I think he's friends with Ron Howard or something.

kidelrich said:

Ron Howard must be a dork, I'm surprised he didnt cast his mother in law as the female lead.

lillith said:

Of course, I am a casting god.

Rest my case. He can be studious, if that's a word, you know what I mean.
He can be sexy, Tom Hanks sure as hell can't pull that off anymore.
He can look serious, for when he gets fed info on the grail.
He can look HAWT, when Katherine Keener (who should have played Sophie Neveu) falls for him...

I mean, DOH!

Stoopid, stoopid Ron Howard!
[Edited 5/20/06 10:05am]

lillith said:

Good point. From the standpoint of movie-making, we don't need an American. I am more commenting (in a passive-aggressive way) on the sad state of American cinema, wherein we don't support the thinking, 40-something type suited for such a "high-brow" role as Europe does.

Here, our preferred male images are either youthful pretty boys or middle age + fuddy duddies. Not much love for those inbetween, it seems.
[Edited 5/20/06 12:53pm]

HamsterHuey said:

[Edited 5/20/06 10:07am]

Lammastide said:

ok...i understand your perspective now. hollywood does tend to side on the 'pretty' side as opposed to the caliber of acting. i still vote for Pierce or Patrick. although i am now also leaning toward the Hugh Laurie side...man i love him in 'House'!!!

Ron Howard's first ideal choice for the part of Robert Langdon was Bill Paxton but Paxton wasn't able to fit the film into his schedule. Howard then began to look into many other actors that included Russell Crowe, Ralph Fiennes, Hugh Jackman, George Clooney and Tom Hanks. Crowe was the running favorite until, ultimately, Howard and producer Brian Grazer decided on Tom Hanks.

from IMDB.com

muirdo said:

Bill Paxton? Clooney is too smooth,

I think Clive Owen would have been good

ZombieKitten said:

Whenever i see Bill Paxton i just think of him as a big shit in Weird Science.

muirdo said:

with that whiny voice
Clive is too cool to be nerdy Robert Langdon

lillith said:

Although, I didn't really like the episode this week. Is House gonna be the administrator's sperm donor?

muirdo said:

I'd never have considered Bill Paxton, though I've always liked him. Most of his roles have been rugged, blue-collar types with not much sex appeal. But he's a decent enough actor, not bad-looking and might have been able to pull Langdon off.

At any rate, he's a bit of a nut to pass up such a high-profile role. His career hasn't really been "on fire" over, say, the past 10 years.

Pierce Brosnan, (love that man)

Liam Neeson

Viggo Morgensen

Richard Gere

Hugh Laurie


ANYBODY but Tom Hanks!

Seriously, I think he's a good actor but I almost cried when they cast him for this role.

HamsterHuey said:

oooooweee! nice.

the movie looks like the book was better, but I do appreciate the film for telling me what the hoopla was about.

Did Jesus really have a wife?

Thats all they had to say....all that complex stuff is unnecessary.

Cool Movie though

babynoz said:

Did you see him in the Terminal? I cringed when I heard his accent at first, but by the end of the movie I wasn't even thinking of it any more. Hopefully his good acting will convince us he is Robert Langdon somewhere near the beginning of the film.

charlottegelin said:

OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH.....MY.....GOD!

This is such a beautiful picture of the JAV!!


M

I saw the movie on Friday. I thought it was o.k. The book is definately better. The beginning was too fast. They crammed everything in. It was really melodramatic in the beginning also. Kinda cheesy.


M

ZombieKitten said:

I didn't see the Terminal but I hear his performance in Da Vinci is not as bad as the critics say. I hope they're right. I'm going tomorrow.

Why are you guys going for people who are "sexy" & shit? This dude's a professor, author... someone who's been around for a while, you'd buy in a "thinker's" role...

If you can erase his sex movies out of your mind, why not Michael Douglas? Or is he "too old"?

Ed Harris, still "sexy" after all these years...

Sam Neil...



Let's be honest - they put a ton of $ into this film, they want a "superstar" - there may have been better choices but they want the worldwide appeal of a bankable star. While I understand the decision to do that, I hate directors who'll sacrifice the good of the film to satisfy producers. But they gotta get their films made & miscast or not everybody (in hollywood) loves the shit outta Tom Hanks