2007-02-07 11:05:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Because the part was never made for visual art. We are supposed to FEEL that we ARE the protaganist. The clever thing about the D'Vinci Code, is that you always feel you are one step ahead of the book.
Once made to watch it on screen, we cease to be the detective, and are merely attached to the personna of Tom Hanks.
Midsommer Murders abroad I'm afraid.
BYTW - I'm a big fan of the original book - just a little sick of people taking a novel so seriously!
The protaganist's (in this particular film) 'charactor, is dull. He was never written as a personality, but as a vessel to tell the story.
2007-02-07 11:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Madam Rosmerta 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That role should have gone to Harrison Ford in the first place. Tom Hanks is an accomplished actor no doubt about it. Saving Private Ryan was an awesome movie! The problem with Tom in my opinion is that he does not personify the main character (Robert Langdon) in the book's version. I mean, for crying out loud, even Tom Hank's hair is all wrong. Gotta read the book man! If you read or were to read the book, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.
2007-02-07 11:18:32 · answer #2 · answered by mad_professor07 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't think his acting was that bad it was mostly his looks. From the book I thought that Robert Langdon was suppose to be a smart dashing mid 30's guy. Tom Hanks looked to be too old for the role. His hair was gross in this movie too.
I didn't really like Audrey Tatou either. I didn't think she was pretty enough.
2007-02-07 11:14:33 · answer #3 · answered by magooi1234 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it wasnt his looks or the book people who read the book expected the movie to be more like the book but if they had made the movie as good as the book it would be like 5 hours long i think people built it up in their heads to much and when it finally came out they were dissapointed because they expected so much out of a movie. no movie will ever be as good as the book.
people put it on a pedastool which isnt goodand besides tom hanks is only human i commmon people seriously.
2007-02-07 11:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by Jenny 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you've read the Da Vinci Code, you'll catch my drift.
2007-02-08 02:59:42 · answer #5 · answered by black cherry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear Wing, please outline the criteria you are using to evaluate the contribution of Mr. Hanks to the movie. Is your criticism aesthetic, cerebral or based on ignorance of the sensibility an actor is expected to bring to his work? ps Do try to capitalise your words correctly.
2007-02-07 11:21:10 · answer #6 · answered by poppy vox 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah I'm with you. I read the book and was really disappointed by the film!
2007-02-07 11:11:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he isn't that great an actor and also the book is ridiculous!!
2007-02-08 00:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by bottomburps 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really think you're wrong. It was a magnificent performance.
2007-02-07 11:16:54 · answer #9 · answered by mreed316 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it was because his looks didn't fit the role, but he wasn't THAT bad... In my opinion... He wasn't that great in that movie though.
2007-02-07 11:10:02 · answer #10 · answered by Katherine Lee 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋