First Look: Four Official Photos from Angels and Demons
The first batch of official photos from Ron Howard's upcoming Angels and Demons have been unveiled over at USA Today. We've got out first look at Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra, and Ewan McGregor as Carlo Ventresca. This isn't officially due out in theaters until next summer, but it's wise of Sony to start promoting it this early. In addition to the photos, producer Brian Grazer provides some commentary on the production, primarily focusing on the biggest sales tactic for this one - how it's not going to be as boring as The Da Vinci Code. He explains that that was "a puzzle movie. It wasn't a contemporary movie. It was a little static. This one is more dynamic. It's an action movie."
Angels and Demons, which is yet again directed by Ron Howard and adapted by screenwriter Akiva Goldsman from Dan Brown's popular novel, is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code. Grazer finally admits some of the mistakes they made on Da Vinci Code, which did well at the box office, but was highly disliked by moviegoers. "I think we may have been too reverential toward it. We got all the facts of the book right, but the movie was a little long and stagey." So how will they prevent that same thing from happening this time around? "Langdon doesn't stop and give a speech," Grazer says. "When he speaks, he's in motion." Anyone who has read the book knows that it progresses at a much different pace than Da Vinci Code.
Below you'll see the first four official photos from the film. The first shows Langdon and Vetra in what looks like one of the final scenes outside of the Vatican; the second shows an interior shot of the Vatican that was replicated in Los Angeles because they weren't allowed to actually shoot inside the real Vatican; the third shows Ewan McGregor as Carlo Ventresca; and the fourth shows Langdon, Vetra, Ventresca, and Lieutenant Chartrand (played by Danish actor Thure Lindhardt) investigating clues underground.
An ancient secret brotherhood. A devastating new weapon of destruction. An unthinkable target. When world-renowned Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to his first assignment to a Swiss research facility to analyze a mysterious symbol -- seared into the chest of a murdered physicist -- he discovers evidence of the unimaginable: the resurgence of an ancient secret brotherhood known as the Illuminati -- the most powerful underground organization ever to walk the earth. The Illuminati has now surfaced to carry out the final phase of its legendary vendetta against its most hated enemy -- the Catholic Church.
Angels & Demons is directed by prolific filmmaker Ron Howard, of everything from Willow to Backdraft to Apollo 13 to A Beautiful Mind to the previous The Da Vinci Code. The script was written by veteran screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, of Lost in Space, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, The Da Vinci Code, and I Am Legend previously. This is based on Dan Brown's bestselling novel of the same name. Sony will be debuting Angels & Demons in theaters on May 15th, 2009 next summer.
Reader Feedback - 24 Comments
Angels and Demons was a better book in my opinion, so I can only hope it becomes a better movie.
TBone on Oct 28, 2008
Fuck Ron Howard.
Voice Of Reason on Oct 28, 2008
Voice of Reason, Did he touch you in your no-no spot when you were younger?
Mike McRorey on Oct 28, 2008
Illuminati vs The Church? Huh. Maybe I'll read it.
vegeta on Oct 28, 2008
Looks like a better version of National Treasure and a worse version of Indiana Jones.
Peloquin on Oct 28, 2008
It's a good book, better than the first. I'm curious to see how the execute the final conflict scenes. Hope Mr. Hanks likes heights!
Psybil on Oct 28, 2008
Agreed with Tbone... Angels and Demons is the better book. Though I can't say that I hated the movie, The Da Vinci Code.
Daniel on Oct 28, 2008
Angels & Demons is just a GREAT book. You all should read it. It has all the necessary element to make a terrific action movie. If you care about this comment: The Da Vinci Code movie (really) sucks, but that doesn't mean that this movie shouldn't be great. Besides of the character, is a completely different tone whatsoever.
Jorge Leiner on Oct 28, 2008
These dont look like anything, what are you guys talking about. Its Just some picture of a priest walking and the cast away fully dressed. There is nothing exciting in these images, there is no technology, nothing. The angels and demons book was good, but the first movie that we saw made SUCKED, Tom hanks was so into accepting of opinions it made it hard to watch. Then the just ended it. I dont knowif id be able to see another one.
THERBLIG on Oct 28, 2008
McRorey, I do covet my wallet as a no-no spot for strangers, so I guess he did! I just think his directing approach is too obvious and not that refined, let alone worthy of the talent amassed in his films. "Okay, Okay, well, you see, this robot, he's got a heart-breaking decision to make about whether his best friend lives...or dies. . . . .His best friend's a talking pie!" "Sold! Howard, you've done it again!"
Voice Of Reason on Oct 28, 2008
I'm looking forward to this movie. I think it will be better than Th Da Vinci Code, based on the fact that this book moved alot faster and had more action. I think that most people know how the pope is elected so we will not have to see as much explanation about what is going on in the background and that shouls allow for a faster moving movie.
CK on Oct 28, 2008
If Howard narrates this I'm in... I miss Arrested Development...
Peloquin on Oct 28, 2008
Don't mess with Ron Howard! He directed Willow!..... Willow! This movie should be interesting!
The_Phantom on Oct 28, 2008
i actually enjoyed the movie, but mostly because I loved the book so much. I also didn't mind the puzzle aspect, because the story was so intriguing. I hope Howard is better able to translate the book to film for this one.
Kevin on Oct 28, 2008
Oh no! Not the Illuminati! The all seeing eye is watching, just like the vaticans fat baby jesus. Reckon this film will be good, the first was okay too, people take these made up stories way too serious, if I was Jesus, I'd be screwing the crazy hooker too, much better than his devout followers and teachers preying on infants...
Crapola on Oct 28, 2008
Voice of Reason, I understand where you are coming from. But I seriously just busted out laughing when I read this part: "Okay, Okay, well, you see, this robot, he's got a heart-breaking decision to make about whether his best friend lives…or dies. . . . .His best friend's a talking pie!" It reminded me of the Family Guy's or some cartoon that made fun of Stephen King running out of material..picking a random object in the room and writing a story about it killing people.
Mike McRorey on Oct 28, 2008
I'm w/ number two. Fuck Ron Howard as a director. I've only liked one of his films and that was Apollo 13 and that's because it was actually good! Cocooon was boring, Gung Ho had terrible plot, Willow sucked, Parenthood was strange. It didn't know if it wanted to be a comedy or a drama. It sure wasn't a very well executed dramedy that's for sure. Backdraft was boring as was The Paper, Ransom and Edtv - just another Truman show. Grinch, Beautiful Mind and The Missing all boring as hell. That last one had a terribly misleading trailer if anyone remembers. Never saw Cinderella Man, but i can't stand Crowe neither so screw that. Da Vinci code was a good book and an awful awful movie. Not looking forward to Angels and Demons whatsoever. Despite the book was good, not great. Now Watchmen - that's a great book/graphic novel.
Conrad on Oct 28, 2008
@ 16... I believe the voice of reason was using a direct quote from the Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally parachutes through Mel Gibson's cabin roof and meets Ron Howard.
Peloquin on Oct 29, 2008
'The Da Vinci Code' boring? Who claimed that? That movie was far from it. And to comment on these pictures, number 2 does look like it will be thrilling to watch.
J: on Oct 29, 2008
Yep, i think the Simpsons quote of Howard selling shit to the studios and having them enthusiastically buy it pretty much sums it up.
Voice Of Reason on Oct 29, 2008
Filming this movie first would more than likely helped Da Vinci gain far more sucess, especially if it was done right, the plot is far more personal and relevant to the masses, not giving anything away...i cant see Ron Howard including all the moments that make the book such a page turner Especially when it comes to the antagonists and the deeds carried out, there are some very complex characters and moments within this story to bring to life, to all that love good movies i urge you to pick up a copy of this book and read it for yourself before this movie releases, its very well written and too good of a story for it to be introduced as a film 1st and a book 2nd to the uninitiated. Don't let Hollywood ruin this one for you.
Vega on Oct 29, 2008
i second #19... i for one loved the Da Vinci code movie... it was as close to the book as possible with some brilliant bits... like the part where teabing explains the grail mystery to sophie, the part where langdon visualizes the tomb of newton... i loved the movie... i love everything ron howard does... he has a gift... and i am sure that angels and daemons is going to be amazing... this is the first time i am reading aboout Ewan McGreggor being a part of the movie... and when reading the book i pictured him or jude law to be the character... not a bad choice... but i think Ewan might be a little to old or a little too scruffy to play the part... we'll see...
viral on Oct 30, 2008
I wonder what the reptilians will look like and how much they will resemble Queen Elizabeth.
Titus Curendaro on Nov 3, 2008
'The Da Vinci Code(2006)-The Movie' was cool. Howard tried his best as possible to do justice to the novel. But its impossible to put everything from a good well-detailed book into a 2-hour movie. I liked Howards's 'Apollo 13(1994)', 'A Beautiful Mind(2001)' and 'TDVC'. Backdraft was just about OK for its thrilling scenes. People usually like A&D more than TDVC because the former is a FAST-PACED action-based thriller story while the latter is a puzzle-based with VERY little action in it. But both have distinct identities. By the way, I can't really recall when in the novel does the situation in the fourth photo occur ? Can any body help me ? Just curious.
Amol on Feb 16, 2009
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.