Dan Brown is such a damn hack. I'm passing on this movie.

He's not a hack. The DaVinci Code was not a good adaptation and I actually liked 'Angels&Demons' better than it. Let's hope this is good.

It's just my opinion. I really dislike his writing "style."

(I actually imagine the movie would have been better because you wouldn't have to read his clunky prose.)

Again, though, just an opinion.

Just not interested at all.

Yeah I wasn't trying to be mean but 'hack' is kind of harsh. I think he's a decent writer and it's a shame they made TDC so well...awful.

Understood

I didnt like the DaVinci code at all. I was so bored.

It's going to be a great movie!

Okay I actually just watched the trailer and it looks really good!

I didn't like the movie version of Da Vinci Code, so I'd be worried they'd mess this up too.

I read angels and demons first, and i liked it better than the Davinci Code.

THe movie adaptation? I think Opie Cunningham could have done a better job, I mean really...Tom Hanks? Not who i envisioned.

Dan Brown IS a hack, he's a terrible writer. He's more interested in showing off his research than actually concerning himself with pesky things like plot. He lets himself get diverted into long explanations about history or totally unrelated trivia bits that have nothing to do with the plot, and his prose is clunky. He's the kind of writer that uses 60 words when 3 would do.

I think his plotting is okay--I read Da Vinci Code on a flight--my problem with him is just that he has such, such a tin ear for prose, dialogue, and, well, just generally putting words together on the page.

Oh, and he plagerizes himself, because the plot for Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and Deception Point are all exactly. the. same. Which is terribly boring.

And he's wrong wrong wrong about a ton of art history stuff, too.

Also the Da Vinci Code premise wasn't particularly original. Didn't Graham Hancock cover that territory like a decade or longer before DVC?

*I would have given him a pass on both the plagiarizing himself thing and the premise that had been hashed out and disproven ages ago thing if he was just a better writer.

A book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail was published in 1982. It wasn't fiction, like a novel, but was alot of speculation and what ifs. Alot of information from it was used in Dan Brown's novel, DaVinci Code.

That said, I think the books are entertaining. I enjoy reading them, but I enjoyed Angels and Demons more.
I think it will be more difficult to adapt than DaVinci, so I'm concerned.

"I would have given him a pass on both the plagiarizing himself thing and the premise that had been hashed out and disproven ages ago thing if he was just a better writer."

Totally agree with you, Jude C!

Oh yeah--that's the book I was thinking of, Jinx. I don't know why I thought of Graham Hancock.

suziryder.

He never claimed any of it to be true.

I'm not really defending him but I did like this book. I agree though, I tried to read Deception Point and I couldn't it was too familiar....

It reminds me of Clive Cussler a little, where he takes some fact, and builds a fiction story around it.
You just can't take it too seriously.

I have to admit that I'm a tad curious as I wasn't even aware of the book "Angels & Demons." I'm always interested in the fanciful and dark pseudo-history tales. Fiction is born of a free-wheeling thinker's marrying of known falsehoods with reality.

I actually enjoyed the movie very much but I can not get into the book. It puts me to sleep ha-ha.

I may check out angels and demons and no I haven't read that book either.

I just hope the whole focus of this movie isn't Tom Hank's hairstyle

well here's the interesting thing - i wasn't really overly thrilled that they made the da vinci code, yet i went to see it after the buzz was done with and i enjoyed it - but the book was better. now with this one, i don't know how i feel about it. chances are i'll go see it but i don't know if i'll be as excited about it. luckily we have months and months to get psyched up about it.

I'm in the minority that Love him I guess. I liked DVC but LOVED Angels & Deamons. I wish I had read it first. And I read it after Pope John Paul died so it was neat that I had actually seen the death of a pope and the picking of a new pope in my lifetimes, so I really understood it more.

The DaVinci Code book was phenomenal, but the movie was horrendous. They took out all of the page-turning wrong turns that the characters took in the book. Instead, they always seemed to reach the right conclusion right away, which it made it incredibly boring.
Angels & Demons was a really great book as well, and I'm so worried they're going to completely screw this one up as well.

I didn't like either book or the movie, and I'm not interested in this one either. I pretty much agree with all the hack comments...

I read "Angels & Demons" before "The DaVinci Code" and thought it ("Angels & Demons") was a better book. We may go see it, although we were disappointed with "DaVinci Code." My best wish, a good hair day for Tom Hanks' character.

I am ambivalent about this, I didn't read this book. I really enjoyed The Da Vinci Code as a book, but the movie was boring.

Dan Brown is a pseudo-intellectual. He just tries to sound smart by throwing in a lot of historical jargon in his books, but his books lack any form of depth and he fails miserably at hiding it. I'm not saying he has to use inflated language, but his writing style is something I'd expect kids in elementary school to read! (maybe!) What's worse is, he think he's Umberto Eco. HA. Not only is he not, it's also just plain bad that he tries to copy another author.

*author's style.

When I read the books I always pictured Robert Langdon exactly like Sam Neill. I wish they had cast him!
What did you all think he looked like?

EuroLaura, Sam Neill is a great call! I'm not sure if I had a specific actor in mind, but it WASN'T Tom Hanks.

The main thing that bothers me with Dan Brown is how similar all of his plots are, and of course the clunky writing. But in his defense, I think the man is an intellectual - I've seen him speak many times and he's really sharp, responds without hesitation to interrogation - but he would have made a better historian than fiction writer.

I don't think Dan Brown is a good writer. I really dislike his writing style. And I completely agree austerity, he's trying to be Umberto Eco. I don't know if he would have been a good historian, I don't think so, but I don't know enough about the subject. But as a fiction writer, I wouldn't even call him mediocre, just plain bad.

About the movie, I'm not interested at all. The Da Vinci Code was really bad, and this looks like the second part.

I guess I fall into the category of people who like him. I enjoyed The Da Vinci code ( at least the book) and i really like Angels and Demons. I'm a History Major in school right now, so at least for me , its nice to read a book every now and then that doesn't require a lot of thought or note taking... Dan Brown defiantly delivers an easy read with an interesting take on history even if it is fiction.

I'm going to read the book first before May. I did enjoy the DaVinci Code though. I thought it was great.

I actually really really preferred Angels and Demons to the DaVinci Code and I'm going to hope they learned from the mistakes they made with the DVC film adaptation. The trailer looks good, I'll definitely see it.

I thought the storylines behind both books were highly entertaining but I completely agree that Dan Brown is just a terrible writer. I never had high hopes for the movies though because I think Tom Hanks (while a wonderful actor) was seriously miscast. Sam Neil would have been a great choice. When I first read the books, I imagined George Clooney in that role.

Angels and Demons was actually before DaVinci Code. And the book is always better than the movie.
I agree, I didn't see Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon either.

I, too, liked Angels and Demons a lot better than The DaVinci Code. I totally saw Nicolas Cage as Robert Langdon, not Tom Hanks.

The Da Vince Code movie falls under the category of "good book, BAD movie"... maybe they learned their lesson and this one will be better?

i read angels and demons before da vinci code ... and it was waaaay better. i stayed up finishing it and couldnt put it down. when i read dvc i got bored and flipped thru the end. the movie wasnt htat good. tom hanks really threw me off - george clooney, robert redford, harrison ford would have been better.

I hate that all his books are the same and Dan Brown is a poor writer. Though I must admit angels and demons was a decent easy read, and it seemed to be a good book-movie kind of thing.

I really liked reading The Da Vinci Code, and I thought Angels and Demons was waaaaay better. I hated the movie, though. I hope they don't screw this one up too.

I really enjoyed "Davinci Code" and then read "Angels and Demons" which I actually thought was a better book. But all of that Dan Brown stuff led me to "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and I have to admit that the authors of that book SHOULD have won their law suit against Dan Brown, b/c he completely stole everything from THEIR book.

It's not a quick read like "Davinci Code" but well worth it. That book finally led me to a documentary called "Bloodines" that was excellent. This after watching many many many of this type of documentary only to be disappointed and not find a credible source in any of them. Bloodlines in truly great!

I think the trailer for this one looks pretty good and I am willing to spend 10 bucks to see it, even if Davinci Code the movie was disappointing.

dude...im so excited i actually liked angels and demons more than the da vinci code, this movie better be good.

Books have always been better than screen adaptations. Such a shame because Dc could have been better as a movie. I have always preferred Angels and Demons more than DC. I'll go see this movie also, I think it can be filmed for more impact with this story more than Dc.

Both novels by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are excellent. Perhaps a different director who doesn't feel the need to always include his BFF, Tom Hanks, as the lead might have been able to give a more honest and exciting visual interpretation. Neither movie came close to capturing the core essence and profound attraction of the novels' characters and plots. And Tom Hanks, although a competent actor, was a poor casting choice for Langdon, thereby, sinking both movies from the "get-go". The novels deal interestingly and intelligently with controversial, delicate issues. Both novels are exciting, written with strong plots and uniquely compeling characters. Religious zealots deal with these novels by calling Dan Brown a poor writer, fearing that the truth that organized religion is just a big business enterprise will enlighten even more intelligent people.

Unfortunately Ron Howard drove a nail through both novels with his film adaptations. He did not capture the dark side of the novels, nor did he exhibit the profound shock that needed to be conveyed on screen. Better director choices would have been Scorsese or Tim Burton. And certainly Tom Hanks should never have been given the role of Langdon. I was delighted when Ron Howard announced he was going to bring The DaVinci Code to the screen until he presented Tom Hanks as Langdon. Then I knew it was going to not reach the pinnacle that it should. When he did it again (since it is the same lead character) in Angels and Demons - I just thought, "What a waste." I would have liked to have seen Scorsese or Tim Burton interpret these novels to the visual medium. Too bad.