The Da Vinci Code

It's too bad the role is being offered to Tom Hanks first, I think William L. Petersen (he plays "Gil Grissom" on CSI for those who don't know him) would be an excellent choice for the part of Robert Langdon...but Hollywood does have tickets to sell, and Hanks surely draws them in!!

Right, well said, try convincing that to some of the USERS HERE

I have read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown and loved the heck out of that book and The Da Vinci Code is still on my to read list. I imagine The Da Vinci Code is pretty sweet to and would probably make a good movie, not sure about Tom Hanks playing Robert though.

__________________
nothing can be as bad as uncertainty - when worlds collide

hehe I can see Petersen as Langdon. It's the whole scientific, geekiness thing isn't it?


I also couldn’t put the book down. I read majority of the book in one day and spent the rest of the day nearly blind because my eyes would no longer focus. Neways, it was a very interesting book and very well researched. I'd enjoy seeing it on the big screen, the book was very visual, I thought. I think it could definitely work especially with all the references to artworks.

I read besides Tom Hanks (who is the front runner) other choices for Langdon have apparently been George Clooney, Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman.

Can't see Clooney as Langdon but Crowe is an interesting choice. Between Jackman and Hanks, I can see Jackman as Langdon better: I don't know why. I guess I just pictured Langdon as a younger character when i was reading the book...

Who would you all pick to play the other characters?

I quite like the idea of Kate Beckinsale as Sophie...

__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Crowe or Jackman would be two other names I could see being associated with this picture, but I don't think Clooney would fit in the Langdon role very well. He doesn't have the box office draw of Crowe and I think Jackman would be the "cheaper" way out over any of the others pinned for the role and he's on the hot track with the recent success of both "XMEN" movies and "Swordfish".

He did tank out in Van Helsing though, and I am a big Cloonster fan (as you already know, PD), and lets not forget Kate and Leopold. Actually, lets forget that ***** right now!! I think Hanks has this one locked up already...

__________________

I agree Jackman tanked it big time with Van Helsing, but he is still a box office draw and he won't cost $20 million like Hanks will to play the part. And NOTHING in the movie biz is locked up... except for maybe Robert Downey Jr. every now and then.

I did hear Hanks got it though, but like you said, nothing is definite. Although at this point I think Hanks and Howard are the safe bet.

Very well put, Henry.

I liked all the historical asides the book had, but as far as it being 'thrilling'...well I've seen a bowl of jello with more thrills. I'm not much of a Ron Howard fan, and I think Hanks cast as langdon is a terrible choice, so I'm not expecting much.

I'll be glad to see Reno again, and this may help Tautou's American draw...so at least it has those things going for it. Other than that...

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I have read 3 of dan browns books, the da vinci code, angels & demons obviously have robert langdon in them as the main character, I cant see tom hanks as him though. I think hugh jackman would have been a better choice. Tom is starting to show his true age now, almost 50.

Clive Owen would have made the perfect Langdon.

There, I'll agree with you, though I think your assessment (and Henry's) leave a bit to be desired. The book is a real page-turner for most people. I'll grant you, it's not sparkling prose, it's formulaic... but it's very engrossing and that is a critical element in fiction.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Don't get me wrong...I liked it.

But if it wasn't for all his research, I don't think It would have been nearly as compelling.

I guess I'm being contradictory with myself. But, I'm allowed...it's that time of the month.

I have about 25 pages left and silly me for thinking it would shape up towards the ending.....

I think this book sucks. It's like a neverending afternoon soap. It's full of stuff but totally lacks substance. Sometimes I even think it's an insult to the reader's intelligence. These characters are supposed to be experts?? I'm sorry if I'm offending those of you who love this book (most of my friends love it) but it just pisses me off. As far as the well research goes, I really can't say much about it and it really doesn't matter to me if Brown had made everything up. But I've heard that he's not getting all his facts straight in The da Vinci Code. Then I read a review of Angels and Demons and apparently the swedish translator had to change a few "facts", which is very rare since the translator is not supposed to touch the story or such things.

It will be very interesting to see what the filmmakers decide to do with the story and the script. Good luck, gentlemen! You've got a lot of work to do!

Oh, and I like your new av, Slay!

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Thanks, bro. I like the avatar too. I'm glad to see you here!

I hadn't heard that there may be inaccuracies with his researches. That’s easily what I liked most about the book…all the little, “Did you know?” stuff in it. Like I said earlier, I liked it, but it really wasn’t all that exciting…and I actually didn’t feel at all emotionally invested until the last couple pages of the last chapter and the epilogue.

Regardless of what they do, I’m sure Ron Howard will make it sucky…who knows? He has made a couple o’ good ones, but mostly movie of the week crap.

Glad to see you too! What the hell is the time where you're at?? Are you up late or early??

I too thought that the things about Maria Magdalena and so on was the few positive things about it. But everytime he just screwed it up by being extremely quasi-scientifical or something. And what the hell is the point of letting the story take place in just half a day?? To me, that is one of the thickest roots to all the book's biggest problems.

My favourite part of the book: When Langdon and Sophie go to that library in London and Brown allows us to follow them on their fantastic search on the Internet. How thrilling can a book get...

Yeah Cinderella Man looks so calculated for the sole purpose of winning an oscar it makes me sick.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

Announced Cast

Robert Langdon - Tom Hanks
Sir Leigh Teabing - Ian McKellen
Bishop Aringarosa - Alfred Molina
Bezu Fache - Jean Reno
Sophie Neveu - Audrey Tateau

I think it's okay, except for the miscasting of Hanks. But is this what the rest of you had envisioned while reading the book?

I saw some talk about a trailer on a show tonight, but can't find it on the web??

Anyone know where I can find it?