Prayer Focus
Click here to watch THE HOPE on-line!
Movie Review

The Da Vinci Code

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content

Reviewed by: Michael Karounos
CONTRIBUTOR

Extremely Offensive
Add to your list?
View your list
Moviemaking Quality:

Primary Audience:
Adults
Genre:
Mystery Thriller Drama
Length:
2 hr. 29 min.
Year of Release:
2006
USA Release:
May 19, 2006 (wide)
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Copyright, Columbia Tristar
Relevant Issues
Copyright, Columbia Tristar

copyrightedIs THE DA VINCI CODE “the most serious assault against Christianity”? Answer

Was Jesus Christ only a legend? Answer

the real Mary Magdalene

Is Jesus Christ a man, or is he God? Answer

If Jesus is God, how could he die? If Jesus died on the cross, then how can he be alive today? Answer

Was Jesus Christ God, manifest in human form? Answer

Is Jesus Christ really God? Answer

If Jesus was the Son of God, why did He call Himself the Son of Man? Answer

Trinity—How can one God be three persons? Answer

Character—Is Christ’s character consistent with his high claims? Answer

Has science disproved the miracles associated with Jesus Christ? Answer

Could Christ have sinned? Answer

Archaeology—Have any burial sites been found for the people involved in Christ’s life and death? Answer

Mary, mother of Jesus

What is “blasphemy”? Answer

How do we know the Bible is true? Answer

How can the Bible be infallible if it was written by fallible humans? Answer

“The Jesus Seminar”—Are their criticisms of the gospels valid? Answer

“The Jesus Seminar”—Who do they really speak for? Answer

Jesus Christ: His Identity, Life, Death and Resurrection
Is Jesus Christ the answer to your questions?
SALVATION—Answers to frequently-asked-questions
Featuring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina
Director: Ron Howard
Producer: Brian Grazer, John Calley
Distributor: Columbia Tristar (Sony)

“The greatest story never told”

Sequels: “Angels and Demons” (2009), “Inferno” (2016)

This is the headline that should precede every review of “The Da Vinci Code” which could possibly be the biggest box office disappointment since “King Kong”. In spite of the millions spent on advertising, I suspect that by next weekend the negative word-of-mouth reviews will sink the movie faster than the “Poseidon” is currently tanking at the box office.

First, for those unfamiliar with the book, here’s the plot. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a professor of “symbology” who stumbles onto a 2,000 year old conspiracy. In the process, he’s accused of murder and goes on the run with the lovely Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). They seek out Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), an expert in the Gnostic gospels and all things conspiratorial. Their investigation carries them from France to England. The revelations they unearth there plunge them ever deeper into the mystery of the true origin of the Holy Grail.

Cinematically, the film looks good, but Ron Howard depends too much on documentary flashbacks to fill the backstory. Sometimes we’re in ancient Rome, sometimes we’re in France, sometimes we’re in England. Consequently, one of the problems with the movie is that the whole is less than the sum of its too many parts. The scenes lack narrative and personal tension. The most exciting—and best filmed—sequence in the movie—ensues when Sophie careens her mini car in reverse down a crowded street. Other than that, the pacing slavishly imitates the book but lacks the book’s tension. Furthermore, Howard fails to substitute a cinematic cleverness sharp enough to entertain the audience. For all practical purposes, the movie is nothing more than a lecture about how Christianity stole the “real” Jesus—visually pretty, but deadly dull.

Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon is a disaster. It’s difficult to say whether it’s Hanks’s interpretation of the role or Ron Howard’s stifling direction. Whatever the reason, Hanks looks bad, acts robotically, and remains at arm’s length from Tautou. In the book, the two end up having sex. In the movie, Robert Langdon acts as if he is Sophie’s teacher, or her older brother, or simply knows that he is too old to flirt with her and is embarrassed to show any manly feelings whatsoever. There are no compliments, no wisecracks, no arch glances. His behavior is so politically correct one is tempted to think that the movie is really “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and raises the question of who stole Tom Hanks and left the pod?

This is what critics mean when they complain of the lack of “chemistry” between the two and describe the movie as humorless. What they neglect to point out is that Hanks and Neveu never laugh and rarely smile. Consequently, without any casual sexual flirtation, or any evidence whatsoever that they are attracted to one another, the movie is emotionally flat and completely humorless. By comparison, Ian McKellen brings depth to his role by the revolutionary expedient of smiling and even chuckling. He takes charge of his character and animates Teabing beyond the two-dimensional cardboard cutout found in the novel. Hanks and Tautou lack the talent or the insight or the sheer acting brio to do this with their characters. Howard is to blame also. There were plenty of opportunities for him to depart from Dan Brown’s dull gospel and inject some Hollywood sparkle, but the relationship between Langdon and Neveu is so mechanical they appear to be acting with a glass wall between them or to have filmed their parts separately in front of a blue screen. Psychologically, they’re just not in the same cinematic frame.

The one bright spot in the movie is McKellen as Teabing, a scholar intent on revealing the “fraudulent” nature of Christianity. Teabing denies the divinity of Jesus and rejects the truth of the gospels. His life’s purpose is to broadcast the truth about the Catholic church’s duplicity and he does so with energy and passion. Teabing’s animus to Christianity and Judaism emerges when he says, “As long as there has been one true God there has been killing in his name.” It’s a laughable line, as if humanity in its pagan state (Genghis Khan et. al.) or in its political state (Communism, Nazism, Baathism) are innocents abroad, or that the actions of any Christian can be compared with Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. But McKellen shows why he is probably the greatest role player in film today.

Interestingly, just as Jehoiakim cut and burned the words of God (Jeremiah 36), McKellen claims to rip out the pages of Leviticus that condemn homosexuality whenever he finds a Bible in a hotel room (http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040550.cfm). It would be difficult to find a better metaphor for the movie: God out; sex in. McKellen is well-known as a gay activist and has complained about his role in the new X-Men movie because he wanted there to be a gay sex scene. He says, “It would be wonderful if the camera hovered over Magneto’s bed, to discover him making love to Professor X” (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21042006/364/mckellen-wants-gay-sex-scene.html), a statement that will make next week’s release of the “X-Men” interesting to view.

The lovely Audrey Tautou is wasted in this part. She has the thankless job of having everything explained to her for nearly 149 excruciating minutes. She does what she can, but there’s nothing less credible than dumb beauty. Rather than enhancing the role, the role diminishes her. Even an ancient actress like Judy Dench would have been more believable because the role, as enacted in the film, calls more for the authority of smarts than it does for the authority of beauty. Having an unlovely actress play Sophie would make the final premise laughable, since divine sex (“hieros gamos”) is what the book ultimately celebrates, but the movie doesn’t elaborate on that thesis. For all its talk about sex, the movie is perversely puritanical. Sex becomes religion and religion becomes sex and the movie manages to make both boring.

It appears that Ron Howard got so caught up in the pompous material that he forgot that it is fiction, that he works in Hollywood, and that his primary responsibility is to entertain not to preach. If it were only dull, I could recommend it to Christian audiences without reservation. One would have to be an absolute blockhead to lose one’s faith as a result of watching a film so dim and convoluted. However, there are two extremely offensive scenes in the movie. These occur when Silas (Paul Bettany), the albino, stands naked in front of a crucifix of Jesus and violently flagellates himself. The homoerotic overtones in the scenes are so obvious that the intent to offend is itself offensive. It’s as if Hollywood wanted to pay Christians back for the excessive lashing of Jesus in “The Passion” with a sadomasochistic lashing to suggest a gay-themed Jesus, as in the Off-Broadway production, “Corpus Christi”.

Because of those scenes, I cannot recommend the movie for conservative Christian audiences. For those who can tolerate male nudity (albeit not frontal), the greater danger is the naked boredom they will have to endure for two and a half hours. The lesson that Christians can derive from the film is this: Jesus isn’t just a story or a set of facts; he’s a way and, more importantly, he is a life (John 14:6). The reason that the Gnostic “gospels” disappeared into the dustbins of history is because they are lies—they have no true life to animate them.

In the case of The Da Vinci Code, the book has patched together nearly two dozen bizarrely connected elements ranging from the “yin yang” of iambic pentameter (303), to silly interpretations of Da Vinci’s paintings, to heated ruminations on the meaning of circles, pentacles, roses, Gothic architecture, the Star of David, triangles, etc., and woven one big lie. It would be amusing, if so many people didn’t take the book seriously. Fortunately for Christians, it will be difficult for anyone to take the movie seriously.

Because the “The Da Vinci Code” is boring, because it is offensive, because it earnestly tries to deceive people and promotes vicious lies about the Christian faith, it would be best if no Christian saw it. Believe me, you won’t miss a thing.

Addendum

As of opening night, review ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are running 127 negative to 25 positive, an astonishing 84% negative with an overall rating below average. In other words, the movie is generating leaden reports of disappointment and derision rather than sparks of controversy and excitement. The buzz is all about the torpor of its reception rather than the stimulation of its transmission. “The Da Vinci Code” is a major flop for reasons which I’ll try to explain in order below.

There are no major spoilers in what follows, but viewers who have not read the book will have a difficult time understanding the movie without some preparation. The following points constitute the major assertions that are either explicitly stated or alluded to. (I’ve referenced their corresponding page locations in the book in parentheses.)

Major assertions of the book

  1. Jesus was viewed as a prophet by his followers, not as the son of God, until Constantine and Council of Nicaea declared him divine in 325 A.D. (233).

  2. Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, uniting two Jewish royal lines (244, 248).

  3. Jesus intended for Mary Magdalene to lead the church after his death (248).

  4. Mary Magdalene escaped to Gaul (present day France) and gave birth to a daughter, Sarah (255).

  5. Mary Magdalene is the real divinity, not Jesus. She is the Holy Grail which is a metaphor for “woman” and represents the ancient goddess and the “sacred feminine” (238).

  6. The Knights Templar were ordered to retrieve the documents of proof and to protect her tomb. (They were later exterminated by an evil Pope.)

  7. The Priory of Sion (a secret organization) worships Mary Magdalene as “the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose, and the Divine Mother” (255).

  8. The Priory of Sion is dedicated to preserving her secret, as well as protecting the descendants of Magdalene and Jesus, and the documents which prove their story, including Jesus’ own diaries (258).

  9. The Catholic Church naturally wants to destroy all evidence in order to “rewrite history” (268).

What is not explained in the movie about the points above, but made clear in the book, are the following key false claims:

  1. Sex is a “spiritual act” through which spiritual knowledge (“gnosis”) is achieved (308). The followers of the “goddess” (Mary Magdalene) viewed “Orgasm as prayer” (309).
  2. The Jewish Temple was served by female priests whose duty was to have sex with male seekers who then experienced the “divine” in the Holy of Holies through orgasm (309).

  3. The Star of David is actually a composition of two triangles superimposed on one another and representing the male and female genitalia. Something like this: ^ and v.

  4. The Catholic Church saw the ability of individuals to experience the divine on their own, with women, as a threat to its existence and demonized women (i.e., the sex provider) and persecuted everyone having anything to do with the Knights or the Priory.

Now, if you’ve read to this point, you’re ready to see the movie and actually understand it. But if you skipped reading all the above points, you can understand why the movie is a tedious experience for those who did not read the book. The exposition is too frequent, it’s too long, and it’s too boring.

As a counter to the misinformation given in the movie and book, I recommend readers visit one of the many sites which debunk in detail each assertion. Here are two excellent sites:
Protestant site: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/davincifaq.htm
Catholic site: http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.


Viewer Comments
Comments below:
Positive
Positive—I watched the movie yesterday. I don’t think Christians should be afraid of it. It was a good movie. I like conspiracy theories, and it was well paced. Honestly, it was a work of fiction, parts of it were silly, but its nothing worse than something like X-men. There are plenty of conspiracy films out there that if true would change the world. They are not true. If anything, this movie showed me how important Christ is to the world.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
—Bob, age 33
Positive—…a popcorn chase movie based on a cheesy novel. Is it a great movie? Goodness gracious, no. Is it an abomination before God? Of course not. “The DaVinci Code” is what it is, a 2½ hour Saturday matinee for grown ups. Much has been made of Tom Hanks’s performance (and hair), I found him to be perfectly competent here. Ian McKellan brings a lot of fun to his role, as does Paul Bettany as the villainous monk Silas. Director Ron Howard keeps things safe and mainstream, but does add a lot of big budget flourish, with sweeping crane shots and CGI flashbacks to ancient Rome. The story is ludicrous and hardly blasphemous, and can be best enjoyed as a “North By Northwest”-esque chase through exotic locations. …Because of the hype, the movie is a box office sensation. Similarly to Mel Gibson’s Passion film, what we have here is a decent, heavily flawed piece of cinema transformed into piles of gold because of a feeble minded public…
My Ratings: Good / 3
—Peter Davis, age 36
Positive—…First and foremost this is a work of fiction, both the movie and the book. Just watching the Discovery Channel and A&E on the DaVinci Code tell you that the “facts” in the book and movie are not true. …There are numerous places in the book and movie where anyone who has done any study of the Bible and Christian history has to say “Where did they get that stupid idea?” They are both works of FICTION. Yes, Fiction. It is not a comedy so you will not find humor in the movie. It is not an action movie so there is not a lot of car crashes or chase scenes in this movie. It is a conspiracy theory thriller and that is what we get. Tom Hanks is portraying a bookworm not an Indiana Jones and does a good job of it. The book and movie take place in less than 48 hr. There is little place for sex and a blooming love affair. The book ends with the sexual innuendo the reviewer complains about but the movie does not. While the movie does talk much about the pagan sexual rituals it does not get into many of the things talked about in the book. What is shown in the movie is not glorified nor graphic.

…I enjoyed the movie, it is a good work of fiction that keeps you thinking and paying attention to it. When we came out of the movie everyone was saying that they thought it was great. No one was saying that they believed the lies against Christianity. …If anyone leaves this movie thinking that Christianity is all a lie it is our failure as followers of Jesus for not reaching this generation with the truth of Scripture and the Love that sent Jesus to the cross. People will only believe the lie out of ignorance and fear, not because of Brown, Howard or Hanks.
My Ratings: Average / 3
—Robert Klueg, age 54
Positive—I personally enjoyed it found it to be rather thought provoking in regards to tossed away parts of the original Bible by those that weren’t disciplines of Christ, or the Christ’s marriage and the witch hunt. There’s a little bit of language.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
—Kate, age 29 (USA)
Response—Kate, it is so sad to see you have been taken in by the great Satanic lies of this film. Christ was not married, and the supposed “tossed away parts of the original Bible” are a deception—definitely not part of God’s Word. Do not be deceived. See: Apocrypha. Also, see our article on The Da Vince Code.
—Editor
Neutral
Neutral—So much controversy over a film that has been said over and over again to be fiction (as is the book). I understand that many a non-believer might view this film and start to wonder if the story is true. What an amazing opportunity God has given us as believers in opening a door to talk to our unsaved friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

…Many a believer are not able to view any type of film (or read a book) that is offensive to their faith. Just as God uses his children that he has delivered from drugs, alcohol, or a life of immorality to talk to non-believers going through the same things, I believe God uses some of his children (who can go see films of this nature) to use films and books as witness tools. If you are one of these people, go see this movie so that you can discuss it with the unsaved in your life.

As a fiction story, the movie is actually quite amazing. Filmed very well, and in many beautiful locations. The acting is also done very well. The characters have a good chemistry together.

Please understand that the PG-13 rating should be strictly applied. This movie should be seen by those of us who can establish the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Children (hopefully over 13) should be talked to by their parents after the film. Please go see this film if you have been given peace in your heart from God to do so, and use it to explain the true story of Jesus’ life on this Earth. …
My Ratings: Average / 5
—Scarlett, age 27
Neutral—This movie definitely blasphemes Christianity. The movie itself was not all that engaging. I’d probably not see it unless you had a compelling reason to use it for witnessing.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 2
—Joe Smith, age 30
Negative
Negative—…I do not wish to comment on the quality of filmmaking itself. Rather, I regret to confirm that everything that was said about the book is true about the movie. Distortion of history, which was easy to denounce in the book is at work in the movie, too. In the opening scene, Langdon is giving his conference on religious symbols and exclaims : “How can we sift history from centuries of distortion? This will be our task for tonight.” (quoted from memory) Of course, Ron Howard would like you to believe that the movie itself is going to accomplish just that for you. The fantasies and lies upon which Dan Brown has built his story have already been largely exposed. Allow me to remind you that he has drawn a lot from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh. (The name of the character Leigh Teabing was created by blending Baigent and Leigh’s names).

This book belongs to the “esoteric” genre, (a line of thought according to which a hidden lore gives the key to power) and its unreliable ideas are now being spread into the general public, thanks to Dan Brown. While lies are always a sin in the sight of God, my guess is that this maybe an opportunity for Christians to deepen their sometimes insufficient knowledge of the history of Christianity, and find out that our faith has in truth nothing to fear from historical investigations. Concerning the spiritual content of the movie, I have to underline that we are—of course!—faced with pure blasphemy. Near the end of the movie, we are treated to a dialogue between Hanks (Langdon) and Tautou (Neveu / Saint Clair) which reveals the purpose of the whole story: Jesus, says Hanks, was an inspiring man, …(read: nothing more than a mere man) (quoted from memory). Fools! If Christ was a mere man, he did not rise again, and as Paul said, our faith is vain…
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 2
—Eric, age 30
Negative—The book says that it is based on historical evidence and facts. These are not true by any means; both Christians and Catholics have tested these “facts,” and most if not all have been shown to be lies. Many of the “facts” in the book are made up and made up in such a way to look as if they exist; however, one should dig a little deeper before believing this movie.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive
—Daniel Shepherd, age 27
Negative—As a book, it was mediocre at best. It’s very hard to get into a story that takes place over a single 24-hr period. It’s very hard to get to know characters, it’s very hard to see them develop. I think the only reason why Dan Brown’s fourth and most recent novel (by the way they ALL take place over 24 periods) put his name on the map is because of the controversy it sparked. (More on that in a moment) There wasn’t an ounce of truth to the story—which is why I liked it. For once I could hang my brain at the door and not be bothered by reality.

However, while the book was mediocre, the movie was downright HORRIBLE! It was boring and contained virtually none of the plot exposition that the book had. The only point of the movie I did like was when Robert and Sophie were at the home of Sir Lee Teabing. When Sir Lee was explaining the Grail mythology, Langdon actually spoke up and defended Christ’s divinity and kept trying to say that the mind sees what it wants to see.

Basically, the story poses the theory that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalene and that their bloodline continues to this day through certain French nobility. Hence, the “chalice that caught the blood of Christ” was quite literally Mary Magdalene’s womb. Mary Magdalene is/was the Holy Grail?! The secret was passed down from generation to generation by a secret society known as the Priory of Sion. King Arthur’s knights went on crusades to search for the Grail and their search allegedly turned into goddess worship as they revered Magdalene as “The Sacred Feminine.” Some famous Grand Masters of the Priory have included Sir Isaac Newton and (of course) Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci has apparently included hints to this “truth” in his work. Does the disciple to the right of Jesus (leaning away from Him) in the painting of “The Last Supper” look feminine? Only because someone pointed it out to me. Could it be Mary Magdalene? I dunno. I didn’t know we were given a seating chart for the Last Supper. How am I supposed to know who’s sitting where? But like the movie points out—the mind sees what it wants to see.

Once again, I’ll leave this thought—the book was mediocre and the movie was worse. I really despise movies that are based on books where you have to have read the book in order to understand the movie. That’s very poor and uncreative directing. I would have expected better from Ron Howard.
My Ratings: Offensive / 1
—Pete, age 27
Negative—Boring, overblown, stupid, obvious, blasphemous. Very disappointed in Ron Howard and Tom Hanks.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 2
—Chris, age 46
Negative—Having not previously read the book but sitting in on multiple discussions of the lies included, I felt compelled to see the movie if for no other reason than to defend the Truth. (Which I won’t go into here.) I found many plot points used in the movie laughable-which were difficult to contain in a 60% full movie house. I was looking forward to discussions with some non-believers about the movie, but, like the reviewer, believe most who have not read the book will see through the lies created. (Some plot points were so contrived and far-fetched I heard others suppressing laughter as well.) I didn’t even hear discussions about the story while leaving the theatre!
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 2
—Brian, age 39
Negative—What a waste of time to see this over rated movie! This movie will not affect the cause of Christ because only Truth sets the heart free, and this movie has little truth in it. Even it’s power to deceive seems to me to be way over-rated. It is a dark movie and leaves the viewer with a sense of “what am I doing here and what is all the concern about?”. All the concern about this movie being dangerous felt a bit like Y2K revisited. At one point, when Tom Hanks was running away from his would be captors through the halls of the darkened museum (early in the movie), I found myself hollering out “Run Forest Run” which seemed to me to appropriately fit the poor quality of this movie that delivers nothing to the heart but emptiness. What a disappointment! There are better things to do with your time and money. Don’t believe the hype that this movie will rock your world or your walk with the Lord. …
My Ratings: Offensive / 2
—Paul, age 53
Comments from young people
Negative—This movie is the most horrible and offensive film I believe I have ever heard of. I know what you’re thinking, this girl is only a child, what does she know? Well, I would be delighted to tell you exactly what I know, I know that this film is extremely offensive to my religion. As a Christian, I believe in God and I live to serve Him and I know for a fact that this movie is fraud.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1
—Ashley, age 14
Neutral—This movie was very well done. The acting was amazing. Paul Bettis did a wonderful job of portraying the Albino Monk. Although the film had very good acting and a very creative plot, however, there is a lot of breaking down of Christians. …The movie basically portrays Catholics as evil people who are trying to cover up a lie. This movie rips Christianity and Catholocism up, chews it up, and spits it out.

They base the their theory on Davinci’s painting “The Last Supper.” They act like the painting was a portrait of the last supper, as if Davinci was there painting it. The fact is, Davinci was born over 1,300 years after the death of Christ. The painting was Leonardo’s interpretation. And, where in the Bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? It says that she was his “companion,” but the book that they referred to was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic. The Greek translation of “companion” literally means “Spouse.” But, the Aramaic translation actually means “friend.” I think that when Leonardo painting the female-looking person in his painting, he was painting John. The Bible said that John was a beautiful man. A beautiful man possesses feminine traits. Also, in the picture, how many people were there? The answer is 13. That means that if Jesus and all twelve disciples were there, there would be no room left for Mary. Again, this movie was very well done, and it brings up great spiritual topics to discuss, but I encourage you; unless you are strong in your faith and cannot be moved, do not see this movie. It will challenge you a great amount. …
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
—Zach Carlson, age 14
Negative—I went to see this movie with my Dad as a chance to witness to others who would be told numerous lies. To tell you the truth it was a lot worse than we thought it would be. The beginning of the movie has a scene of a nude man who beats himself because of the guilt of his murders. One of the murders is a man. After the man was shot, later in the film, their is a part where he is closely viewed. He is not dressed at all, and his body has many severe markings of torture.

The whole movie makes you question a number of things—especially non-Christians. One of the topics was a painting of Da Vinci’s “The Lord’s Supper.” The man to the right is said to be a woman in the movie, Mary Magdalene. Which is not true. Leonardo Da Vinci himself stated that they were all men—my Mom had known being a professional artist. The whole movie is based on the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a sexual relationship. Example, when Jesus was on the cross they led you to believe that she was pregnant with a daughter from Jesus. She falsely gave birth after his death, and the blood line carried on until now. The woman in the film finds out that she is the last descendant of Mary the wife of Jesus. Which is why the man who was beating himself wanted to kill her. This is found out after actor Tom Hanks and the woman break the code. They are constantly being chased by the man who I previously mentioned. He tries to kill them but along the way he kills a nun, a priest, and others.

I would recommend for you only to see this movie as a chance to witness to those who have believed Hollywood. Tom Hanks has claimed to be a Christian after he got saved, so this makes people wonder even more. I wouldn’t watch this movie again, but if you decide to see this film then as a warning, it is very serious, and I strongly encourage you as a devout Christian to read the Christian book on The Da Vinci Code. I got a CD from my pastor that made me even more solid and prepared to explain my faith…
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
—Brooke, age 15
Negative—When the book came out, I decided to read it so that I could defend my faith better. Dan Brown brilliantly wove history and great storytelling and wrote a great page turner. However, he made many heresies, and I hope that someone can reach him and make him a follower of Christ before it’s too late. (All things are possible, just remember Paul!) I expected the movie to blow me away since the novel is soo good, but I was VERY disappointed. It didn’t stick to the book very well, and the changes were definitely not in its favor. I wondered how people could understand what was going on if they hadn’t read the book. Plots moved to quickly and they didn’t explain things thoroughly enough in my opinion. If you want to understand more about the gnostic beliefs, read the book. It’s way more enjoyable anyway. Just remember to have your Bible with you! Most of the accusations made by Brown can be proved false by scripture alone.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
—Katie, age 19
Neutral—…I really did not like this movie, and that’s saying it nicely. Well, compared to a lot of movies nowadays, it wasn’t that bad. I’ll start with what I didn’t like. First, there were two nude scenes with the monk in the movie, when he is doing self-mutilation because he thinks after killing a person, God will forgive him if he inflicts pain upon himself. I know that really happens in the world, and I think it is a very sad, sick thing. Secondly, the whole Mary Magdalene thing is just really stupid. We all know that didn’t happen, why even try? I just started laughing, and shaking my head in the theatre. …By the way, THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR CHILDREN! I wouldn’t even let a 14 year old see it. I myself had no business watching that. I will admit I liked the mystery stuff, you know, like the clues and all that. I think everyone does. But it doesn’t mean it makes everything right. This is a movie to skip-trust me. …
My Ratings: Offensive / 3
—Preciousjewl, age 15
Negative—This movie was extremely boring, because it went on and on. The book is much more interesting. …much more thrilling and includes more details. There are also many differences in the book and the movie. “The Da Vinci Code” is a lie and is definitely fiction. Mary Magdalene was never married to Jesus… …Many people try to disprove the Bible, and this is another attempt that has been made to persuade and discourage many Christians.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3
—Bonnie, age 17
Movie Critics
…small, surprisingly ordinary movie… Ron Howard, it turns out, was precisely the wrong person to bring Dan Brown’s best-selling novel to the screen. …
—Boston Globe
…ludicrous and the ridiculous race …demands suspension of beliefs, and not just religious ones… Following its labyrinthine absurdities is like listening to a convoluted story on a cell phone that keeps dropping out. …
—Ed Blank, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
…The surprise, and disappointment, of “The Da Vinci Code” is how slipshod and hokey the religious detective story now seems. …
—Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
Ron Howard’s stilted “Code” is hardly a masterpiece… Although it is guaranteed to stir debate, the film itself is never stirring. It is like a cilice itself, confining and constraining the characters, the story and, finally, the audience…
—The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
…visually static and wearying… “The Da Vinci Code” can be summed up in one line, spoken by its earnest protagonist after a pal is kidnapped: “I’ve got to get to a library!” Be still my beating heart. A library. Next, we’ll all compare flavors of dental floss. …the drama feels more like melodrama, especially with the heavy-handed music…
—The Arizona Republic