He had acted in GREEN MILE,which i think is the exact opposite of this movie DAVINCI CODE.
I thought hes more adhered to Christ.
2007-12-08 15:03:25 · 19 answers · asked by Yahoo board 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Its obvious it could be THE money factor but to take such a role..... I just couldn"t figure it out.
2007-12-08 15:04:52 · update #1
OMG. He's a pro actor. His religious affiliation has jack to do with what he chooses to do. What about people that play Satan? What about those that play Jesus or God?
2007-12-08 15:07:47 · answer #1 · answered by Rick 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What's wrong with the role of Robert Langdon? It is an interesting role, a chance to play an intellectual adventurer, and the chance to play the the role again when Angels and Demons is made and released.
The Davinci Code was fiction. It wasn't terribly brilliant writing but the story was interesting and captured people's attentions as did the movie. This is a great role for any actor.
And, I don't understand what you mean by his performance in The Green Mile? In the Green Mile, the character he played cowardly stands by while an innocent man is executed on the basis of racism and a morbic sense of duty. That character was horrible and it was also why he was doomed to a longer life span in the end of the film.
2007-12-08 15:13:09 · answer #2 · answered by jenn_smithson 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a good adventure story, and he got paid for it because it's his job. He's an actor. If he wanted to stick just with Christian based movies, and therefore drastically reduce his income & viewing audience, then I'm sure we'd all be seeing him in those ridiculous TimeLife Jesus movies. Looks like he's out to make a living, and not to preach. What a terrible person!
2007-12-08 15:12:10 · answer #3 · answered by MJF 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is an actor. A good (great) actor is one who can interpret different roles (even opposites) in a convincing way. He is a good actor. An intelligent person looks for what benefits him/ her. Big movie productions pay a lot of money to heir workers. Ergo, hi is an intelligent great actor who interprets different roles and gets paid for doing his job and looks for the job that benefits him the most.
It's all fiction, get over it.
2007-12-08 15:11:43 · answer #4 · answered by Lola 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because 1. The Da Vinci Code was not a condemnation of religion itself, but simply an alternate interpretation of it.
2. Actors are not constrained to act in films that are 100% in line with their beliefs....if they did that, they would be out of the biz in no time...
2007-12-08 15:11:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I thought he was great in The Davinci Code. It stuck to the book, which was in itself a miracle. Usually, they take the title and run with it. The story was good, and so was he.
The Green Mile was excellent.
Now, Castaway is a whole 'nuther story. Yuckky it was a waste of film,. and a waste of time.
Where did you learn your diction and grammar?
Go back, because you're not done.
2007-12-08 15:17:37 · answer #6 · answered by cassandra 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i presumed it grow to be merely an ok determination. they'd would have delivered in somebody greater effectual. Tom Hanks is especially great in drama video clips and the only movie the place he starred in that had extremely countless action grow to be Saving private Ryan.
2016-10-10 21:25:50 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure. It probably was the money. Then again that was probably an interesting movie to be in. Eventhough the idea itself is false, it's an interesting theory, I guess you could call it.
2007-12-08 15:10:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't seem to have much knowledge of Stephen King. He isn't exactly a saint.
2007-12-08 15:08:18 · answer #9 · answered by nyx コト 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He is an Actor. It was a Movie.
2007-12-08 15:06:51 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋