The book was rather crappy, so I’m surprised the movie isn’t being directed by Joel Schumacher.
I’ve never had a problem with Ron Howard or Tom Hanks. Possibly because I don’t automatically dislike things that are popular.
Count me in as one who will be staying away from the Cineplex when this opens. I have yet to see a Ron Howard film worth watch, other than maybe Splash. (A Beautiful Mind was ruined for me because I read the book beforehand and could only look at the film as a crime perpetrated on the man’s actual history).
As for Hanks, I am struck by his assertions during his Polar Express junkets where all he says is “I pick films because they are interesting” I could see PE being picked because of the attempt at innovation, but Da Vinci Code? Please. Admit it Tom, you want a bankable film series…
I’m skeptical that the movie will annoy “fundies.” I read the book more as an attack on the RCC (Whore of Babylon), which doen’t always bother so-called “fundies.”
Apollo 13 was a good movie. That was Hanks and Howard.
I think that Forrest Gump was overrated in some ways but that is was watchable solely because of Hanks’ performance. He found a way to play a retarded character in a totally unique way. He created a genuine, indelible character that wasn’t just a catalogue of acting tics and mimicry of retarded people. The writing sucked and the direction was saccharine but that wasn’t Hanks’ fault. I thought he made a bad movie watchable with an inspired characterization.
He was pretty good in Saving Private Ryan as well.
And Ron Howard has done a couple of thrillers before, hasn’t he? Didn’t he do Ransom with Mel Gibson and there was some other movie with Tommy Lee Jones last year. I haven’t seen either movie, are they any good?
Lib:
“Handstabber?” Me?
How about if I just say that I get a little kick out of the fact that the book annoyed the kind of people who would get annoyed by a book like this? People who have any genuine faith and brains are not going to let piece of fiction by a hack novelist get their panties in a bunch.
Weird, I heard a while ago that Russell Crowe (as BrainGlutton mentioned) would be playing the title role. I thought that was poor casting until I heard this Tom Hanks thing.
My first (and pretty much only reaction) to the book is that it reads like a movie screenplay, not a book. It was so incredibly overrated that I wish it would just go away.
I also felt for a long time that Tom Hanks himself was incredibly overrated as an actor, but he restored my confidence when I watched The Terminal this weekend
Don´t forget Ron Howard´s other recent movie, A Beautiful Mind…
I think Tom Hanks is an excellent choice, actually.
He even looks like I pictured Langdon in my mind. Weird.
I’m looking forward to it!
Re-watch Philidelphia Story and see if you still think Tom Hanks is a hack.
He isn’t in that film. Some rule about not being in films made years before you were born…
I don’t get where people get this whole “Tom Hanks is a hack” thing. He’s one of the best actors out there. At least he doesn’t play himself in every role he’s had for the past 10 years like Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson or freaking Sam Jackson. Look at the differences he’s brought to various roles in Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, A League of Their Own, Road to Perdition, etc.
Is he as good as Johnny Depp or Russel Crowe? No, of course not. But if everyone who isn’t as good as them is a hack, then we’ve got some impossible standards for 99% of the actors out there to live up to.
It shouldn’t suprise ANYONE that Ron Howard is directing this movie.
The book isn’t an interesting, alternate bible interpretation that is about exposing a conspiracy.
The book is a pop fiction, basically an action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies driving the plot. It’s Goonies.
Ron Howard is the most by-the-book pop director out there. Some of his stuff is watchable, but make no mistake, this is a fluff book with an appropriately fluffy director.
Go see “National Treasure” and you’ll be getting the same thing: action/adventure with secret maps/secret societies. One’s digging for gold. One’s digging for the Grail.
Now, it doesn’t suprise me that Hanks would do it because he does a lot of big budget, big studio stuff.
Aside: anyone who thinks Hanks can’t act is a fool. This guy has more range than Nick Cage, Bob De Niro, Al Pacino and Russell Crowe put together.
You want some real hacks, see Neurotik’s post: Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson and Sam Jackson.
There are few people who can inhibit so many different characters so completely as Tom Hanks. VERY FEW. Not to mention, his ability to do drama, comedy (slapstick, satire, and goofball), and tragedy all equally well.
And Russell Crowe as … THE DAVINCI CODE! 
If this abomination has to be made into a movie, then:
Director: Terry Gilliam, second choice Tim Burton
Prrofessor dude: Johnny Depp, second choice Brendan Fraser
Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn’t supposed to be a true story. It’s fucking fiction for crying out loud.
Did anyone claim it was something else?
Nonsense. You seem to think that Da Vinci Code is entirely fanstasy invented out of whole-cloth, like Lord of the Rings or something. Da Vinci was a real person; the works of art referred to in the book are real works of art; the secret societies are real secret societies; the locations and buildings are real and are accurately described. The story, however, is quite obviously fiction. It’s actually quite clever how he takes real historic events and objects and uses them to tell a fictional story. It’s not fucking “Goonies”, and it’s not “Harry Potter” for that matter. If you guys want to criticize the writing style or the character development or things like that - fine. But if you’re going to trash something, could you at least have a valid reason for it?
Geez, you guys act like you don’t understand what the genre of fiction is. You seem to think a movie has to either be a documentary, or complete fantasy.
Yeah, because everyone knows you’re only allowed to make one movie on any given topic. :rolleyes:
Moderator Hat On: Look, Dio, you been around long enough to know that this is not an appropriate comment in this forum. I know, I know, it’s hard to draw the line between art/entertainment and political opinions sometimes, but I don’t think this is one of those times.
You want to lop around insults aimed at particular political or religious groups, hop over to the forum called BBQ Pit and be my guest. Here, we refrain. Good manners and common courtesy are essential for any discussion about the arts and entertainment.
:: Moderator Hat Off
…and I think they should cast Julia Roberts as Da Vinci.
Blowero beat me to this, but the book isn’t supposed be anything but adventure fiction. The “conspiracy” is presented merely as the premise for a story. It’s just entertainment.
It amazes me that I’ve seen so many books out claiming to “debunk” the DVC, as if a made up story can be debunked. They might as well “debunk” Raiders of the Lost Ark on the grounds that there is no historical evidence that the Nazis found the Ark of the Covenant.
I personally though the book was an overrated, 2nd rate potboiler but necessarily because of the theories that were used (and maybe the fact that I was already familiar with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail theory took away that element of surprise for me and contributed to my “meh” opinion of the book) but because I thought it was largely predictable and that the characters were overbroad and implausible.
I guess Tom Hanks felt his career wasn’t sufficiently destroyed after doing The Polar Express.
Hey, I like Hanks, but his choices lately have been real “WTF?” fodder…
I was under the impression the author said (and the book was marketed) otherwise.
I do like Tom Hanks. Apollo 13 was terrific, he made Castaway almost worth it with some great work, etc. When somebody’s that popular there are bound to be people who think he’s overrated.
No, they’re not.
The problem is that Brown claims:
This is simply not the case. Just as one example of inaccuracy–and there are dozens of errors and distortions–Brown claims the pyramid over the Louvre has exactly 666 panes of glass, a number with symbolic resonance. According to the Louvre (and a mathematician who recently did the calcluations) it’s actually 673, a rather more prosaic number. There are many, many factual errors with Brown’s description of art, secret societies, the origins of the bible and buildings. He gets dates wrongs, describes art inaccurately and distorts historical fact to tortuously weave a conspiracy.
That’s perfectly okay in a novel–just don’t claim that the details described are accurate. Our issue with Brown isn’t that he’s written a work of fiction–it’s that he’s written a work of fiction and passed off its many fictional supporting details as fact, and (more gallingly) that thousands of credulous readers read what they believe.
Also, his writing style is dire.
When did Brown say it wasn’t fiction? And who marketed it as something other than fiction? And even if they did, it’s beyond obvious to anyone who reads it. You didn’t think Robert Langdon was a real person, did you?