Who saw it ?

What's the word on it ?

I read the book a few years ago and was looking forward to the movie, but my cousins saw it over the weekend and said it was so bad they almost walked out.

PsychoNeverHands said:

force them to watch it again!

Joshua took my Dad and they are there watching it right now - can't wait to hear their review

Can't stand Tom Hanks...I am skipping that one.

what if the Catholic church is behind the bad reviews and really, it's a great movie?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Could be...

I was pretty let down by Da Vinci Code. I still think Tom Hanks is the wrong choice for Langdon.

Hopefully this one's better.

NDRU said:

I loved the book and I entirely agree with you, although I love Tom's body of work, I think he is totally miscast as Langdon.

Muse2NoPharaoh said:

Harrison Ford is the obvious choice, though a lot of actors would have been better than Tom Hanks.

NDRU said:

it should have been Clive Owen

ZombieKitten said:

WAY

ZombieKitten said:

yeah, or Ricky Gervais (6 of one, half dozen of the other)

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

yes, way better choice. But it doesn't even need to be someone so handsome as much as an intellectual/badass. Tom Hanks is just a nice guy. A softie.

NDRU said:

Clive Owens comes across as serious but kind - he's not an open book like Hanks. I don't find him that handsome, but he has a good presence.

I saw it on opening night. If you are a fan of the book, you'll probably be disappointed as it is VERY different. A lot of major changes were made. If you have not read the book you may enjoy it.

ZombieKitten said:

yes, a bit of mystery. And he could be a college professor and jump from a plane

NDRU said:

exactly!

exodus said:

Maybe that will help. I thought the way they changed the ending of Planet of the Apes made sense, since everyone knows the big twist of the original.

Da Vinci Code (the movie) was not helped by the fact that I already had experienced all the interesting points in the book, and they were better illustrated in it than in the movie.

Saw this on Friday...and I enjoyed it very much.

I read the book (which I liked even better than the Da Vinci Code) and I'll probably check out the movie. I agree with everybody else though. The Robert Langdon I pictured in my head, looked nothing like Tom Hanks.

I watched a program on tv over the weekend that debunked the possibility of being able to blow up a city with such a small amount of antimatter. (I need to get out more, don't I?)

I caught the 10:45 pm show last night. I got to redeem points and see the movie for free

It's one awesome movie with a few twists

Tonight I watched Da Vinci Code at my parents.

Those 2 movies make you think and want to do some research

Looks like a wait for DVD release to me. Probably will enjoy it cause Da Vinci Code grew on me after multiple viewing. Just doesn't seem to pack that Sci Fi Action that demands the price of a ticket.

Be it right or wrong, I always pictured ANTHONY HEAD as Langdon. He's the guy on Buffy The Vampire Slayer. He played Rupert.

Does anyone remember him from the coffee commercials?

Fact or fiction?
http://www.people.com/peo...97,00.html
[Edited 5/19/09 7:38am]

xpertluva said:

me too

NDRU said:

I agree with all of this.

I don't have high hopes, though. I thought Da Vinci Code was a superior work of fiction to Angels & Demons. If they could screw up the better story, one cringes at what ghetto mess they might make out of the lesser.

I liked the movie it's just that if you didn't read the book you might not understand whats going on. The movie was really fast and Tom Hanks had to explain every single theory. Sometimes that went kinda fast.

On the casting of Langdon: I think it's interesting that while most of us (including me) don't like Hanks in the role, we'd most readily recast with a British actor.

I bet part of the challenge was to purposely tap an American actor for the American character. Funny, though, how so few American A-list actors these days engender the sort of middle-aged, thinking and seasoned sexiness that Langdon requires. We seem not to respect that reasonable middle in the U.S. -- instead we capitalize on buffed-up cover boys who'll karate chop you or eccentric elder sages who'll hold you in awe of their profundity... then perhaps die.

I thought it was good/OK, but like the Da Vinci Code movie it seemed to have lost something in translation to the big screen. It seemed to be missing the sense of intrigue and tension that the book has. It was the same with the Da Vinci Code movie, although both are pretty faithful to the books, neither of them manage to convey the sense of wonder, horror or revelation that the books have.

Angels & Demons definitely strayed from the book more than it's predecessor, but that's not such a bad thing, as what works in a book doesn't always work on the big screen (I'm glad they changed the Helicopter sequence, as that always crossed the line of believability, even in the book). Though they did cut out the whole CERN based opening chapters and replaced them with a very quick Langdon-less version. The tone of the movie was also a lot more sympathetic to the church than I remember the book being. Overall, a good/OK film, but not as great as it could or should have been (again, just like the Da Vinci Code).

Eh, it was alright ...