I'm sure Hanks will pull it off just fine, but like a bunch of others I didn't envision him at all while reading it.

Sam Neill would've been my choice also.

Audrey Tautou has apparently been picked to co-star.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._da_vinci_code

Amelie, A Very Long Engagement, Dirty Pretty Things and Da Vinci Code... She's doing good for herself.

Audrey Tautou, wow, i love this choice...if it is true.

http://www.canada.com/news/national/...0-83122e48f9d9

LOVE the casting on Reno as Bezu.

I also agree that Sam Neill would be a great choice, and Kevin Kline now that I think about it.

Reno

Hanks - I can't picture him in this role.

Jean Reno cast as "the French guy" in a big Hollywood movie. I'm shocked. Really, I am.

alhtough I can't say who I'd cast instead, Hanks just doesn't seem to fit for me

I'm just starting to read this, and had known Hanks was cast before I started, even then I had no interest in seeing him in the role. he's too much of an everyman.

Audrey and Jean Reno are perfect. Tchéky Karyo might have made a good bezu also, he was the chief in Taking Lives and was also in a very long engagment.

I watched Taking Lives over the weekend and thought the same thing! He may have been a better choice than Reno.

yeah Hanks seems not appropriate for this role imo either.....
some friends and I were discussing who we could see playing Robert Langdon the other night....and most everyone we came up with we shot down for one reason or another....except one:
Bill Pullman
he was the best we could come up with....and i think he could totally work.

Don't know if you're serious or not but I thought he'd really be the perfect guy to play Langdon before they announced Hanks. Still do. I also think Sinise is a far better actor than Hanks.

I'd have preferred a JFK-era Kevin Costner or Dennis Quaid.

What exactly about Tom Hanks doesnt fit this role exactly? Not saying he is the best actor of all time, but I mean all the other people named seem about the same as Hanks.

Hanks's biggest problem is that he is everyman. He has no distingushing character at all. He's a blank canvas, he bores me to death in everything he is in, the only role of his I like is Philadelphia

Tom Hanks simply doesn't seem to match the Robert Langdon description from the books that i had in my mind when i was reading both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code.

So what do you guys think of Paul Bettany as Silas?

He doesnt seem big enough for the part but I guess he can always bulk up...We'll see.

Is this confirmed? Well since they've pretty much botched up the casting starting with Langdon, I'm just going to treat the movie as a separate entity from the book to lessen the frustration when I see it.

I thought I remember reading a couple months back that Christopher Eccleston was set to play Silas. I really only knew him from Gone in 60 Seconds, so I wasn't sure about the casting. At least Bettany has more of the look.

YES!

Of course you don't have to take my word for it.

I really don't know if it's confirmed or not, but he's listened on IMDB now.

And this: http://movies.monstersandcritics.com..._Da_Vinci_Code

This is sickening news if true. I really hope the studio doesn't cave in to pressure from the Catholic church. It also appears Ian McKellen has been cast in the movie?

If you haven't read the book there are MAJOR SPOILERS in the aricle below. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Da Vinci plot may get new twist to placate Catholics

THE film version of The Da Vinci Code is attempting to reduce the offence that the best-selling book caused to Roman Catholics.
Sony Pictures, the studio behind the film starring Tom Hanks and Sir Ian McKellen, is reported to have been so concerned that it has consulted Catholic and other Christian specialists on how it might alter the plot of the novel to avoid offending the devout.

Film officials have held talks with Catholic groups and other organisations despite Dan Brown, the author, insisting that “it’s only a novel and therefore a work of fiction”, The New York Times reported yesterday.

The Catholic League is calling for Ron Howard, the film’s Oscar-winning director, to include a disclaimer acknowledging that the movie is fiction.

The Da Vinci Code, which is being filmed this summer with locations including Winchester Cathedral and Rosslyn Chapel, near Edinburgh, is based on a novel that has sold 25 million copies worldwide. Among its more controversial claims is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, a former prostitute, and that she bore him a child. This has been denounced as virulently anti-Catholic and a risible hoax.

Opus Dei, the Catholic organisation, is particularly concerned about its own depiction, because it is a central villain in the book. Its members are depicted acting unethically for the sake of God, the Church or Opus Dei, whereas the organisation is a Roman Catholic institution that adheres to Catholic doctrine and condemns immoral behaviour.

“The novel portrays Opus Dei in a completely inaccurate way,” Brian Finnerty, a spokesman for the group, said.

“We wrote to the studio, expressing our concern. They sent back a reply that was polite but non-committal; but Opus Dei is completely unlike the portrayal in the novel.

“It is about ordinary people trying to find God, not about searching for the Holy Grail. It’s ordinary Catholics trying to come closer to God in their day-to-day activities and it is a mainstream part of the Catholic Church. It’s been blessed by all the Popes since the earliest years.”

The studio has been asked to consider whether the central premise — that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene — could be more ambiguous and whether the name of Opus Dei could be removed.

Condemnation of the book has been widespread. Last month the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales denounced it as logically and historically flawed. In March the Vatican appointed a top cardinal to rebut what it dismissed as lies, distortions and errors.

Carl E Olson, a Catholic and co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax, a book rebutting the The Da Vinci Code, predicted that many religious people would be offended unless the film bears a pale resemblance to the book — which, he accepts, would risk alienating fans.

Dismissing the novel as “trash” and “poorly written”, he said that its historical claims could be torn apart.

Sony declined to comment

This is so stupid. Although the books theology is a little off, why adapt the book if you're gonna change the story?

To answer my own question, it looks like McKellan has signed to play Teabing. And according to this site, Alfred Molina may have been cast as well:

http://www.filmfodder.com/mt-weblog/...s/001502.shtml

I have absolutely no problem with a disclaimer proceeding or following the film proclaiming it as fiction. One of the most appeasing aspects of Mr. Brown's works is that he gets 90% of his history correct, similar to Michael Chriton and science, yet makes tiny and subtle changes which make the fantastic stories. The inaccuracies are really not apparent unless you are already an expert on the subjects at hand, or research the topic.

As for the claim or idea that it would be "selling out", I have to ask...Did you read the last 5 pages? It is interesting to me that only me and my friends seem to talk about the fact that Mr. Brown completely apologizes in the final pages and basically writes, "The Catholic Church would never do anything like this!!! Haha...they're brilliant!!!" It is shocking to me that nobody in media ever addresses this.