Angels & Demons (2009 - Hanks/Howard/ The Da Vinci Code prequel)

[Mithrandir01]

Late 2008 smashing hit will be release on May 15th 2009...

Angels & Demons (IMDB) have some problems

It looks like you'll have to wait a while longer to see Tom Hanks return to his weird-haired professor for the DA VINCI CODE follow-up ANGELS & DEMONS.

The movie is one of the first major projects to officially get shifted because of the current writers strike in Hollywood. The plan was for the prequel (which I thought had been reworked as a sequel) to start shooting early in 2008, but the studio has apparently decided that writer Akiva Goldsman's script -- rushed to make the November 1st deadline -- wasn't quite in shape.

The flick, again directed by Ron Howard and based on a Dan Brown novel, would find Hanks' mystery-solver on the trail of the Illuminati and a powerful energy source, leading him to the Vatican. The first film was a global box office smash, although I personally don't know anyone who actually liked it.
The altered schedule now means that Hanks has room on his plate for another big project -- expect a scramble for the former Bosom Buddy to commence immediately. Perhaps Frank Darabont's FAHRENHEIT 451?

source: joblo.com

[st39.6]

Ah, good ... I kinda liked Brown´s books and DVC was complete disaster from viewers point of view. It sucked so much! Plus it was boring as hell, cut out of all the interesting stuff ... just all and all, it sucked.
On the other side, I always thought that Angels and Demons would be the best book to get movie adaptation ...

[Mithrandir01]

Extended cut was better, but only than cinema version. I didn't read "Angels and Demons" but I can say...

Damn writers strike

[st39.6]

Well little delay can only be healthy in this case. The hate of DVC will wear off and they can have a fresh -lets hope better- start

[Nance]

Angels & Demons is soo better than The Da Vinci Code for me, but I am used to adaptation being weak compare to the book.

[Filmstalker]

Angels and Demons is a much better book than Da Vinci Code, I totally agree.

The problem with the film adaptation of Da Vinci Code is that everything was so clearly laid out in the book there was nothing really that the film could do differently, it had a set road to follow and all the reveals were described in detail in the book, how could it have deviated?

Then there's the fact that the book was so widely read and known that taking creative license with the story would have caused an uproar. I feel the film-makers had so little to play with.

I did like the way they presented the flashbacks in history, but for the rest of it the task was to show on screen exactly what the book already did.

Perhaps Angels and Demons can provide a bit more creative choice for the film adaptation.

[Mithrandir01]

New York Post says, that NAOMI WATTS is in!

[j7wild]

they need to do 2 things for this movie to work better than the Da Vinci Code:

1. get rid of Ron Howard as a director (he is too linear and too wimpy to take chances)

2. get rid of Tom Hanks in the title role (he is just unconvincing)

[Mithrandir01]

2 bad news for you:

1. No way.

2. No way.