Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Yeah, there's a new book with the Robert Langdon character that I believe is centered around the masons.

I liked Angels and Demons better as well, so I hope this turns out good.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Count me as another person who thinks Angels & Demons is a MUCH BETTER book than DaVinci... like ten times better. I hated what they did with The DaVinci Code movie (It's rare to see a big hollywood blockbuster that is THAT BORING) but I think Howard is capable of maybe righting his wrongs with this one...I sure as hell hope so.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Hey, wait a minute. That actually looks ... good. Really good. McGregor and Skarsgard look like they'll be solid additions to the cast, plus the film's tone appears to be much more robust than the first. I was weary due to writer Goldsman's return, but after seeing the full trailer I'm pretty excited. :up:

Absolutely agree. I remember reading "Angels and Demons" while waiting for jury duty and being aggravated --- more than the normal amount -- that I was selected for the case since I wanted to press on with the story. It's far more addictive than "The Da Vinci Code". From the mystery behind the ambigrams to the stellar use of geography for suspenseful pacing, I always thought this one would be perfect for the big screen.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

<object width="450" height="252"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/8782"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/8782" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="252"></embed></object>

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I read both DVC and A&D in about a day and a half (couldn't put either down). I didn't like the DaVinci Code film the first time I saw it (but I liked it a lot more on the second viewing).

If Howard's going to take some liberties on this one, I hope it's the ending.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dMw8JTASJEg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dMw8JTASJEg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

:thumbsup:

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

^ It's cool Ron Howard mentions the music at the end of The Da Vinci Code. While I thought the movie was mediocre, I absolutely love the final scene with the music swelling.

If Angels & Demons is a continuation of that then I'm eager to hear it. A great score, IMO.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Hollywood Reporter liked it: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...03969172.story

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

On her Variety blog (linked here: http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/) Anne Thompson calls it "a terrible movie," but allowed that it's "so bad it's good. Or at least a guilty pleasure."

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

^Sounds like the novel then. The novel is so obscenely preposterous its like 500 pages of the most jaw-droppingly over-the-top scenes form schumacher's Batman & Robin. It made me laugh out loud at how silly some of the twists were. Still I think the movie looks very impressive and I will probably see it in theaters/

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

The poster and title may have some thinking this movie is going to be some FX C.G.I. epic about a battle in heaven.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Saw it today. Really liked it.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Detroit News did not like it: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...ngels-&-Demons

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I thought the History Channel doc earlier in the week, kind of ruined it for me, as it revealed alot (but not all).

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I have a question for you. Now it was recommended to me to first read ANGELS AND DEMONS before DA VINCI CODE, because it will make more sense. I did just that, and I really liked both books. As far as the movies are concerned, should I first go see ANGELS AND DEMONS then rent DA VINCI CODE (I havent seen it yet). OR does it matter?

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

^
I don't think its going to matter. If anything, I would think it would be better to see Da Vinci movie first, since that is the first one that was made.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Ebert dug it. It's currently on RT @ 54% which is more than double the score Da Vinci got (24%), apparently the filmmaking isn't nearly as bad this time around.

This actually reminds me of Crimson Rivers 2, hopefully this also has ninja monks.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I saw an advanced screening last night. Packed house. I liked it much better than Da Vinci. The story and pacing were much better IMO. I'd grade it a solid B...maybe B+.

It's funny because alot of people in an effort to beat the crowds to the exit got up and left when they "thought" the movie was over (you'll know what I mean when you see it or have read the book). They missed about 20 more minutes of the movie...the most important part of the movie. :lol:

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

A much better film than Da Vinci Code. Hanks has a bit more character this time around instead of being the unemotional guy that's reluctant in DVC. Here, he's given a purpose.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

In the case of the movies, I think they changed it so that Angels takes place after Da Vinci code, so you might as well see Da Vinci first.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Stellan Skarsgaard pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. I read my first Dan Brown book earlier this month and agree with him. I am still looking forward to this though. I thought the traile was impressive. I just hope they change some things around and make things come off not as silly as they did in the book.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_sweden_skarsgard
"STOCKHOLM – Actor Stellan Skarsgard says he's no big fan of Dan Brown's writing and accepted a role in "Angels & Demons" only after reading the script based on Brown's book.

"I think Dan Brown is a terribly bad writer, but he has cliffhangers after every chapter which makes you continue reading," Skarsgard told Swedish broadcaster SVT.

"It's like eating peanuts at a bar. You don't like them, but you keep on eating them anyway," he said.

The Swedish actor, who plays the head of the Pope's Swiss guard in the movie, said director Ron Howard's script was significantly different from the book.

Tom Hanks returns in the lead role as Harvard professor Robert Langdon in "Angels & Demons," a sequel to the "The Da Vinci Code" — also based on Brown's novel with the same name. It will be shown around the world starting Friday.

"Angels & Demons" is better than the first film, Skarsgard said in the interview aired late Wednesday, because "the story is more simple and straightforward but just as dramatic.""

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

"Significantly different from the book" is a :down: for me given how much I enjoyed the book. Although given that I still enjoyed Da Vinci, hopefully it won't matter too much.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I agree with Skarsgaard. Brown's writing is atrocious. But the story should make for a good movie. I'll find out tonight when I see it.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Been enjoying the soundtrack, sounds intense. Zimmer's in top form at least.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I was dragged to the midnight release. I didn't fall asleep, so I guess I enjoyed it? I don't know. It was much better then The DaVinci code, I will give it that. I haven't read the book so I can't compare the two.