rockpile Posted April 21, 2006 Posted April 21, 2006 Like who? 667085[/snapback] Too bad Wally Cox is not alive!
rockpile Posted April 21, 2006 Posted April 21, 2006 A lot of the Da Vinci Code was expositionary; I could see the actual action fitting in a 2-hour film. The problem then being: some of the most interesting parts of the book were the expositionary ones (e.g. the description of Da Vinci's The Last Supper). I don't know how good a movie it'll be without that...or even with it, as there's a lot of ways to do that wrong on film. And having re-read the book this past weekend...yeah, I can see Hanks as Langdon. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice, though... 666919[/snapback] Expositionary is not a word.
The Dean Posted April 21, 2006 Posted April 21, 2006 Too bad Wally Cox is not alive! 667146[/snapback]
The Dean Posted April 21, 2006 Posted April 21, 2006 Its been downhill since Connery left. Moore was decent but the last few I did not care for 667071[/snapback] Exactly! Moore was OK (a little too jokey)...the rest have been BUMS. I'm tellin ya...DENZEL.
Ghost of BiB Posted April 22, 2006 Posted April 22, 2006 "Hunt For Red October" is the closest example I can think of. And maybe the most recent "Pride and Prejudice"...but I haven't yet read the book (it's in the "to read" stack), so I'm making that judgement based on others' speculation. 667092[/snapback] You really think so? I felt that a lot of Hunt for Red October got shuffled around and key points left out that could have been covered with an additional 15 minutes, and be more true to the story. BTW, Hanks is not a bad choice. He definitely has the range. I think people might have wanted Clooney for a "prettier" face. His on screen personna just doesn't match the character, IMO.
Simon Posted April 22, 2006 Posted April 22, 2006 The other thing was how Brown would put the characters thougts into italics, like Of course he knew I was bluffing I am not sure if they can capture that in the screenplay. 666925[/snapback] I hope they don't even try as Brown's prose is so stilted and awful that it really hurts a wonderfully researched project. And yes Harrison Ford was the first guy that popped into my head, although I think Hanks will be fine and may end up being a saving grace in what could really be a dud of a film.
rockpile Posted April 22, 2006 Posted April 22, 2006 BTW, Hanks is not a bad choice. He definitely has the range. I think people might have wanted Clooney for a "prettier" face. His on screen personna just doesn't match the character, IMO. 667456[/snapback] From the brief promo ads on TV, Hanks does "look" the part. I am reading the book for the third time this week in preparation.
Just Jack Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 Saw it this afternoon. Tom Hanks really does well as Langdon. There are some actors, Morgan Freeman and Adam Sandler come to mind, that I don't see them playing the character, I see them as reciting lines in their movies. Hanks does not fit that descripton in this movie. As for the movie itself, you don't need to have read the book to enjoy the movie, and they did follow closely with the book. There were three minor differences that I picked out, but they did not affect the movie in any way from getting the story across.
Recommended Posts