DanBrown Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Despite the fact that my family members should have owned stock in Dan Brown's bibliography given how much of it they read, and of course the rest of the world devoted years to discussing the historical possibilities of his fiction, I never read The Da Vinci Code. Quite frankly, I'm not much of a reader, owing primarily to the amount of time I spend writing, but the last book I curled up with was one about the diminishing intelligence of the American people, although for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

In any case, I had no particular feelings about the fact that Ron Howard was adapting Brown's best seller into a feature film, with the possible exception of my superficial determination that Tom Hanks' hair was simply terrible. But when I didn't have to review or cover it professionally, I decided not only that I would save my money for something more worthwhile (I mean, Poseidon came out two weeks prior), but that The Da Vinci Code was going to be a movie that I would never, ever see.

Part of the problem with the movie version of The Da Vinci Code was that it took itself too seriously. You had these people dashing around Europe, investigating obscure clues and uncovering outrageous conspiracies, but the only person who seemed to be having any fun with it was Ian McKellen. "Tom Hanks has never seemed so dull," I wrote in my review.

Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. Angels & Demons, the Da Vinci Code sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the audience?

Not having read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel (which actually came before Da Vinci, not after), I was able to find some entertainment in the mechanics of the plot -- not knowing how the mystery would be unraveled, curious to see what the clues would mean. The screenplay, by veteran action writer David Koepp (Panic Room) and Ron Howard regular Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind), basically adheres to a limited point of view -- we don't know any more than the Hanks character, Robert Langdon, does. For viewers who already know where things are going, there may not be much pleasure in watching Langdon figure it out, unless the movie has deviated significantly from the book.

(Clockwise, from upper left: Splash, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Castaway, The Ladykillers, The Da Vinci Code.)

Our last two polls covered Star Trek : anticipated box office returns (most folks guessed too high) and 1-10 rating (most folks were very impressed). Those polls are still open, but we thought it was time to let our hair down and move on to this week's big opener: Tom Hanks in Ron Howard's dramatic thriller Angels & Demons.

Based on the novel by Dan Brown, Angels & Demons follows Professor Robert Langdon as he again uses his expert knowledge of symbology to uncover an international conspiracy involving the Catholic Church. Though the book was written before The Da Vinci Code, the events take place afterward. When Hanks and Howard previously teamed on the film adaptation in 2006, Hanks' hair got plenty of attention. As Eric D. Snider noted, "If you recall nothing else about The Da Vinci Code, surely you remember that Tom Hanks sported a ghastly mullet in it. So the important thing to know about Angels & Demons ... is that Hanks' hairstyle has been corrected. So that's a relief."

But did you love Hanks' "ghastly mullet" in The Da Vinci Code? Or are you a bigger fan of his earlier, funnier hairstyles in movies like Splash, his first collaboration with Howard? How about the Forrest Gump flat top? The Castaway outgrowth? Or the Colonel Sanders hair from The Ladykillers? Inspired by a classic post at TheJay.com, please take our silly little poll and tell us: What's your favorite Tom Hanks hairstyle?

When you're finished with that poll, head on over to Moviefone and vote for your favorite Tom Hanks performance.

I actually think this is sort of clever, in a "we can afford to do this" kind of way (which is more than I can say for The Da Vinci Code, am I right?!). Apparently, when the production of Angels & Demons had been refused permission to shoot key scenes in the Vatican, special effects director Ryan Cook had a team of people blend in with tourists and take about 250,000 pictures and shoot hours of video to use as reference back in Los Angeles.

Said Cook in an interview with an Italian movie magazine (then excerpted by The Scotsman, and further excerpted here): "The ban really put us in a lot of trouble because we could not use the precision instruments which are used to take photographs and make reconstructions in the computer."

On a mild tangent, I have to ask whether or not our readers are getting excited for the film itself. Of all the anticipation for summer blockbusters, and especially out of the May offerings, this seems to be the quietest title of the bunch (though twice-baked, half-volume controversy and the lack of a Cannes bow will do that to a film). I've only been assured that this book was better than its predecessor (I know, this one's a prequel), so did anyone here like Da Vinci? And whether you did or didn't care for that film, are any of you specifically psyched for round two?

[via MCN]

Dan Brown will finally get his Robert "he looks like Harrison Ford" Langdon film franchise as according to Variety, Columbia is already prepping to buy Brown's latest symbolist installment, The Lost Symbol. They have first rights to the book, as Sony already owns the rights to the character of Robert Langdon. (Were they able to actually buy Tom Hanks for all eternity, I wonder?)

Symbol was originally supposed to be published in 2006, but has been delayed repeatedly. Now Doubleday has the manuscript in hand, swears its thrilling, and has set a publication date of September 15. It already has a first print run of five million copies, which is actually small fry compared to the 81 million copies The DaVinci Code has sold.

No one knows what Symbol will be about other than it will feature the Freemasons, Washington D.C., and the Kryptos sculpture at the CIA . But where there's a secret organization, I think we can hazard a guess that we'll also find a religious coverup and the Catholic Church! I can't imagine that Brown will ever disappoint fans in that regard. I hope that Langdon runs around Washington D.C. with a copy of the Declaration of Independence which, when rubbed with lemon juice, tells where to find the True Cross, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Spear of Destiny. Throw in a beautiful brunette and an evil monk, and no one will remember Nicolas Cage.

Angels & Demons, Brown's latest Langdon film adaptation, will hit theaters on May 15.

Hey – remember when I correctly pointed out that Dan Brown's Angels & Demons was wretched, insulting nonsense, and everyone yelled at me? The consensus seemed to be that I didn't know from good populist entertainment; that I expected everything to be brainy, couldn't appreciate a good action-packed mystery, and basically should just shut up. (My favorite was when people informed me that I was wrong because Dan Brown is richer than I am.)

I stand by what I said about Angels & Demons, but I should have mentioned a counterexample to Dan Brown: an author who writes simple, unabashedly goofy page-turners that sell like hotcakes but are actually readable, with characters who aren't obviously morons, sentences that don't make grown men cry, and messages that are coherent, if not nuanced. One such author is John Grisham, whose books are preachy, ludicrous, and simplistic – but also absorbing and breathlessly entertaining. You scoff, but all the while you're furiously flipping pages.

Grisham's newest, The Associate, has already been tapped for a feature-film adaptation, starring Shia LaBeouf as a Yale Law School grad bound for a low-paying but noble public interest law career but who is blackmailed into taking a prestigious, soul-sucking law firm job by nefarious types who want access to some ultra-secret documents for corporate espionage purposes. The novel covers some of the same ground as Grisham's classic The Firm, except this time grounded in what Grisham perceives as the reality of life for young, bright law school graduates seduced by the high-paying but miserable jobs as associates in corporate law firms. It's hugely silly and hugely entertaining in the best Grisham tradition; with the right director and screenwriter, it could take a place of honor in the less-than-illustrious history of Grisham film adaptations.

Warning: This post contains spoilers for The Da Vinci Code.

I read about fifty pages of The Da Vinci Code before hurling it across the room. I sat through the stupid movie – the whole thing – and hated every miserable moment. It now faces some stiff competition from Twilight, but before this year I would have been hard-pressed to come up with a less interesting pop culture phenomenon. At least for a non-Christian like me, who has no reason to be stunned by the notion of Jesus Christ having procreated, The Da Vinci Code simply had nothing to offer.

I don't consider myself a masochist, but I don't mind being a guinea pig. So I thought doing Angels & Demons in this column would be fun, in a way.

It would have been great to be able to say that Angels & Demons was some sort of revelation (no pun intended); it certainly would have made this post easier to write. Alas, it ranks among the dumbest things I've ever read: an adventure book for fourth-graders, seemingly written by a sixth-grader. In an effort to make itself "accessible" to absolutely everyone, it makes its characters into nitwits – which is problematic since its characters are Harvard professors and world-class particle physicists. Dr. Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks in both films, has never heard of a particle accelerator – or maybe he has, and is just astounded to learn that it's an enormous underground structure. Antimatter is a new concept as well. At one point, the novel helpfully explains who Galileo was. You get the idea.

If you recall nothing else about The Da Vinci Code, surely you remember that Tom Hanks sported a ghastly mullet in it. So the important thing to know about Angels & Demons, the follow-up that's due out May 15, is that Hanks' hairstyle has been corrected. So that's a relief.

USA Today has the first images to be released from the film, confirming the better hairdo and the presence of Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (that's her with Hanks). Ewan McGregor is on hand, too, playing a Catholic operative. Ron Howard is back as director, and Akiva Goldsman has once again written the adaptation of Dan Brown's novel.

You can check out the rest of the pics at USA Today, where there's also an article mentioning, among other things, that the filmmakers had originally hoped to shoot some of the film at the Vatican -- which is amusing because that's sort of like Oliver Stone hoping to shoot some of W. at George Bush's ranch. But whatevs.

Da Vinci Code was a mediocre film, but it sure made a pantload of money. So are you excited for Angels & Demons? Is the book any good? What are Tom and Ayelet looking at in that photo, and how come no one else in the picture notices whatever it is?

This is one movie I keep forgetting is actually being made. Ron Howard's adaptation of Angels and Demons has been simmering away, sending out casting calls, not quite reaching any level of heady anticipation. Maybe this news will do it.

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has landed the part of Vittoria Vetra, the daughter of a CERN physicist who is embarked on a journey to uncover the truth behind her father's murder. Of course, Robert Langdon (still played by Tom Hanks) accompanies her, and they must foil a terrorist plot in the process.

The studio has yet to confirm. Naomi Watts was reportedly the last to be in talks for the role. No other parts have been cast.

I'm not an avid reader of Dan Brown, so I must ask: is the plot of Angels and Demons really that similar to The DaVinci Code? Is it really that a pretty foreign girl loses a member of her paterfamilias, and Robert Langdon must help her? Is it via the works of coded works of Michaelangelo? Is the Catholic Church evilly involved? I am guessing it is, since one of the characters in need of an actor is an aide to the Pope. Fill me in, because I will never read the book.

Angels and Demons is still set for release May 15th, 2009.

Yes, yes, I'm still in Austin. I'm like that annoying loser who refuses to leave the party even though your girlfriend is clearly vacuuming and it's slowly getting sunny outside. (I actually stayed a few days longer so I could visit with some good friends, if you must know!) Anyway, it just dawned on me that even though we've brought you tons of SXSW coverage, you're still missing out on one very important component: The intro shorts! Every festival has 'em. They're brief mini-flicks that introduce the festival, credit the sponsors, and basically set the tone for the screening. (Sometimes.)

SXSW has always had some good "intro shorts" (my favorite is an old, strange one with Jeff Goldblum), but this year they were particularly amusing. They were put together by Mike Mitchell, Kent Osborne, Dan Brown, and Charlie Sotelo (among others) -- and through the magical power of "embedding," you can enjoy them without visiting some grungy other website. We'll start with my favorite:


Obviously this is a spoof of good ol' Glengarry Glen Ross, but by the time the film festival was winding down, me and my movie-geek posse were quoting this short non-stop and chuckling like morons. ("Brass balls!" Ha!) Check out the rest of the promos right after the jump!