I've read the book and watched the movie.

What do you think of the movie? And of Tom Hanks in that particular role?

@zolabud: so, does my password list comply with you? (:

@david: I thought the movie was equally as good as the book, if you take it at face value (a fiction thriller), it kept me as much on the edge of the seat, as the book was a page turner.

And Tom Hanks in that role, mmm, I always thought of Langdon as more of a silver fox kind of guy, regardless of how Dan Brown describes him. Mr Hanks didn't fit the bill to me in that regard.

I saw the movie - didn't read the book, though. I am told that it completely lacks literary qualities, but gives you more details on "christianity's best kept secret".

Couldn't really get exited by the whole thing. The idea of Jesus as a man and as a lover is hardly new, and to be honest I don't really care about what a few angry christians think about it.

"Hollywood makes movie-version of supposedly controversial faux-intellectual thriller novel and blandness ensues".

jdreng, we can agree on the book not breaking any new literary ground, but the level of suspense in the book, which in no small part is due to the topic, can not be denied. That's how I see it anyway, and they carried that into the movie quite well.

I haven't seen the film yet, but when I heard that Tom Hanks got the part as Langdon, I instantly thought "What? Why?"

I was thinking more along the lines of a Pierce Brosnan-kind of guy - but NOT Pierce Brosnan..

Yes, Pierce Brosnan, but NOT Pierce Brosnan would've been a better pick. I've heard rumours that Tom Hanks accepted a smaller fee for playing in the movie, because he really wanted the part.

It doesn't add up in my head though. It doesn't seem like the budget of the movie has been so small they had to worry about cutting costs on the actor side.

Yes in way they do, beacause I'm no regular jane or joey;))