols," says the doctor early on, "are a language that can help us understand our past." The film reveals various characters' pasts, including the murderer's (a self-flagellating albino Opus Dei monk named Silas [Paul Bettany]), Sophie's, Langdon's, and significant events in history. Robert and Sophie end up on a kind of scavenger hunt from Paris to London, and are tracked by Fache and aided by Robert's colleague, Sir Teabing (Ian McKellen), who claims to be thrilled to be on a "grail quest." The mystery involves a Catholic Church's cover-up -- for thousands of years -- concerning Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Is it any good?
Based on Dan Brown's bestseller, THE DA VINCI CODE is surprisingly unwieldy and conventional, despite and because of the controversy surrounding it. While the movie often looks like it's offering subjective views into Robert Langdon's mind, in effect these images are silly and slow. The special effects are unconvincing as paintings and sculptures move, and the explanatory voice-overs tend to repeat what's obvious.
For all the mystical blurring of edges, the film doesn't make smart connections between periods or characters, and it offers too much explanation and tedious literal flashbacks. The untangling of all the plot strands leads not to an interrogation of various institutions (academe, the cops, the Church), but to a pile-on of much less interesting personal pathologies.
What families can talk about
Families can talk about the film's premise and the controversy it has inspired. How does the controversy help to promote the movie?
What's the appeal of conspiracy theories?
If you've read the book, how does the movie compare?
- Show:
- All members
- Parents
- Teens & kids
AGE
Get real
This is a movie that was not made for children, use your brain befor you take the whole family along. Unless you are ready to answer some questions, wait until junior is more mature to take him. Above all know you own kids, some are more than ready to go see, talk to them about what is in the movie, and explain why you believe what you do. The violence is there but it's easy to see coming. The back story has been changed a bit for the movie, some of the claims have been soften. My suggestion read the book, see the movie, then go out and buy one or more of the guids that have been written to fact cheeck the Da Vinci Code.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Too violent, but excellent storyline
I watched this with my friends and too be honest it freaked us out. There was overall too much violence, creepiness, and people jumping out. However, the storyline shines through this to make for a great movie with strong characters.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Certainly a 'thriller' and too violent and 'deep' for less than teens
I have only watched the movie - have NOT read the book. Violence is graphic - wondering how it passed the PG-13 rating. Would agree that it is not appropriate for under 13. Movie is longer than average, but kept me (an ADULT) engaged. The violence, deception, suspense and betrayal are fitting for a 'thriller', but not fitting for children under teens. The story would likely not even interest younger kids.
Being a person of faith, the movie in no way challenged my beliefs or raised doubts. It was an enjoyable fanciful work of fiction that impressed me with it's attempt to tie together otherwise unrelated details into a seemingly connected storyline. It intrigued me the way "National Treasure" did - purely for it's entertainment value.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Go Read the Book... It's So Much Better
This movie adaption is only alright, as it moves at a much slower pace and can drag alon g sometimes, unlike tht book's much better pacing. It feels more like a slow moving (fictional) history lesson or something of the sort, rather than the first-rate thriller it should've been. But for those concerned about the religious controversy, don't worry too much, as Ron Howard decided to take out the questioning of JESUS's divinty, and also made Langdon somewhat spiritual. I consider myself a devout (albeit, young) Catholic, and reading the book changed me in no way, and I think can actually strengthen one's faith (for all you good, Catholic parents worried about the content). But anyways, go read the book, and you'll have a much better time.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Its quite good, not great, but good
It was a so-so film, the book IS better
and the film does drag on abit, especially towards the end. I enjoyed it because it was so interesting. Paul Betoney is really good a Silus but Hank fails to show much emotion in his role as Robert. It is quite violent (I had to turn away at the flaggelation part) and there is some sexual content (a brief scene of a sex ritual thing, but its only a quick glimpse and images of prostitues getting in mens cars) and a drug reference (drug addict in park). Good film, but some caution is recommended.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
The anti-Christian messages are not as strong as they were in the book. The filmmakers aren't portraying the movie as historically accurate, unlike Dan Brown, who really thinks he was accurate in his history. The movie is a bit intense, (self-flagellation, many murders, bloody corpses, etc.) and unusually long for a thriller, (2.5 hrs theatrical, 3hrs Extended) but it keeps you entertained.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
umm....the book is sooo much better
ok...here's the thing: the movie sucks. the book was so much better. tom hanks is a great actor but he didn't seem like robert langdon. langdaon and sophie didn't have any on-screen chemistry like thet did in the book. and..they change sooo much, like the whole ending. it sucks!!
Was this review useful?
|
|
| Studio: | Columbia Tristar |
| Director: | Ron Howard |
| Cast: | Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Tom Hanks |
| Genre: | Thriller |
| Run time: | 147 minutes |
| Theatrical release date: | May 19, 2006 |
| DVD release date: | November 14, 2006 |
| MPAA rating: | PG-13 |
| MPAA explanation: | disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content |
Review It
Great alternatives handpicked by our editors
Already seen it? What do you think?
More from Common Sense Media
Top advice and articles
