Columbia Pictures really wants your money next summer

[Beefy]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/

[Jessie]

I'll probably see this.  I liked the book.  I don't think it'll translate to a movie all the well; they'll have to leave a lot out.  I'll still watch it, though.

[meredith]

That's all the world needs. 

[ignom]

The only thing that would make me see that movie is Audrey Tautou.

Seriously, what are Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jean Reno and Audrey Tautou doing in a Tom Hanks movie?

[Youphoric]

I'll have to try another one, but the full screen redirected me to an iTunes page.

[Jessie]

I like Tom Hanks.

[Youphoric]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

[Jessie]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

[Youphoric]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

Well, I think his age range is good (lets not make the travesty that Hollywood did by making Morgan Freeman Alex Cross) but I would have chosen someone with more defined features.  NOT pierce brosnan, though.  Robert isn't supposed to be drop dead gorgeous, but not as goofy as Tom can be.  I'm thinking hard for a suitable replacement.

[Jessie]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

Well, I think his age range is good (lets not make the travesty that Hollywood did by making Morgan Freeman Alex Cross) but I would have chosen someone with more defined features.  NOT pierce brosnan, though.  Robert isn't supposed to be drop dead gorgeous, but not as goofy as Tom can be.  I'm thinking hard for a suitable replacement.

Morgan Freeman was all wrong for Alex Cross.  Alex Cross was older but young at heart and athletic.  Morgan Freeman was just wrong.

And I totally agree that someone more...dignified looking maybe, would be better than Tom Hanks.

[Youphoric]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

Well, I think his age range is good (lets not make the travesty that Hollywood did by making Morgan Freeman Alex Cross) but I would have chosen someone with more defined features.  NOT pierce brosnan, though.  Robert isn't supposed to be drop dead gorgeous, but not as goofy as Tom can be.  I'm thinking hard for a suitable replacement.

Morgan Freeman was all wrong for Alex Cross.  Alex Cross was older but young at heart and athletic.  Morgan Freeman was just wrong.

And I totally agree that someone more...dignified looking maybe, would be better than Tom Hanks.

Alex Cross is 40.  Morgan Freeman was 60.  BIIIIIG error.  Then again, all Patterson books -> movies are horrific.  I can't even watch them.

[Jessie]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

Well, I think his age range is good (lets not make the travesty that Hollywood did by making Morgan Freeman Alex Cross) but I would have chosen someone with more defined features.  NOT pierce brosnan, though.  Robert isn't supposed to be drop dead gorgeous, but not as goofy as Tom can be.  I'm thinking hard for a suitable replacement.

Morgan Freeman was all wrong for Alex Cross.  Alex Cross was older but young at heart and athletic.  Morgan Freeman was just wrong.

And I totally agree that someone more...dignified looking maybe, would be better than Tom Hanks.

Alex Cross is 40.  Morgan Freeman was 60.  BIIIIIG error.  Then again, all Patterson books -> movies are horrific.  I can't even watch them.

I've never watched one all the way through.

I love that series, but I stopped reading a few books back.  I started to feel it was getting jump the sharkish since the book (Cat and Mouse maybe) where you thought Alex Cross had died.

I really liked Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas.

Oh, and I haven't yet read the followup to ... what's the one with the kids with wings?

I have a pretty large collection of James Patterson books.  I think he's a great writer.

[Youphoric]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

Oh, I agree.

I thought that when I first heard about the movie.

Who would you choose?  It's been a while since I read it, but I think that I imagined him to be older, more reserved.

Well, I think his age range is good (lets not make the travesty that Hollywood did by making Morgan Freeman Alex Cross) but I would have chosen someone with more defined features.  NOT pierce brosnan, though.  Robert isn't supposed to be drop dead gorgeous, but not as goofy as Tom can be.  I'm thinking hard for a suitable replacement.

Morgan Freeman was all wrong for Alex Cross.  Alex Cross was older but young at heart and athletic.  Morgan Freeman was just wrong.

And I totally agree that someone more...dignified looking maybe, would be better than Tom Hanks.

Alex Cross is 40.  Morgan Freeman was 60.  BIIIIIG error.  Then again, all Patterson books -> movies are horrific.  I can't even watch them.

I've never watched one all the way through.

I love that series, but I stopped reading a few books back.  I started to feel it was getting jump the sharkish since the book (Cat and Mouse maybe) where you thought Alex Cross had died.

I really liked Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas.

Oh, and I haven't yet read the followup to ... what's the one with the kids with wings?

I have a pretty large collection of James Patterson books.  I think he's a great writer.

Whoops, I should clarify.  The Cross series.  I haven't moved on to his other works yet

[Bennyhana]

I think that Tom Hanks has come a LONG way since "Bachelor Party" and "Bosom Buddies."  I think that he will be able to do it well, though there are probably actors out there  more suited to the part.

[BigDun]

I think Harrison Ford, with enough makeup to make him look about 10 years younger than he really is, would been a very good choice for Robert Langdon.

[eo000]

I think Harrison Ford, with enough makeup to make him look about 10 years younger than he really is, would been a very good choice for Robert Langdon.

i was just typing in the Harrison Ford suggestion.

[Beefy]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

First off, I feel like stating again that you can't expect a movie to be the book, or vice versa.  The mediums are different, so when you translate you have to use one as a template or guideline for the other.

That said, see this film for what it is, and for what War of the Worlds is this summer: a money grabber and career reviver.  Spielberg, Cruise, Hanks, Howard... none have been bringing in the $$$ like they used to, so they all latched themselves onto projects they would sell before a single frame of film was shot.  I'm not sure it's worth the time to debate artistic decisions for movies that contain no art.

That said, I think Hanks is great and can do almost anything.  While I didn't care so much for the beginning and end of the film, I thought his performance in Cast Away was mesmerizing.  Very few actors can hold your attention onscreen for that long without any score or jarring action to intervene.

[Jessie]

I loved Castaway, and I agree that Harrison Ford would fit the image better physically.

[Bennyhana]

I like Tom Hanks, but I would have chosen another actor for Robert Langdon.

First off, I feel like stating again that you can't expect a movie to be the book, or vice versa.  The mediums are different, so when you translate you have to use one as a template or guideline for the other.

That said, see this film for what it is, and for what War of the Worlds is this summer: a money grabber and career reviver.  Spielberg, Cruise, Hanks, Howard... none have been bringing in the $$$ like they used two, so they all latched themselves onto projects they would sell before a single frame of film was shot.  I'm not sure it's worth the time to debate artistic decisions for movies that contain no art.

That said, I think Hanks is great and can do almost anything.  While I didn't care so much for the beginning and end of the film, I thought his performance in Cast Away was mesmerizing.  Very few actors can hold your attention onscreen for that long without any score or jarring action to intervene.

Score, jarring action, or even many words.  I was impressed with his performance in Cast Away as well.  That said, I don't think it's fair to say that the movie will contain "No art" just because the decision to do it was based more on money than artistic expression.  There will be hundreds of artists doing their best to serve the story of this movie, and to say that all of it will be commercially driven crap isn't terribly fair to them.