slashfilm.com — Rights to Dan Brown’s book, released in 2000, were purchased by the studio in 2003. Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman was hired to adapt the novel, following the success of The Da Vinci Code in early 2006. Hanks reportedly signed on with the “biggest salary ever paid to an actor in the history of Hollywood.”
Apr 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
anidalApr 10, 2007
Personally, I enjoyed Angels and Demons more than The Da Vinci Code. Id love to see a movie on ti
h4mx0rApr 10, 2007
Angels & Demons was better than DVC, but DVC was more popular due to the controversy it delved into.
buzzbeanApr 11, 2007
Angels and Demons was a pretty good book. As many others have said, it is better than The DaVinci Code. My only problem with it was the ending. Those who read it probably know what I mean. The part with the helicopter. Goes beyond the bounds of believability. The way he escapes from that was worse than the flipping upside down off the motorcycle shooting scene in Charlie's Angels. I hope they drop that scene from the movie. Other than that, I look forward to it.
casemonApr 11, 2007
I thought Da Vinci Code sucked in the theatre, but heard the director's cut was better, watched it & found that it actually was a decent film after that.
Closed AccountApr 11, 2007
Akiva Goldsman is a major buttmunch as a writer. He's written so much truly awful big-name crap you could fertilize a field with it. He's probably Uwe Boll's brother, separated at birth.
4elobekApr 11, 2007
waiting on torrents.... indeed da vinci was crap!!!
Closed AccountApr 11, 2007
Funny, I thought the Da Vinci Code was more interesting (and certainly more dense with story) than Angels & Demons. The biggest problem with both of these books, though, was that they played fast and loose with historical facts and overall accuracy of what was being portrayed. Also, the climactic ending to Angels & Demons was downright LAUGHABLE. I can't imagine how they can possibly make the revelations and the actions near the end of the novel seem plausible on the screen -- and those of you who've read this book will know exactly what I'm talking about. It was just downright goofy! The whole "On this rock" crap? Come on.I just finished Deception Point. I think it'd make a better movie than the Langdon stories because the story seems considerably more realistic, though it has fewer twists and turns and most of it is pretty predictable. Hopefully they'll make it some day, and they don't even need to pay Tom Hanks a billion dollars for it since he won't need to be in it.Digital Fortress, though? Wow. Major disappointment. Dan Brown may have studied up on cryptography for that book, but his depictions of computer technology was so unrealistic it was almost laughable. Also, much of the story was boring, specifically the parts meant to be the most exciting: the hero being chased across Spain by an assassin.And yes, as someone pointed out, EVERY one of his books plays out in exactly the same way. It opens up with a mysterious murder, the main male character is an academic, the main female character is feisty and heroic, their ally throughout the story always -- ALWAYS -- turns out to be the villain. Dan Brown certainly knows how to write entertaining stuff, but he seriously needs to shake up his formula a bit for his next book.
Closed AccountApr 11, 2007
Digital Fortress was a poor book even despite the computer-related inaccuracies. It was just boring and felt like there was not much story to it. I really liked Dan Brown's other books, I think he basically gets better with each book he writes. Unfortunately, Digital Fortress was his first attempt at this genre. I'm glad he stuck with it and got better, though.
lunaticprophetApr 24, 2007
While Langdon is described as Harrison Ford.. he is also described as being in his late-40s... Harrison Ford can no longer pull that off (at 65). I think Clive Owen would've been a better choice than Tom Hanks... he looks more like I would expect Langdon to look than does Hanks.