Quoted from Aaron I enjoyed the movie a lot, great action, thrilling, edge of your seat, some good dialogue, much better than the Da Vinci code, even though I liked that one too Good film

Almost the same opinion than Aaron. But I found DaVinci more mysterious. And the girl involved in the story seems coming from nowhere.

Michel

Agreed. I think the girl in this one, at least in the film, was kind of unnecessary

Quoted from Grandma Bear In the book she was the science/physics brain and love interest. In the movie she wasn't even eye candy. At least not to me.

She was sort of hot, just a little. In the first one, Sophie, I believe her name was, she was in there for a long time. In this one, Vittoria had like 10 lines.  

I saw this a few weeks ago at the theater.  My girlfriend and I both thought it was pretty decent (she liked it alot better than I did), but nothing at all special.  I was shocked how small and weak a role Tom Hanks had.  he sure wasn't a leading man type character here.

It was OK, nothing more, nothing less.  Without all the hooplay from the books, this woudln't be much of anything, IMO.  I was suprised at teh violence and coldness though for a PG 13 flick.  Lots of blood and cold blooded killing.  I was a bit surprised.

Yeah, totally agree, but I found his role in the 1st one to be much more.  It sems to me that he phoned this performance in, and really didn't do much of anything.

They made a smart choice in getting him though, as he added the star power that the franchise probably needed to be mega blockbusters.  Without him, do you think either movei would haev done nearly as well?  I doubt it, as both were realaively weak in terms of action and even a story that was easy to follow.

No, they wouldn't be as big. Two mega books can draw a crowd, a famous director can draw a crowd. But since lately Howard hasn't drawn much crowd (Frost/Nixon) Hanks was the sole reason for the 46 M opening.

Quoted from Dreamscale I was shocked how small and weak a role Tom Hanks had.

At least, his hairdo was decent here. More than in DaVinci.  

Michel

Quoted from michel At least, his hairdo was decent here. More than in DaVinci.   Michel

Reminds me of the movie Bean:

Quoted Text I've got nothing against Jon Bon Jovi. The man has had two great hairstyles in the last ten years, which is an achievement not to be sniffed at. But so far as I know, Mr Jovi knows absolutely nothing about 19th-century Impressionism.

I haven't seen Angels and Demons yet.  When it comes out on DVD, I'd imagine.

I've read both the book and the script and I thought both of them were quite good but the movie disappointed me. I agree with Jeff about Tom Hanks' character being weak and I think one of the reasons for that is that he's the one relaying all the information to the audience. He just drones on for the better part of the movie - talk talk talk - the man never shuts up. Too little action from his part. A shame really cos' Hanks is a terrific actor but the Langdon character doesn't suit him at all.

But the main problem I think is that these books (DaVincvi and A&D) simply don't translate to the big screen. They work great as books - not as movies.