Tom Hanks to return for “Angels & Demons”

April 12, 2007

tomhanks.jpgAccording to Cinema Blend, Tom Hanks has signed on to reprise his role as “Robert Langdon” in the Da Vinci Code prequel, “Angels & Demons”.

It’s the “biggest salary ever paid to an actor in the history of Hollywood.”, says Cinema Blend. I know Hanks wasn’t interested in returning, so the money must have been pretty jaw-dropping in order for him to sign on to the film.

I’m glad to hear they are making this second film, and especially that Hanks is returning. I thought he was the perfect choice for Robert Langdon.

I really enjoyed the books, and even though it was critically panned, I enjoyed the first film as well. Personally, I liked the “Angels & Demons” book even more than the more popular, Da Vinci Code.

Filming is expected to begin in July, which probably means we’ll see a late Summer 2008 release.



  1. I was very disappointed in The DaVinci Code. I love Tom, love Ian, and was very excited with Paul Bettany in the role of Silas, but overall it was boring. The only part I liked was the end of the movie. They did a fabulous job, because reading it in the book was pretty anticlimactic, whereas the movie made it seem more realistic and exciting. Just my opinion of course. It will be interesting to see how they do A&D.

  2. I totally agree with Kersten. I thought the book and the movie were both equally terrible. Dan Brown is one of the WORST dialogue writers I have ever read. It was a boring read, boring movie and if Angels and Demons is anywhere near as bad as DaVinci Code then Ron Howard will need to do something drastic to bring himself back up to the elite level he was formerly a part of.

  3. I disagree with you on this Tyson, but I know you already know that. There was a reason Da Vinci Code is one of the most popular books of all time, and I don’t think it would be if the book were “boring” or had “crappy dialogue”.

    But hey, everyone can have their opinion.

    I didn’t find the movie boring at all. I had heard all the bad things about it, so maybe I came in with much lower expectations, but I actually really enjoyed the film.

  4. I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy the book. I enjoyed it immensely….until the end, which I just found sorely disappointing. All that build up and then it just sort of stopped. I don’t know, I just didn’t like the way he wrote it in the book.

    As for the movie, I was extremely disappointed in the lack of development for Silas and Bishop Aringaroosa. That was such and important part of the book and just was blah in the movie. But again, I found the end of the movie much more enjoyable than the book.

    But you’re right, everyone has their own opinion.

  5. And also… I thought the book was much, much better than the movie, I just wanted to point out that I did enjoy the movie as well.

    Movies can never live up to books, as they just aren’t long enough to contain all the story lines and plot building that a book can.

  6. Brown is considered a hack in his own industry. Vanity Fair wrote an article about one of the authors suing Brown who looked to have stolen ideas and even line for line text from another others book. The author ran out of money and the case was pulled but it was clear that VF agreed with the author suing Brown.

    His dialogue is terrible and the DaVinci Code mania that happened was almost entirely due to religious contreversy. The same reason that the Passion brought in such a ridiculously huge crowd. It is an interesting story and I credit the idea as not just a good one but a great one. My problem is with Brown and his problems as a writer.

    Before DaVinci code Brown was sued multiple times by three different authors over Angels and Demons, with the plot almost a mimic of another book. Brown has a pretty checkered past and he is a terrible dialogue writer. I don’t think that point is arguable seeing how much dialogue was changed for the movie and how the proof is evident in the book itself. In most major reviews of the DaVinci Code poor character development and dialogue is pointed out by the reviewers.

    I can thank Vanity Fair and the internet for most of my info because I couldn’t get through either book because of their slow pace and uninteresting characters. I am just not a fan. I don’t read a ton in that genre but do read a fair deal. Maybe I am wrong but I just don’t like Brown.

  7. You are one person. You can not like the book… I really don’t care.

    But you are someone who didn’t read the book, so all of what you are saying is something you have been told or read, and what you have is an opinion formed from little knowledge into what you are even talking about.

    Hate the book… I don’t care… I’m not offended.

    But it’s one of the biggest selling books of all time. All these people can’t be wrong.

  8. I didn’t like the choice of Tom as Robert in the movie. I thought he was too drab and calm for the role. Although I couldn’t tell you who i would have replaced him with. In my mind when i read the book i got the impression that Robert’s character was definitely more passionate, younger and an possible a fairly sophisticated looker. Tom brought none of those things to this movie.

    And to note of the book itself. I enjoyed the book…i didn’t think it was “incredible” as everyone built it up to be. But i think that was largely the media and the religious controversy it was stirring.

    i think that you have to read more of his books to really understand him as a writer. I have read 4 of his books: Deception Point, Digital Fortress, Angels and Demons, and The Da Vinci Code.

    I think his books are actually fairly entertaining and i don’t think the majority of them were written to provoke thought, but to simply entertain. i think he did a good job of that in all four books. Although i do have to agree on the point that Da Vinci Code was his slowest book…but it was also the most interesting (and different) plot out of the 4.

    Regardless of the fact that the man was sued multiple times for not crediting people where it was due, i don’t think that reflects on the fact that he created a book almost everyone i know has read. And that is an incredible feat in this DVD world.

  9. I agree with Manda on pretty much everything. The guy I thought would have been best to do the role of Robert Langdon was Ralph Fiennes. Tom Hanks was a terrible casting choice. I also agree that the book was much better than the movie.

  10. boooooooo bad movie, bad choice to play the lead guy.

  11. Y’think Tom Hanks was miscast??

    Wait till ya hear who they want for the fiery italian…GISELE (the model)

    now i don’t know who thought it was a good idea to allow models to act….but baring a select few – every one of them has been RUBBISH! They make a career of standing looking vacant.

    The casting of the camerlengo is also very important to me. get that wrong and it’s all out the window. Problem is anyone who is any good for that role will act Tom Hanks off the screen so they can’t have that when they are paying him $50m.

    sheessh. i wish ron howard would just leave the blockbusters to the professionals. spielberg, cameron or ridley scott would at least do it justice


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: