cara you know me?
sounds unlikely. perhaps you meant you know what kinda guy i am.
i too apologise fer the insults

I like Jean Reno, that is great news

I am a HUGE fan of Keifer Sutherland, but I'm not sure that he's good for this role. Keifer tends to play very brooding characters with conflicted insides. He is brilliant at doing that. I remember Lost Boys ... and Young Guns ... but in any case, Langdon is supposed to be a tall, well built but slender swimmer that is the playboy type. Smart in a learning sense, not necessarily intense though. I'm having trouble even thinking of an actor that would be perfect for this. Most actors that do well are more on the 'hunky' side.

Aha!! OK he's dead and English, but Leslie Howard, i.e. the Scarlet Pimpernel. Tall, slim but well built, very capable, smart. Playboyish. That would be Langdon, if he were American

From a Visitor -

Reading the book, my picture of Langdon was never as a physical hero. Certainly not a Harrison Ford. Remember he was terrified of the notion of jumping out of the Louvre window. I got the feeling he was unfamiliar with firearms, not particularly physically fit and uncomfortable with a stick shift. Certainly, he is not a take-charge sort of man.

No, Robert Langdon is primarily a thinker. Tom Hanks is OK. My other mental image was of Sam Neill

How about Woody Allen, he's just about unfamiliar and uncomfortable with anything. I jest, but just think of it .

I am sorry if my suggestion has killed the conversation, i was only being a bit silly.

Don't worry, you're not the first to suggest Wooody - see my post on page number 1 of this thread.

Forrest Gump one year, The Philadelphia Story the next, then Apollo 13 a little later: Tom Hanks is a consumate professional; he can play this part, although I would have liked to see Russell Crowe (mpre in his "A Beautiful Mind" mode than "Master and Commander"...

Peter, Thank goodness you mentioned him, feel a bit better now. I will read all the pages in future!

I realise commercial interests take precedence in such decisions (pulling power of big names and all that) but wouldnt it be great to watch DVC without having any preconceived notions about the actor. I mean watching Tom Hanks playing Langdon will be just that: watching Tom Hanks act. Maybe we are expected to suspend our disbelief but Hanks is such a household name, a familiar figure that unless he turns in a performance of a lifetime chances are we will all feel very let down by this. So i suggest an unknown quantity, a little known actor is what is really needed to fulfil the potential that this bestseller has to offer the silver screen.

And Niall, sorry if im freaking you out by saying i know you but correct me if im wrong: you are in your early 20s, blond hair, blue eyes?

Actually - I'm going to go against my usual stand by saying that I think this book will make a very good film.
Personally, I think Hanks is a casting abberation (too old, not dashing enough - I'm thinking Clive Owen ("Closer"), but American... not quite the muscular Crowe type, but fit and clever looking) - but nevertheless the casting of Audrey Tatou and Jean Reno fill me with confidence. If Tatou really is only 26, she has an older soul. I thoroughly reccommend anyone who hasn't already should see "Amelie" as a matter of urgency. My only concern is that she may be too slender (although less so than Ms Beckinsale - a lucky escape) - Sophie is decribed as being "healthy" in contrast to the "waifish" Harvard girls.
I'm keen to see the rest of the casting... especially if it continues the tradition of having European actors playing European parts in European locations. I can't help feeling that will be a good omen (or SIGN, if you will) for a satsifying film.