that fuckin' ginger.

needed to get that off my chest.

ANGELS AND DEMONS, in the literary sense, came first. They've reworked the story so that it follows DA VINCI, but Dan Brown wrote and released DEMONS before DA VINCI. That being said, I'm looking forward to the movie.

Let's hope old Ron redeems himself with this.

quite possibly the worst movie of Ron Howard's career. And I'm sorry to say that the clips and trailers I've seen from ANGELS & DEMONS look even more stupid. Maybe Ewan McGregor and Armin Müller-Stahl can save the film, Tom Hanks' hairpiece certainly can't.<br><br> That said, Zimmer's score for the first part was decent, *especially* for the finale. As long as he works with it and doesn't just repeat it, unchanged, ad nauseam.

I even intend to incorporate the "Volcano" track into some of my DJ sets.

if The DaVinci Code hadn't been such a suckfest. I turned it off halfway through, and I even kinda liked the novels.

I'm surprised this movie got made. Da Vinci Code was a B-grade movie based on a popular, though poorly researched novel and Angels & Demons is a worse book. The music, though, was the best part of Da Vinci. And I like both Ron Howard and Tom Hanks.

It's a better book to begin with, and it looks like they've included pretty much everything from it. Though Langdon in the book is more Harrison Ford than Hanks.

Just to clarify, the 'Angels & Demons' book came before 'The DaVinci Code', and is in many ways a superior novel. However, 'The DaVinci Code' movie came first and didn't live up to its potential - be it from director Howard, star Hanks, writer Goldsman or novelist Brown. (but this frequently happens in translation.) The 'Angels & Demons' book is far more visual than 'The DaVinci Code' and should lend to a better film. Let's hope all involved bring their A-game. There's a lot of potential here... and if you haven't already, I definately recommend reading both novels.

The other Dan Brown books, non-Langdon books Deception Point and Digital Fortress are more fun than either of the Langdon books. The savory parts of DaVinci and Angels&Demons is the feeling Brown gives you that you are sneaking peeks at forbidden secrets. Great for reading a book, not so great when you have Ron Howard using words like 'Robert Langdon's journey, Langdon's adventure' when describing what he has tried to make from the books. But the two other books are much more visceral, and when A&D hits and makes money, there is no doubt that the other two will eventually get made, and hopefully with a different director and more appropriate casting.

Aside from Audrey Tautou. [sigh]

I have to say...I was thinking the same thing. I didn't think the Code was really bad, but Hanks was just not right for the part. He did it well, but when I read the books I wasn't thinking him. I guess that Indiana Jones has sullied our minds to think there is only one person to play academic adventures

to compose this "Hans Zimmer score"?

Please say yes or no and give me a few reasons. I will only see it if it is better than a double bill of INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE and HUDSON HAWK.

Is it worth seeing? Well, are you a huge fan of the novel? If so, you probably won't feel anything but disappointment. If you never read it, then it is well-made enough as a piece of cinema. It simply takes the strengths of the novel and trivializes them, and makes the books 'filler' into the actual movie. Ugh. To be totally honest, I would probably enjoy watching Hudson hawk again over either of the other two.

Way better than the Da Vinci Code, I was actually bothered when I read that they were making Code first instead of Angels. The controversy was good enough for them to go that route, but as stand alone movies, Code just cannot touch Angels & Demons, so as a sequel it would have just paled in comparison. Good move IMO, it's a much better thriller, and much bigger in scope, if you can get over the "Jesus and Mary" banged thing.

they are shit...painfully bad writing and astoundingly bad research.

Well then, write 4 best-sellers of your own. How hard can it be to write so painfully badly, and do bad research, and become a multi-millionaire? Anyway, what is it with this 'bad writing' thing? Is that just the 'cool kid' thing to say these days? How about an example of the 'painfully bad writing'? What's so bad about it? DId you take notes on the bad writing when you read all 4 of them?

then I'll go see it. Is that PC? Not that I care, just wondering!

<p>like in the book? <p>the catholic priests did a number of Langdon's female companion in that book.hot damn. <p>but anyway,even if the movie is pg13,i am going to watch it.demons and angels is indeed way better than davinci code.

...here's hoping the movie matches that sentiment. It's not a sequel, but... eh... life goes on.

just saying...

The Hassassin attempted to rape the girl, but failed. I don't remember any Catholic priests gang-banging the girl in the book. Are you perhaps confusing it with your own childhood? :D

what? only holywood has the right to adapt books? ;) <p>but in a serious note,the actress who has been casted for the female lead character of the story (a jewish woman who was adopted and raised by an italian scientist/catholic priest if i remember correctly) is ugly,very ugly i might say. <p>check her in the imdb

the hassassin must be blind or desperate in order to want to rape her.and langdon falls in love with her.even worse. <p>at least amelie is cute.

Unlike Horner, Zimmer just keeps evolving and upping his game.

The problem with adapting the books, and what makes the books so popular, are all the many interesting details. How to squeeze it all into a film isn't easy.

But having read them you can do either one first. There's only a minor mention of the events from the previous book, and then the rest is a story unto itself, no big.

Remarkably mediocre movie. This doesn't look any better. Seriously, who gives a crap about this religious bullshit?

I liked TDvC a lot more after the 2nd viewing. LOVE the above mentioned score during the finale.

...Somebody PLEASE turn that book into a film!

On an AICN talkback that's a first. <P> All we've had is one slight against Horner's name (can you blame a guy for having found a sound and sticking with it?), but that's nothing unexpected. But seriously, no Zimmer attacks. Gives me a little faith that perhaps these talkbacks (or at least this one) have matured. <P> Just waiting for that faith to be ripped away in 3.. 2.. 1...

Da Vinci sucked, but this one looks good. It's looks more "fun" than the first one.

honestly, its makes no difference at all what order these two stories are told in. Da Vinci had zero references to Angels and Demons, and infact, the idea that the church turns to him AFTER the events of Da Vinci is an interesting idea. fuck it, i gotta admit i liked the first movie. i actually even preferred the movies ending to the book.

The music from Da Vinci Code is actually better then the film, which isn't a difficult feat. I'm blown away by what they've done with this music, and yes, the film looks interesting to me. I'll be there. <br><br>There's something that pulls me about the effects of religion throughout world history.

Six. One to hold the baton, and five to move the podium around.

...you focus on one of the bright spots: the soundtrack/music. I'm wondering if this flick will be as terrible as DA VINCI CODE. Yeah, I know it was a huge hit, but then, so was PAUL BLART: MALL COP. It didn't make either one any good.

KHAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!

I do want to see where he takes the rest of the score. He seems to be doing something similar to what he did with Batman Begins. Bringing a theme towards the end and expanding it in the sequel. I'm not too excited for the film, but the score's one I want to hear.