Critics’ reviews

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 47: 0 positive, 6 mixed, 6 negative.

Back to our review of The Da Vinci Code

47
Positive
0
Mixed
6
Negative
6

The consensus leans towards disappointment, with the reviews split between mixed and negative assessments. Most critics find the adaptation too dependent on explanation, leaving little space for character or suspense. Praise clusters around the supporting performances, particularly Ian McKellen, whose liveliness offers some relief from the solemnity. There is also appreciation for Audrey Tautou’s urgency, though the leads receive less consistent support than the supporting cast.

The main disagreement is over whether fidelity to the novel compensates for the slow, talk-heavy storytelling. Radio Times sees a sober, comprehensive adaptation that should satisfy the book’s fans; less persuaded critics find that same approach inert and overlong. Assessments range from qualified enjoyment to emphatic rejection, with reservations about Tom Hanks’s passivity and the handling of action. Den of Geek offers a more favourable assessment of the extended cut, judging it a substantial improvement over the theatrical version rather than an outstanding thriller.

Screen Daily
17 May 2006 · Mike Goodridge
64*

The review’s verdict is unavailable because the article text is behind a paywall. The visible page does not reveal what the critic praised or criticized.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
64*

The page content is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is visible.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
17 May 2006 · ★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
62

Ebert finds the film entertaining but weighed down by its talk-heavy storytelling. He singles out the constant exposition as a drawback.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Karen Krizanovich
60

Krizanovich says fans of the novel will not be disappointed by the adaptation. She praises its sober, all-encompassing approach and Howard’s direction.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
7 November 2006 · ★★★ · Nick Schager
60

Schager finds the film leaden, incompetent, and unintentionally humorous. He especially criticizes Tom Hanks’s blank performance and the film’s clumsy camerawork.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
18 May 2006 · Kenneth Turan
40*

Turan finds the adaptation competent but constrained by its cautious, franchise-protecting approach, and only occasionally thrilling. He praises Audrey Tautou’s urgent, convincing performance as Sophie, while criticizing Tom Hanks as too reactive for Langdon.

Read the full review →
Time Out
23 May 2006 · Trevor Johnston
30*

The critic suggests the film will mainly appeal to viewers who insist on a faithful adaptation. The complaint is that Brown’s novel has been reduced to talking pictures.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Freer
15*

Freer finds the film inert and dreary, with exposition overwhelming character and momentum. He singles out Ian McKellen’s lively performance as a rare boost, while criticizing the leads’ lack of engagement and the muddled action.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
12 May 2009 · ★★★ · Glen Chapman
60

Chapman finds the extended Blu-ray cut a decent, though not outstanding, thriller and a major improvement over the theatrical version. He praises the Blu-ray transfer and highlights the supporting cast, especially Jean Reno.

Read the full review →
The Skinny
15 June 2006 · ★★ · Paul Gallagher
40

The review finds the adaptation cold, lifeless and unlikely to endure in film history. It praises Ian McKellen as the only cast member to bring any fun to the proceedings.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
21 May 2006 · Chris
35*

The critic finds the film forgettable and over-hyped, with a weak central premise. They credit it with prompting questions about Christian history and praise the photography of Roslyn Chapel.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
21 May 2006 · Daniel Saney
30*

The review finds the adaptation disappointing, especially for viewers who have not read the book. It praises Ian McKellen’s performance but criticizes the film’s slavish, overlong reproduction of the novel.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate