Dan Brown’s books were a fever dream for the early 2000s. You couldn't get on a plane or sit in a doctor's office without seeing that iconic Mona Lisa cover. So, when Sony announced the Tom Hanks Da Vinci Code films, the world basically lost its collective mind. It was the perfect storm. You had the biggest movie star on the planet, a director like Ron Howard who knows how to craft a blockbuster, and a plot that suggested the Catholic Church was hiding the biggest secret in human history.
People forget how intense the backlash was.
The Vatican wasn't just annoyed; they were calling for boycotts. Protesters lined up outside theaters. Yet, despite the critics mostly hating them, the trilogy raked in over $1.5 billion. It’s a weird legacy. We’re looking at a franchise that is simultaneously a "dad movie" staple and a lightning rod for religious controversy.
The Robert Langdon evolution and that famous hair
Let’s talk about the hair. Seriously. When The Da Vinci Code dropped in 2006, the conversation wasn't just about the Holy Grail; it was about the long, slicked-back mane Tom Hanks was sporting. It was a choice. Some fans of the books thought it didn't fit the "Indiana Jones in a tweed jacket" vibe of Robert Langdon. But as the Tom Hanks Da Vinci Code films progressed into Angels & Demons and later Inferno, the look—and the character—stabilized.
Hanks plays Langdon with a specific kind of intellectual franticness. He isn't throwing punches. He's solving anagrams while people are trying to kill him. It’s a tough sell for an action hero, but Hanks has that "everyman" quality that makes you believe a Harvard symbologist could actually outrun an assassin through the streets of Paris.
Why The Da Vinci Code hit different in 2006
The first film is a slow burn, almost to a fault. It’s 149 minutes of people explaining history in dark rooms. But that was the draw. It felt like "History's Greatest Hits" mixed with a scavenger hunt. The movie follows Langdon and Sophie Neveu (played by Audrey Tautou) as they realize a murder in the Louvre is connected to Mary Magdalene and the Priory of Sion.
The "big reveal" about the bloodline of Christ is common knowledge now in pop culture circles. Back then? It felt dangerous. It felt like something you weren't supposed to be watching. Sir Ian McKellen basically steals the entire movie as Sir Leigh Teabing. His delivery of lines about the Council of Nicaea gave the film a weight it probably didn't deserve, but man, it was entertaining.
Critics were brutal. The New York Times and Variety weren't fans of the clunky exposition. But the audience didn't care. The film opened to $224 million worldwide in its first weekend. That's a massive number for a movie that is basically two hours of talking about art history and theology.
Angels & Demons: The superior sequel?
Most fans actually prefer the second installment. Angels & Demons (2009) is a much tighter, more aggressive film. It’s a race against time. There’s a canister of antimatter hidden somewhere in the Vatican, and the Pope has just died. It’s basically 24 but with more incense and Latin.
What’s interesting is that Brown actually wrote the Angels & Demons book before The Da Vinci Code. The filmmakers decided to make it a sequel instead. This changed the dynamic of Langdon. He’s no longer the confused guy being dragged into a conspiracy; he’s the expert the Vatican is forced to call for help.
Ewan McGregor is fantastic here as the Camerlengo. The tension between science and religion is the core of the film, and it handles it with a bit more nuance than the first one. It also features some of the best cinematography in the series. Since the Vatican obviously wouldn't let them film on-site, the production design team had to rebuild the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Square at Sony Studios and various locations in Rome. The detail is staggering. You honestly can't tell it's a set.
Inferno and the law of diminishing returns
By the time Inferno came out in 2016, the world had moved on a bit. The "symbology" craze had peaked. This time, the stakes were global—a billionaire played by Ben Foster wants to release a plague to "save" the planet from overpopulation. It’s based on Dante’s Inferno, which provides a cool aesthetic, but the plot feels a bit more "generic spy thriller" than the previous two.
✨ Don't miss: Why More by Frank Sinatra Is Still the Ultimate Standard for Romantic Crooning
One major change that annoyed book fans was the ending. In the book, the plague is actually released, and it’s a permanent change to the human race. The movie opted for a more traditional "stop the bomb at the last second" finale. It felt a bit safe. Felicity Jones does her best as Sienna Brooks, but the chemistry isn't quite the same as the Langdon-Neveu duo.
Still, Inferno took us to Florence, Venice, and Istanbul. If the Tom Hanks Da Vinci Code films do one thing perfectly, it’s travel porn. They make you want to book a flight to Europe immediately, even if you’re worried about being chased by a secret society.
Fact vs. Fiction: What the films actually got wrong
We have to address the "expert" side of this. Dan Brown famously claimed that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
Spoiler: They aren't.
- The Priory of Sion: This wasn't an ancient secret society protecting the Grail. It was actually a club founded in 1956 by a guy named Pierre Plantard. He forged the documents.
- The Knights Templar: While they were real and powerful, there is zero historical evidence they found the Holy Grail or were hiding a bloodline.
- The "Vatican Archives": In the movies, they are high-tech, glass-walled bunkers. In reality, they are mostly underground bunkers with lots of paper and very little "Mission Impossible" lighting.
Does it matter? Not really for the sake of a movie. But it’s why the films faced so much heat from historians and theologians. They blurred the line between "fun thriller" and "pseudo-history" so well that people started believing the fiction was fact.
The lasting legacy of the trilogy
You don't see movies like this anymore. Mid-to-high budget thrillers for adults that don't involve superheroes are a dying breed. The Tom Hanks Da Vinci Code films represent a specific era of cinema where a guy with a flashlight and a library card was the ultimate hero.
They also proved that there is a massive market for "smart" blockbusters. Even if the science or history is shaky, the feeling of uncovering a secret is a powerful hook. Hans Zimmer’s scores for these films—especially "CheValiers de Sangreal"—are some of his best work. That track alone makes a scene of Tom Hanks looking at a painting feel like the most important moment in human history.
What to do if you're a fan of the series
If you’ve finished the trilogy and you’re looking for more, don't just stop at the movies.
- Watch the 'Lost Symbol' series: It was a TV show on Peacock that adapted the book the movies skipped. It features a younger Langdon. It’s different, but worth a look if you need a fix.
- Visit the Louvre (with a guide): There are actually "Da Vinci Code" tours in Paris that take you to the specific spots mentioned in the film, like the Rose Line (though the movie's version of the Rose Line is mostly symbolic).
- Read 'Foucault’s Pendulum' by Umberto Eco: If you want the "smart" version of this genre, this is the book. It’s denser and more cynical, but it deals with the same themes of secret societies and historical puzzles.
- Check out the 4K remasters: The cinematography in Angels & Demons specifically looks incredible in HDR. The contrast between the shadows of the Roman catacombs and the gold of the cathedrals is a masterclass in lighting.
The Robert Langdon films might be "guilty pleasures" for some, but they remain a fascinating look at how we obsess over secrets and the power of symbols. Tom Hanks brought a groundedness to a wild premise, and for that, the trilogy earns its spot in the pantheon of 2000s cinema.