Comments on: Angels And Demons Images

By: rusty pine

rusty pine — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:17:49 +0000

The book “Angels & Demons” was spectacular. I don’t think that the idiots that made this movie even bothered to read the 1st page of the book though. Not only did they completely chop up almost the entire story, they left out many of the main characters, blew up the characters relationships, and completely disregarded the book’s ending. I can’t see how Dan Brown let them release such a blatent chop of his amazing book!!!!!!

By: frank carter

frank carter — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:40:02 +0000

they should make a movie concerning the Moslem faith and their hidden secrets of the Korean, and why they are such desperate people?

Give you odds that Hollywood Tom & his director would have been blown to smithereens to happy land, its better to antagonized your own kind they can take it and its safer

By: Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:28:47 +0000

The Da Vinci Code is a film I will never see since it goes against Christianity. And this I’ll just avoid like any film from Disney Channel

By: kc

kc — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:48:41 +0000

I kinda liked the davinci code… it wasn’t what I expected to see but it’s almost like a cup of hot chocolate… which probably doesn’t make sense to anyone but me.

As a book, A&D frigging rocked. I read it after DVC and it’s even a book I would read again, which I don’t do very often except for things like Enders Game.

By: ryanclay21

ryanclay21 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:12:27 +0000

I didn’t hate The Da Vinci Code but it was boring. I’ll still see this flick because I’m loyal to Mr Hanks.

By: obi-wan kubrick

obi-wan kubrick — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:26:22 +0000

A & D is a much better book than DaVinci Code in my opinion. I just hope the movie doesn’t suck like the last one did.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:21:01 +0000

I agree with the comments here; Angels and Demons was a much better book. I also think it could lend itself better to a movie. It should translate into a faster-paced story, and its sense of a “clue leading itself to another clue” should keep it suspenseful.

I’ve always been a bit put off by the choice of Tom Hanks with these projects, though. As much as I love him as an actor, Hanks is miscast in this role. If the book hadn’t been such a huge seller, a smaller-salaried, younger actor probably would have been more appropriately cast. I hate saying that, though, because I have no idea who I would cast in his place. I also thought Howard misfired a bit with the lack of wonderment in the first picture. It just felt flat. He conveyed warmth and a sense of “something bigger” in movies like Cocoon and Apollo 13, and these stories need that same feeling to connect on screen. I hope they add some magic to the history this time around.

By: theduckthief

theduckthief — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:17:42 +0000

At least Tom looks like he’s got short hair in this one. In DVC it looked like something had crawled onto his head.

By: David Lopan

David Lopan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:30:11 +0000

The Da Vinci Code was terrible…but can Ron Howard make the same mistake twice? I don’t know. I can’t wait for Frost/Nixon though.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:52:43 +0000

I don’t know how good of a movie this will be but as far as the story goes Angels and Demons was a much better book than The DaVinci code so hopefully in turn the movie will be better also

By: Phil Gee

Phil Gee — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:54:41 +0000

I can’t believe i’m going to give these people a second chance and go see this but that’s the kinda guy I am; considerate and fucking stupid;)

By: Sound Designer Dan

Sound Designer Dan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:37:07 +0000

I think Ron Howard is actually making this to be AFTER Da Vinci Code.