The Da Vinci Code Movie, Out in 2006 Options

[PurchasedRebelli...]

They've cast Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon.

Eh, don't how I feel about that. Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks is an incredible actor... but I don't know if I see him as Langdon just yet.

I guess, I can't really judge until the movie comes out...



And I reeeeeeeeally hope they cast Kate Beckinsale as Sophie Neveu. I think she's perfect for the part.

[cmgchica717]

They've cast Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon.

Eh, don't how I feel about that.  Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks is an incredible actor... but I don't know if I see him as Langdon just yet.

I guess, I can't really judge until the movie comes out...
And I reeeeeeeeally hope they cast Kate Beckinsale as Sophie Neveu.  I think she's perfect for the part.

Meh I think Senor Hanks could quite possibly pull it off..

ooO agreed Kate Beckinsale...she would be perfect

[jennyjenny]

I've never read the book before.
But if I do see the movie, i'll have to read the book, first.

[*Azarel*]

I haven't read the book or the sequal yet, but I do plan to (eventually). However, I sort of hate it how good books are always made into movies; the movies change plots. It changes how people interpret the novels. Boo. Hopefully I will have read the books by the time the movie comes out though.

[tooeffingcrazy]

Tom Hanks, i agree, shouldn't be Robert Langdon. I think someone younger should be him.

[BEBEx_iNFAM0USS]

you never know, with some makeup and a wig, he could look 20 years younger! jk lol.

well, he is a very talented actor and can transform, so maybe he can pull it off. yea, kate beckinsale is perfect.

[iheartjohn]

Ooh, I can't wait to see it!! I don't know about Tom Hanks, though...He's one of my fave actors, but him as Robert Langdon?

[toodlepops.]

you never know, with some makeup and a wig, he could look 20 years younger! jk lol.

well, he is a very talented actor and can transform, so maybe he can pull it off. yea, kate beckinsale is perfect.

but robert langdon IS 40+. so yea. i cant wait to see the movie! its nly coming out in 2006? hmph! but i hate the way the movies change the plot from the book.

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Yeah, May 16, 2006... soooo long away. :(


It's being directed by Ron Howard. Hopefully they won't change it that much.

[chongalicious]

anybody really read the booK!?

[*Kathleen*]

Whoa. When I read it, I pictured Kate Beckinsale as Sophie. Funny when I read this. Haha. And Tom Hanks? He's a terrific actor - he'd be able to pull it off.

[PurchasedRebelli...]

anybody really read the booK!?

I did... I actually prefer Angels & Demons more.

Whoa. When I read it, I pictured Kate Beckinsale as Sophie. Funny when I read this. Haha. And Tom Hanks? He's a terrific actor - he'd be able to pull it off.

I know, me too! Which is why they NEED to cast her! And Tom is a pretty versatile actor and I know he'd be able to pull it off but it's just, eh.

[HelloSunshine]

I haven't read the book or the sequal yet, but I do plan to (eventually). However, I sort of hate it how good books are always made into movies; the movies change plots. It changes how people interpret the novels. Boo. Hopefully I will have read the books by the time the movie comes out though.

same for me, never read the book, i might read it meh and i agree, good books are always turned into movies *sigh*

[angel-roh]

Tom Hanks --- wow! That's great news! I'm glad that he's the main character in that movie! He's one true awesome actor! He's good at acting those classical type of movies too. I'm glad that they choosed him! Anyways for the girls, I don't know. Since I don't remember there was girls part in his story haha. It's been long I haven't heard about the Da Vinci Code. So yeah --- I can't wait!

[jr0h]

yeah kate beckinsale sounds perfect to me. i dont know about tom hanks..

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Tom Hanks --- wow! That's great news! I'm glad that he's the main character in that movie! He's one true awesome actor! He's good at acting those classical type of movies too. I'm glad that they choosed him! Anyways for the girls, I don't know. Since I don't remember there was girls part in his story haha. It's been long I haven't heard about the Da Vinci Code. So yeah --- I can't wait!

Yeah, Sophie is pretty much with Langdon throughout the whole book.


I hope they cast someone like Jaoquin Phoenix as Silas.

[sincerely]

I read the book and the whole time I read it I was like, "moviemoviemoviereleasenow"
Wait.. .wasn't Robert Langdon suppose to look like Dennis Quaid? (<-- Harrison Ford?) I remember the book specifically making a comparison of what he looks like to an actor. I realize that they won't use that actor but I know that the vision I had of Langdon was definitely NOT Tom Hanks.

He's a great actor, I watched the entire Cast Away... But I imagined someone different the entire time I was reading Da Vinci. ._. i'm kinda sad now...

I imagined Catherine Zeta Jones as Sophie, i've realized i'm like the only one in the world now...

[Shattered_Hope]

looks like I have another reason to finish the book now...

[xTINAA]

there is a movie coming out?/ man i need to hurry up and finish this book. i'm only on like chapter 5 and it's already really good. but i agree, although i haven't read the full book and know the characters that indepth, i don't think i could see tom hanks as Robert Langdon

[emmalie]

never finished reading the book.....

but I prefer "Angels and Demons " that book was a shocker..

[imafreakinazn]

i wanted to read the book
but i'm too lazy

so i'll just watch the movie.
it sounds interesting
:D

[bobbybobs]

The book is awesome! Tom Hanks could be perfect for the role. He has the harvard profesor look and you get some hot chick, maybe kate beckensale, charlize theron, would be nice!

[smthngcrprategrl...]

i've heard it was good. and people have reccomended it to me. i just still have to find time to read it. hopefully it will make a good movie

[imadorkabledxd]

yea...i don't really see tom hanks as langdon either. i was thinkin of an older guy

[aznxdarkricex]

i'm in the middle of the book.

may 16 2006!! two days after my birthday haha.
anyway...

tom hanks could be a good langdon

for some reason i imagined jennifer garner as sophie... O.o LOL

[gvoxford]

... i really should get around to reading this book!

[Senorita_Babo]

i dont like tom hanks as langdon, I just pictured someone that's attractive, intelligent, and active... that sounded mean, let's just say i pictured someone different.

[Azn Kid from NY]

wow the Da Vinci Code.....i finished a while ago...i remember i was sooo addicted to it i spent weeks only thinking about the Da Vinci Code and searching the internet for more and more information....

that book is truly one of the greatest and thought provoking books ever written

[PurchasedRebelli...]

It's official, they've cast Audrey Tatou (Amelie) as Sophie Neveu and Jean Reno as Bezu Fache.

[iliike]

wow, they seem to be runing out of ideas for movies these days, and so they turn to books, not that I have any problem with that.

[*Weird addiction*]

i hate books

[*salcha*]

hmm, robert langdon seems a lot younger in the book

who knows?

[ahhishkaren]

I imagined Catherine Zeta Jones as Sophie, i've realized i'm like the only one in the world now...

Me too! But now that I think about it, Audrey Tatou fits the part quite well. Tom Hanks is a little strange though. He's a good actor, but he doesnt seem very Langdon-ish to me.

I'm halfway into the book, and it's really good so far. I hope this movie just the book justice. Movie turned books tend to kill the story lines.

[katiedotcom]

I did... I actually prefer Angels & Demons more.
I know, me too!  Which is why they NEED to cast her!  And Tom is a pretty versatile actor and I know he'd be able to pull it off but it's just, eh.

i agree, A&D was better.. Kate Beckinsale would be good..

btw.. you're a patriots fan, i see

WE'RE GOING TO BEAT YOU TOMORROW!

tom brady is gorgeous though

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Langdon is what, 40 ish? Which is how old Tom is... and c'mon, you gotta admit Tom is a VERY versatile actor. I think he'll be able to pull it off.

But Audrey Tatou as Sophie... now that I don't agree with. And she's only 26 or so in reality, while Sophie is supposed to be in her 30s. I've heard she was excellent in Amelie, but some people don't think she's right for this part. Who knows.

They're filming some scenes in the Louvre, which is AWESOME. And Ron Howard is directing, so I don't think it'll be so bad.


And pssh... the Patriots won. :P And yeah, Tommy is gorgeous.

[mysticalazxn]

i dunno the title sound boring!

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Trust me, it's anything but boring.

[eli5e]

wow theyre making the movie now!??

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Yup... right now they're in pre-production.

[MisplacedYouth]

Why can they leave a great book a book and not a HORRIDE movie?!

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Ron Howard was/is executive producer of the awesome shows... Felicty, 24, and Arrested Development. And the producer of How the Grinch Stole Christmas, A Beautiful Mind, and The Alamo.

So judging by his track record, I don't think TDVC will be horrid.

[xx_rockstar]

ahh, i really wanna watch it cuz the book was great
tom hanks as langdon... well, he is a great actor so he may fit the character xP but i think he should lose some weight first? or maybe its just me who always thought of langdon as a skinny guy
and yes, kate beckinsale would make a great sophie

[PurchasedRebelli...]

I packed my book so I can't look to it for reference, but I do believe Langdon was described to look like Dennis Quaid. Aren't he and Hanks around the same weight?

Yeah, I really like Kate Beckinsale... too bad she's not Sophie.

[veve]

Tom Hanks is a wonderful choice for Langdon .... only because he is the most beloved actor to have ever lived. Granted he is a great actor .... but not only will he surely give a great performance but he will also be a great box office draw. Dennis Quaid is known to be a box-office jinx .... and would probably best be suited starring in a mediocre Disney movie (a la The Rookie).

Can't say I'm too excited about this film ... Although one of my favorite actors Jean Reno is set to be in this film. I have a strong hate for Ron Howard .... only because he is oscar bait.

[PurchasedRebelli...]

Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing. Yeeeeeeeees. Love Ian McKellan.

And Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringosa. He's great, too.

I can't wait for this movie!

[highly_evolved]

btw its coming out the 19th of may 2006 not the 16th

[EmmalieV]

I read the book , I disagree with the person that created this topic , Tom Hanks could be wonderfull as Langdon but I was thinking of someone more handsome.

[KERP1UNK]

that sounds cool! i'm too lazy to read the book, so i'll just see it when it comes out in the movies! :P

[lKVNiiKINKYl]

Argh he just ruined the book for me x.x No offense to him, but I just don't think it would work...maybe i'll be wrong

[maia_dc]

...I dislike Tom Hanks. I was thinking of someone hotter, like Hugh Grant. Haha, but maybe he's *too* sexy and British. Ah well.

I think they cast Audrey Tautou as Sophie though.

[biglamchops]

whoa! da vinci's code is getting so big now..... I hope they do the book justice.

[kondwanii]

I'm looking forward into see this movie. In class me and my other classmates watched the trailer. It looks interesting from the trailer.

[ichigofan]

cant wait to see it the book was awesome they shouldve cast sean connery or pierce brosnan [sp?] as langdon

[gotahemmi55]

beckensale would be good, but I don't think they have to do much to make this an amazing movie

it was an incredible book all by itself, I hope they don't change anything or leave anything out (even though they'll have to for time constraints)

but I'll definitely go see it the weekend it comes out next year

[SillyCourtney]

I loved the book, but I do hope the movie does it justice. As this was my second favorite book of all time, I'm going to be pretty angry if the movie is all screwed up and if they change a lot of stuff in the movie that's not supposed to be there.

[PurchasedRebelli...]

cant wait to see it the book was awesome they shouldve cast sean connery or pierce brosnan [sp?] as langdon

Sean Connery would have been WAY too old for the part. Even Tom Hanks is stretching it.

[hall0w]

oo i wanna watch this movie... i kind of liked the book so mayb ill like the movie better

[PurchasedRebelli...]

I think I'd enjoy the movie. Other than Tom Hanks, I think they did a perfect job casting the others.

Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing
Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa
Jean Reno as Bezu Fache
Paul Bettany as Silas

If you want to watch the teaser trailer, go here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/

[quyen101]

Never read the book, but heard the book was really good. Can't wait for the movie.

[SarahxJoy]

I'm still waiting for my dad to give me the book, so I haven't read it yet.

BUT. I'm going today to watch "The Da Vinci Code".

[Rampage]

I loved the book, but the movie was BORING.

[JumpforJoy]

I loved the book, but the movie was BORING.

It's gotten a lot of bad reviews... especially from the critics at Cannes... and it's rating on Rotten Tomatoes isn't so good.

But, I've been waiting almost 2 years and bad reviews aren't going to stop me from seeing this! Hahaha. :)

[SarahxJoy]

^True that.

[NoSex]

Ron Howard, eh. This just looks plain old lame.
Not interested in the least.

[*I Shot JFK*]

friend saw it, she said it was average.

which was to be expected. really.

[JumpforJoy]

I wanted to see it this morning but the earliest showing was at like, 11:45 at a theater half an hour away and my bf goes to work at like, 2... :( And he gets out at like, 11:30 and latest showing is at 11:45. BOOOO. So I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow night to see it. :(

[Yentot]

It doesn't interest me. And the fact that Tom Hanks played the main role...I just don't know =/

[silver-rain]

Eh, I kinda liked it. Some of it was too long, but overall I felt it was a good movie. Not what I was expecting, but not too bad either.

[*xcaitlinx*]

i heard that it sucked so much that people were actually LAUGHING at tom hanks...and walked out of the theater.

[marzipan]

i've never read the book, but i heard the movie sucked.

[*FreeStickers*]

It got a lot of bad reviews, but I actually enjoyed it. I enjoyed the movie, but Tom Hanks sucks. really. I miss the old Tom Hanks.

There were protesters and all sorts of excitement!

[freeflow]

I liked it but if you read the book you can tell all the parts they changed and added on to. I thought it was alright. But tom hanks should not have played in the movie. Personally I think he didn't "fit".

[AngryBaby]

i havent seen it yet, probably see it tomorrow,

but what the hell did Tom Hanks do wrong? i wonder.
personally i think he is a better and definately more seasoned actor than "Hugh Grant or Pierce Brosnan" and definatley brought more credibility to the movie with his name on it.

but we shall see.

[SarahxJoy]

Just got back a little while ago from seeing it.
My dad read the book, and he said he prefers that rather than the movie, because Ron Howard isn't much of an action movie director.

But IMO, I think it was more intended to be a mystery type of film, rather than action. Although, those two things do usually coincide with one another.

I loved it though. I found it suspenseful and there were quite a few parts that made me jump. Very mind-stimulating, I think.

[Saeglopur]

Just got back from a late showing...
It was pretty good. I half-slept through the violent parts (I felt people jump near me)...

And... the beginning sequence scared the crap out of me.

[*stephinika*]

Yeah I'm seeing it tomorrow...I know the book is better since thats how it usually is, but I'm curious to see how the movie turns out...but yeah, I'm not a fan of Tom Hanks either...

[Hiphop d[-_-]b]

I thought it was brilliant. Im really into things like that, so i was hella caught up in the movie. Never a dull moment, always on the move, always new things to listen to and learn and absorb. I had to go potty so bad, but i didn't dare leave for a second cos if you do, you miss something crucial.

I thought it was real good.

[gelionie]

I've seen in the newspapers that most of the movie critics said it was boring.

[mylittleMiracle]

i saw this movie yesterday.
what a perfect movie.
not suck at all.

i want to buy this book to recollect the pleasant flavor

[oOKittyKatOo]

i saw the movie last night and think its overated...

its not THAT good.. honestly... i think i prefer National Treasurer more


maybe my minds just isnt mature enough to watch complicated codes and what not LOL

[Your pain is not...]

Four words - wrong star, wrong director.

Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.

What is conspicuously absent from either man's resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.

The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of "what ifs" and "oh my god" moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.

What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard's film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.

Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany's evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.

Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would've made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag "Years Most-Anticipated", its a boring dud.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

I watched one of the early shows, and the cinema was already packed. The first few parts of the movie was pretty intense. Although, I thought it was a bit dragged on; an hour into the movie and Sophie & Langdon were still in the Louvre.

I thought it wasn't... mysterious enough. Everything went too step-by-step. Except when they were trying to solve the anagrams. But I thought that wasn't the most difficult puzzle in the story. In the book when they solved the first cryptex and found another within it was really exciting for me. I was disappointed they didn't do the same in the movie.

I also really enjoyed reading the some-what related facts in the book. Like about the Mona Lisa. The book is inevitably more in depth. Too bad.

I love both Kate Beckinsale and Audrey Tautou. I wouldn't mind the both of them. I looked up for the movie release before I read the book so I always imagined the characters the ones they chose. Tom Hank's movies are good but I don't think he was the perfect Langdon either, but that's not really the point.
I was more concerned with the plot they'd present in the movie.

In comparison with the book, the book is better. More exciting. But I think the movie was worth watching. The plot they altered wasn't that disappointing as I expected.

I do think Angels & Demons would make a better movie. There's more action in the story as I remember and less contemplating?

[[Mediocre]Artist]

This is the first movie I ever heard critisized for being so much like the book that it was boring. For all that I'd rather read the novel at my home than sit in a crowded theatre with a bunch of people talking through the movie.

[*Ox_Su`Zie*]

AHHHH i cant wait to watch it i think that going to be the most contreversial movie ever!

[AngryBaby]

Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.

well, The green Mile was a tom hanks starring movie. and that was a beautiful film.
and it wasnt about him being a hero at all. one can say he and society was the bad guy.

beautiful mind wasnt about some american Hero also.

[*Weird addiction*]

I'm seeing it this thursday. People say it's boring, but whatever. I can't wait!!

[Simba]

I'm seeing it today with some friends.

I hope it doesn't butcher the book.

[*Kathleen*]

Never a dull moment, always on the move, always new things to listen to and learn and absorb.

I KNOW. I saw it last night. I honestly thought it wasn't dull at all. Even though they had to talk and explain a lot, I thought it was necessary and interesting. My friend, who had never read the book (I have), liked it as well. Gah. Stupid critics. I enjoyed it.

[cheerbee07]

i saw it last night.
it was really good, minus a few flaws.
but then again, the movie is never as good as the book

but both were still awesome =)

[Simba]

Well, good to know it's not going to be a complete waste of time and money.

[Gigi]

I wrote this on my Xanga:

I'd like to say that The Da Vinci Code was a freaking awesome movie, but I can't. As a movie, I felt like it dove straight into the race to find the Holy Grail. It was a bit sudden. When compared to the book, it was lacking in many areas. I swear, when I read the book, Langdon and Neveu cracked through WAY MORE STEPS to find out the eventual secret. The movie felt like it was shortened. And, I thought it lacked in showing us more art pieces and history stuff, because that had to be the coolest part of the book.

The movie did have its good parts. Silas was portrayed perfectly and he was scary - the theatre gasped a few times. It was a good thriller - fast paced. Just the fact that it stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou is reason enough to check out this movie. But I'd still take the book over the movie version of The Da Vinci Code any day. There's nothing like sitting at a table and reading for 8 straight hours. =)

So basically, if you already read the book, be prepared to be disappointed. But if you're just watching it as a movie, you'll enjoy it. It's definitely not a waste of money, just not as good as I thought it would be.

[HappyHeart]

I heard the book was really good. I want to watch it, because I think Tom Hanks ia a really good actor, but I'll have to read the book first. It's HUGE!

[JumpforJoy]

I heard the book was really good. I want to watch it, because I think Tom Hanks ia a really good actor, but I'll have to read the book first. It's HUGE!

If you really want to enjoy the movie, I suggest you NOT read the book first. Because then the movie will not live up to your expectations.

[AngryBaby]

i saw the movie today, and it was great in my opinion. dont get me wrong, it WAS a little boring at the beginning, but it picked up by the time they got in the armored car. and from then on the movie was great.

i was begining to be worried about what people said in the earlier posts.

but it wasnt boring besides the begining. and people just went crazy that Tom Hanks "didnt fit the part" but give me a break, like he, Tom Hanks, is going to ruin a movie. plus he didnt do a bad job either i dont nitpick at stupid little details like that.

[*stephinika*]

Wasn't bad. Wasn't amazing, wasn't horrid either. I just saw it. I noticed all the parts not in it from the book obviously, and the slight changes but ah well. It was okay.

[ms. independent]

I just saw it today. wasn't one of those "OMG WOW HOLY CRAP THAT'S AWESOME" movies, but it was pretty good in my opinion. there were a few parts I wasn't happy about.. but doesn't that happen with most movies?

[Rachel]

Did you honestly expect them to include EVERY SINGLTE detail from the book? That would make one hell of a long movie and then people would complain about the length.

[NERDFACE™]

you know,
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?

[JumpforJoy]

you know,
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?

It's actually not about Da Vinci. It's more about the Holy Grail. The reason the book is called The Da Vinci Code is because there are clues in Da Vinci paintings that lead to the finding of the Holy Grail.


Anyways, I saw it on Saturday and having read the book, I was a bit disappointed. Because IMO, I don't think they should have changed certain things... (written in white so highlight to read)
Like, why did they need to change the fact that Sophie isn't Sauniere's true granddaughter? How much harder would it have been to keep the grandmother/brother storyline in the movie? Because they brought her real grandmother in at the end anyways. And um, having Fache be a member of Opus Dei? And having that secret group (that Aringarosa went to meet with) that is out to destroy any trace of Christs' bloodline? Why?

But for my boyfriend who didn't read the book, it was quite entertaining and he liked it.

[me1issaaaa]

I'm not a religious person in the least bit, to be honest, and so I don't know a whole lot about that kind of stuff, but it was a good movie, despite that. I wouldn't imagine Tom Hanks being cast for that role, but he did an alright job, anyway. I liked it.

[angel-roh]

I LOVED THE MOVIE SOO MUCH.

i love philosophy and most of all...religious type of movie. and mystery is one of my favorite genre in movies =)

i watched it with my brother, he slept for like 5minutes cause he wasnt interested in philosophy and such.

BUT I ENJOYED IT.

and omg TOM HANKS WAS SUCHA GREAT ACTOR THERE, MADE ME LOVE HIM MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and and and im glad the director choose him for that role. HE FIT FOR IT FOR REALS!