While I was driving home from work the other morning, I heard on the radio that Dan Brown’s first conspiracy theory flop, Angels and Demons, is being filmed. Apparently there is some controversy because several churches/cathedrals are not allowing them to film in their holy buildings. The funny part is that while I did enjoy reading The Da Vinci Code, the movie absolutely stunk. The radio DJ’s, who I don’t normally appreciate, hit the head on the nail with similar claims. Rightly so, Tom Hanks’ hair piece usually ends up being the brunt of most jokes. Along with the question of why wasn’t "Angels and Demons" filmed first since it came before "The Da Vinci Code"?
Continuing that question, why make a sequel, or prequel in this case, if the first movie stunk? What or who decides that more time should be invested in another potential flop? "Angels and Demons" barely got read until after the success of The Da Vinci Code, and some critics would say that was totally lucky also. While I’m not denying the appeal factor of the latter, I am sick of being inundated by Hollywood’s feeble attempts at movie making in the 21st century. Also, why would Tom Hanks, a well-known, reputable actor, sign on for another round of poorly scripted confusion when he clearly did not need to. Where are our standards?
While it is no doubt, hard for movies to live up to their written counterparts, could the directors at least try to make the movie good? Do I need mention Harry Potter movies 3 - 5 ? If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand time, they should have kept Chris Columbus as the director for all the movies. Anyway, I’m sure I’ll rent it from the Public library when it finally comes out on DVD, but until then, I’ll keep searching for another good book.
P.S. By the way, I have read Angels and Demons, and for me, it just didn't have that fast-pased drive that I was looking for. Sorry Dan.
No comments:
Post a Comment