Early reviews are not good at all.
We all know it will be a hit, and I am sure the locations will be beautiful.
But...
Why else would anyone who has read this crappy book want to see this movie? You already know the twists and "startling" theory.
And add to that the fact that you will have to look at Tom Hank's AWFUL hairdo for two hours...I think I will pass.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
I don't like this post. I'm going to rewrite it below.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
I'm not so sure it's going to be that big a hit.
I mean, who cares? The readers of the book?
The whole world read "Jonathon Livingston Seagull" at one time but nobody went to see that movie.
I'm looking forward to it, based on the cast and locations alone. I think it's too early to bitch about the movie's quality since only a few hundred people have seen it.
I was all revved up by the hype and locations but I just listened to Matt Lauer dance around giving an opinion and wow, he had a hard time saying anything good.
I would rather they had made a film out of Tom Wilson Weinberg's LESBIAN SEAGULL than of Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
Oh, and ckeaton, I am not bitching about it, I was just pointing out the fact that some of those few hundred people are critics who think it stinks.
Jonathan Livingston Seagull didn't star Tom Hanks, but I think you're onto something, Namo.
This movie will definitely "open" big, but after that... I have a feeling it's going to die very quickly. These early reviews are pretty not-so-good.
Other vastly popular books come to mind that had tanker flicks: Bonfire of the Vanities, The Bridges of Madison County, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
At least Clint Eastwood wasn't involved in this one, but I think the best-seller curse is back.
Critics often dislike movies that open with this much advance ballyhoo. So do the denizens of Internet Broadway message boards. Doesn't mean people won't go.
It may be crap but it's got Jesus and Mary Mag doing the dirty, Vatican villainy and a murderous albino monk in a hood.
I'll go.
:)
I think critics get their panties in a bunch when a movie as hyped as this comes out. It's as if they get miffed that their opinion will mean nothing to the film's gross, and the claws come out.
Though I agree... that whole segment with Matt Lauer was awkward, from him tiptoe-ing around saying the movie looked "good". To the whole Katie/Him vibe.
Sorry to spoil your fun, Sueleen. But I'm seriously going to see Paul Bettany as Silas, the mysterious murderous monk from Opus Dei.

Google Video: Meet Silas
Matt, who would you have cast?
In my head, it was Harrison Ford. But that might be typecasting by me.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/29/05
I'll see it. I enjoyed the book, but the movie won't be quite as good since I already know all the twists and surprises. I'll still go see it.
Side note: I would have cast Hugh Laurie as Robert Langdon, but that's just me.
I also had Harrison Ford in my head as the prof.
Silas doesn't look very albino to me in that photo
I'll wait for the musical.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/29/05
Yes - Harisson Ford would have been good. Also Richard Gere.
It's not that I don't like Tom Hanks, but when I heard that he was to play the prof, my reaction was "meh." Didn't get me revved in the least.
I was watching this bit on The History Channel last night re: Opus Dei. Interesting story.
I just didn't get the appeal of the book, and lord knows, I tried. I also don't really see Tom Hanks as role appropriate, but I've never really hated him in anything, so why not...
Yeah, I'll probably slink in, early in the run, just because it's an event.
I'm such a lemming sometimes.
Tommy Tune's got this great idea of mixing Opus Dei with Opus One, and turning the whole thing into a toe-tapping Big Band number!
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/29/05
Yes, best12bars, The musical is going to be splendid!
My favorite numbers?
Tappin' at the Louvre
Everyone Loves a Cryptex
So Dark The Con of Man
Find Your Grail (borrowed, with cameo by David Hyde Pierce)
Updated On: 5/17/06 at 10:39 AM
While reading the book, I imagined Tom Wilkinson. Harrison Ford would have been an excellent choice as well. Richard Gere? Maybe. I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor, but I don't think he's right for every role and I'm just really burned out on him, Tom Cruise and Leonardo DiCaprio. I don't need to see them in anything for at least 10 years.
I heard it is awful.
"Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material; result is perhaps the best thing the project's critics could have hoped for." [Variety]
I've also heard it's terrible - which is a shame - I adored the book and I am incredibly anxious to see the movie. I was opposed to Hanks in the beginning, but then seeing him in the trailers sort of made me feel better.
I, too, had Harrison Ford in mind.
Videos