ROTTEN TOMATOES: Naomi Watts Joins Angels & Demons

Naomi Watts Joins Angels & Demons

Now all she needs is a script.

by Jeff Giles | November 21, 2007

The writers' strike might have temporarily halted production on Angels & Demons, but that hasn't stopped the filmmakers from filling out the cast around Tom Hanks.

The New York Post reports that Naomi Watts "has scored a major role" in the Da Vinci Code prequel, production on which, according to the Post's source, has been "put off at least until February."

Angels & Demons is still being targeted for a spring 2009 release.

Source: New York Post

Related Items

Movie:	The Da Vinci Code
Celeb:	Naomi Watts

(1-20 of 28 posts) | Reply

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Nov 21 2007 10:36 AM

God nooooooooooooooooooooo, what the hell is she doing, run away, far away.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Nov 21 2007 10:40 AM

My hope has risen.

(Reply to this)

A Lapse In Reason writes:
on Nov 21 2007 10:59 AM

Don't bring yourslef to down to this level Naomi!

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Nov 21 2007 12:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1293977)
the hope has risen, as well as other things!

Naomi needs something to pull her out of the King Kong shamble.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Nov 21 2007 01:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#1294099)
Since when was King Kong ever a shamble? Especially for her? All the actors did an exceptional job, and there was not much to complain about (unless someone has a short attention span and can't watch a movie for 3 hours). Naomi continually brings in superb performances, but signing onto this film could be a major bad turn for her career.

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Nov 21 2007 01:49 PM

Okay, King Kong wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. It was shot beautifully, but just dragged. It was a mediocre movie in terms of action. Jack Black was horribly cast IMO, and Naomi doesn't have the screen presence to carry a movie on her own. The Ring was okay, Ring 2 was dumb and pointless. That's getting off point though. I'm sure that casting her in this movie isn't going to leave a permanent mark on her career, but it'll be a guaranteed boost for her career in the present, nevertheless.

Hopefully A & D will be put together knowing what flaws were in Da Vinci Code, so I'm holding out hope that it'll be better edited and action packed than the first.

(Reply to this)

harrismonkey writes:
on Nov 21 2007 02:09 PM

Does anybody besides you have issues with King Kong?

My gitlfriend and I both found Kong's death for more moving than anything in the oscar films that year (not that they were bad- it just seemed odd that Kong was the tear jerker).

I know it under peformed box office expectations (but they seemed to have been hoping for the biggest box office movie of the year), but I don't think it did badly.

I thought it was a fantastic film. Peter Jackson is doing something that's been forgotten- making big dumb specticle blockbuster movie that-

ARE ACTUALLY GOOD, WELL MADE MOVIES. That's a rarity these days.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Nov 21 2007 02:22 PM

King Kong was freakin' amazing, I don't care what anybody says, especially if they're the ones who like Transformers.

(Reply to this)

UselessRob writes:
on Nov 21 2007 05:21 PM

King Kong was so unnecessarily long, just like most of Jackson's films... Gimme the original any day!

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Nov 21 2007 05:49 PM

I love how this has become a King Kong discussion now.... Haha! :) I suppose I should join it, too; I mean, *I* liked it. Woo!

(Reply to this)

I Am Remote writes:
on Nov 21 2007 08:50 PM

King Kong sucked. Thirty minutes of story with two and half hours of Peter Jackson stroking himself. Now with this and that wretched idea of Michael Bay redoing The Birds on her plate, Watts better consider her new films with caution.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Nov 21 2007 08:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#1294430)
Funny, King Kong was just about the only time I've thought Jack Black actually worked in a movie. He's got that old-style acting down in that flick.

(Reply to this)

Snarebeast writes:
on Nov 21 2007 10:26 PM

I liked King Kong.

Long? Yes.

Longer than it should be? Yes

All in all, a well done film that was actually more faithful to the original than any remake that's come out these days? Yes

Kong was a good movie, people don't seem to get that.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Nov 22 2007 08:52 AM

I think Kong was undeniably a misfire. But it was the kind of misfire that only a good director could make. It was packed with great ideas, and powerful execution, but it lost focus, rambled, and forgot what it was about - if it was ever about anything. I like to say that the movie clearly shows off all of Jackson's greatest strengths, and all his greatest weaknesses.

(Reply to this)

bhairav writes:
on Nov 22 2007 11:10 AM

King Kong was a really good movie... The reason why many people didn't appreciate it is because of P. J.'s honest to god attempt to make this movie seem as realistic as possible... He also films the movie reminiscent of movies made in the 30's and 40's... and also has an element of Hitchcock in it... He shows the brighter side of the movie at beginning, the humor, the journey, and the story, and then after a proper intro... he plunges the movie into Horror, as the savages attack. He then moves to Action, and then shows a connection remarkably between a young pretty girl, and a giant savage ape.

Now, all the people came to this movie hoping to see what the trailer offered, a big gorilla and monsters, and action, but got a taste of actual sentimentality, and proper film making. I really think he did a wonderful job, as he did on thign that most directors don't... he took his time. Naomi Watts is beautiful, and is a pleasure to watch... and all those who think she ruined herself with King Kong, she redeemed herself with Eastern Promises.
And Angels and Daemons is a much much betetr novel than the Da Vinci Code... the DVC, had gotten a lot of publicity, but it was basically stupid, and was 'un-filmable'.

on the other hand Angels and Daemons has all things the DVC didn't... for one it has intrigue, and has action, and also has a good dose of scientific facts with it... Best dan Brown book ever written... all i think RH should do, is to not follow the book as closely as he did for the previous book, and do what he did with the 'beautiful mind'... he should change it for his and our benefit...

(Reply to this)

Bondesque writes:
on Nov 22 2007 12:00 PM

In reply to Peter Jackson's Kingkong Lovers: only the last half hour was necessary and i would even say stellar. but personally i beleve that peter jackson is one of the most rotten and overrated directors today. i mean, did you guys really notice his annoying use of leimotif in king kong and lotr? it pierces your ears with a knife. he is really good, i dare say, at putting to gether husge casts and orchestrating epic films but when it goes down to creating moments with delicacy and sensitivity, without slipping into cheesy cliche territory, his chronic incompetence is hard to ignore. his movies insist upon themselves, and his use of music is sooo abominal. i think he should make halo and when it turns out to be a monumental failure he can go back to his mothers basement and !@#$ himself.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Nov 22 2007 12:49 PM

Okay.... What interesting reactions. One pro and one con, and I couldn't disagree more with either of them. Huh.

I think it just goes to show that Kong's problems are on such an internal, structural level that most people can't see them. They either have no problem with the movie, or feel that there's definitely a problem SOMEWHERE, but misidentify what it is.

I'll say this about Jackson's Kong: it never ceases to inspire interesting conversations about the nature of filmed storytelling.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Nov 22 2007 12:54 PM

Well, I don't TOTALLY disagree. Naomi Watts did do a great job. Pretty much whenever the movie was working, it was largely because of her, and when it wasn't working, it was in spite of her. So, good for her joining Angels and Demons (which I haven't read, but my wife tells me it is indeed much better than DaVinci Code).

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Nov 22 2007 04:17 PM

arendr i agree with u

(Reply to this)

wonderdust writes:
on Nov 22 2007 09:34 PM

I have been working on Angels & demons at Shepperton studios for the last 4 weeks employed as a plasterer, we had a meeting with the production yesterday and where told that one of the reasons it had been put on hold was that Tom Hanks did not want to shoot it in England, because a family member was ill. While i sympathise i would like to thank Tom for putting about 200 people out of work just before Chritmas!
Cheers Tom, Happy Christmas!

(Reply to this)