The Da Vinci Code [Blu-ray]

If you like puzzles and suspense, this movie is for you! So many things I could say but I don't want to spoil it. Definitely worth watching as well as the rest in the series

This is the movie adaptation of the wildly popular novel by Dan Brown of the same name. The movie was directed by Ron Howard and starred Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, a professor at Harvard University who is unknowingly the subject of a police investigation into the murder of the curator of the Lurve in Paris. Audrey Tautou plays Sophie Neveu, the granddaughter of the curator who joins Langdon in following clues that point to the Holy Grail.There are different editions of the movie. I have the extended edition which has a running time of 174 minutes. The additional scenes do not change the movie significantly, just add additional material here and there, and end up being about half an hour longer than the theatrical edition. I do think the additional footage helps make the movie make a bit more sense than the shorter version does, so in that sense, it works. There are a ton of extras on the Blu-Ray set including an interactive picture-in-picture experience that plays the movie with behind-the-scenes material and interviews with cast and crew members as the film plays. There is also a selective scene commentary with Ron Howard that breaks down specific scenes from the movie. There is also a second disc just with special features that include the making-of documentary from the original DVD release, a book-to-screen feature about adapting the book into a movie, a feature called Da Vinci props, that discussed bringing the descriptions of Da Vinci's inventions into the real world, and featurettes on the sets, recreating the artwork, the visual effects, and the music, as well as promotional trailers for other Sony movies. So, a ton of material for those who like the bonus content. The movie looks and sounds great in HD, with a ton of great visuals from around Europe.Overall, I think the movie was good as the novel. Which is the case many times when a novel is adapted into a movie. Hanks does a great job as Langdon (aside from having a weird haircut), and Jean Reno as the police inspector is great. Audrey Tautou and Ian Mckellan do a good job in their roles but don't think either of them was necessarily the best casting choice for the roles they played. The book and the movie get a lot of flack as being blasphemous, which I think is unfair. Yes, it has a religious element to it, but it is a fictional story that, while it ties some real historical elements in, it does not claim to be 100 percent historically accurate. Because of that, there will always be a segment of people who will never see the movie or read the book. But, if you can accept that it is a fictional thriller/mystery, and is not pretending to be anything more than that, it is an enjoyable movie that is worth seeing.

Although my wife and I watched this film when it was first released in 2006, we wanted to watch it again with our son after he recently visited the Louvre Museum in Paris.I think it's important to go into this film with an open mind while also recognizing that it was created as a form of entertainment.The thing that I appreciate the most about The Da Vinci Code is that, while it confronts the foundations of Christianity head-on, it also makes a point to openly highlight how faith in something greater than ourselves can bring a sense of peace in troubled times.Given that a significant part of the plot takes place inside the Louvre, I applaud the filmmakers for getting permission to film portions inside the actual museum. I'm sure they could have easily recreated the setting in a studio or some other setting. However, filming in the actual location adds a certain weight of authenticity that illustrates its importance to the film.While I haven't read Dan Brown's book, I do find the source material fascinating. We started off watching The Da Vinci Code with the intention of showing our son a movie filmed in a museum he recently visited. However, at the end, we found ourselves engaged in a conversation about religion, symbols, and faith.I think the purpose of art, whether that be through paintings, writings, or, in this case, filmmaking, should be to challenge us to think beyond what we believe in order to make those beliefs stronger or to examine them more thoroughly.I think this film certainly does that.

I only read the book because my girlfriend asked my opinion about it and watched the movie because I liked the book. Dan Brown is an excellent writer. The movie was fun to watch. After watching the movie I read the other Dan Brown books. I have to admit as an atheist I am biased because of the many years religions have attacked me for simply not believing in their gods. That being said, I noticed the Catholic Church was quick to defend their faith and try to debunk Brown's theory. The opinions of the book and movie seem to be based on sex. Women feel they have been discriminated against by male dominated churches and men in the Catholic clergy deny the movie has any validity. Regardless, there is no way one could properly identify a person who was supposedly a god. Does a god even have DNA? Evidently you can pose any belief you want and 2,000 years down the road their will be someone who will claim it must be true because it is old and it is written down. I still thought the books were fun to read and the movie fun to watch. I was however disappointed in the end when our hero and heroin didn't jump into bed and have sex and the pyramid scene at the end was simply ridiculous. So much for religious hype -- I am not really interested in their issues. Why fight over issues of which none are true?