DISQUS

switchkosterice · 6 months ago

Did they film this as a sequel or as a prequel as it should be? From your review sounds like they completely disregarded the fact that Angels & Demons was the prequel to The Da Vinci Code. This disappoints me.

Cole Abaius · 6 months ago

Actually, they make a brief mention that the Vatican shouldn't be too happy with Langdon - sort of intimating that the events of A&D happen after The Da Vinci Code.

_Christopher_M · 6 months ago

too bad it will make a lot of money yet again...and of course the third movie is in development so Ron Howard and Hanks will be back for another cash in...every time I listen to Howard talk up these movies makes me question his knowledge of film and writing...I mean if he doesn't notice the awfulness of this material in the editing room, we should question his motives...most likely greed...I mean it would be nice to see Howard take on some original material that wasn't based on a play or novel...I know people praise him for Frost/Nixon but all he did was film a play that already had the same cast and performances...he didn't really add anything but better sets

Screen Rant · 6 months ago

Cole,

My review was pretty similar to yours - if you can check your brain at the door, it's not a bad film. Of course this isn't the sort of film where you should have to check your brain - I usually save that for Jason Statham films. :)

Vic

phrenetik · 6 months ago

Not only should you discard your brain (you should set it down on a respectable cabinet, at that) you should also not read the original book. I, for one, unfortunately had read it even before Ron-and-Tom had the idea of adapting The Da Vinci Code so I was a bit upset about taking out Carlo Ventresca, for whom Ewan McGregor's Patrick McKenna was supposed to replace. I mean, geez! Did they do it just to get Mr. McGregor to star in the movie or what?

A third movie is in the works? Gasp! I cannot for one imagine an entire franchise built upon the basalt rock of Hanks's Robert Langdon - a fact-spewing, tweed-wearing Harvard symbologist who consistently wears an 'uhhhh...?' expression on his face. He's no House. Heck, I'd pay to watch House be made into a movie franchise.

Kangaroo Be Stoned · 6 months ago

The problem is adapting from Dan Brown, who is on par with Stephanie Meyer..

nicky_cavella · 6 months ago

funny how ppl mention the film but not the book. probably at least 3ppl read the book but most decided to see the movie instead

bengibbard13 · 6 months ago

ron howard is not the problem, its adapting it into a movie

Frost vs nixon
cinderella man
beautiful mind
apollo 13

these are only a few of the good to great films hes done

hes a very talented director you christopher M you should know this before saying how terrible he is.

thats like saying sam raimi is a shitty director! (gasp) i said it! uh oh spiderman 3 haters will all flood FSR now!!!!!

LittleMovieMan · 6 months ago

Horrible rating man, that movie kicked so much @ss, but every one has an opinion so its cool

Reebee7 · 5 months ago

Low blow, man. Dan Brown might not be the most prolific writer, but at least he researches material like a hound and writes interesting plot. Stephanie Meyer pisses on paper and copies whatever splotches looked like words.
Oh look, that one looks like "Vampires that glitter."

Reebee7 · 5 months ago

I wouldn't give it a C-, more like a B, because I thought it was very entertaining. But I'll grant you the fact that it requires some rather grandiose leaps of logic.

silvia · 5 months ago

bad bad film! love Tom Hanks the man, and the actor, but in this BOOOOOR... i could not stand the actress, with the niether /nor accent, and too wordi... character, waist of time, and money!