New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Jim Van Nest: I'm with JD on this one. I've yet to hear a person who's read both books that has said that The Da Vinci Code was the better book. The worry for the film, though, is that Joe Moveigoer doesn't know that Angels & Demons is the better book. They just know that The Da Vinci Code sucked.

I think we're looking at less than $40 million to open and probably a final take in the $120-130 million range. But I also think we'll be looking at a much better film this time around.

Reagen Sulewski: Everyone tells me Angels & Demons is the better book of the series, but that's damning with faint praise. And for all the hype surrounding The Da Vinci Code, even fans admitted it wasn't a good movie. I wouldn't be shocked at a halving of TDVC's totals.

Pete Kilmer: I really liked A&D as a book, and the movie should be decent. Will it be as big as The Da Vinci Code? No. Will the dvd double package sell a ton of discs? Hell yes.

David Mumpower: I think Angels & Demons is the most interesting of the major May releases. $217.5 million worth of people wanted to see The Da Vinci Code. What they discovered was what probably seemed to them like a National Treasure clone although the reverse was actually true. There were also quality issues with the movie that have been referenced already here. I'm not sure what percentage of that $217.5 million of consumers liked what they paid to see, but I doubt it was more than 50%. Is this going to be another Prince Caspian scenario? That franchise lost over 50% of its customers when it dropped from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe's $291.7 million to $141.6 million. Rather than assuming that Angels & Demons drops 52% from The Da Vinci Code, let's assume it earns roughly that same amount as Prince Caspian's $140 million. Is that enough to justify the sequel? I'm posing that as a theoretical, because that's about what I expect from Angels & Demons. I don't think it completely falls apart as it is a sequel (which is idiotic, as JD points out) to a hugely well known and discussed film. I also think it suffers from the problem Calvin Trager diagnosed last year with Prince Caspian. It lacks the name recognition tie to its predecessor that would help it the most in terms of branding. Still, this is Tom Hanks doing a sequel, which is very rare in and of itself, a first if we don't count Toy Story vocal acting. I have to think that matters enough to carry this into the $140-$150 million range. I would not be shocked if this wound up being one of the biggest disappointments of the summer, though. There seem to be more negatives than positives.

Kim Hollis: I agree that Angels & Demons has a lot of potential to disappoint, but it's also the kind of movie that might just get enough pull from the 30+ demographic - one that is pretty severely underserved - to do better than we might expect. Tom Hanks is still a draw, I think, and you don't ever want to count out a tentpole release with his name attached. The marketing of the film is going to be critical, because they're going to need to distance themselves from The Da Vinci Code somewhat even as they establish that Angels & Demons is a sequel. This is going to be a fine line to walk, and will make the difference in opening weekend as well as overall box office.

Continued:       1       2       3       4