As previously mentioned, we went to a movie for date night. We went out to see Angels and Demons, based on the bestselling novel by Dan Brown. David hadn't read the book but I had. I almost think that this was a case of it being better to go in without knowledge of the book story. There were a lot of changes and I was distracted by trying to remember what happened in the book and how things were changed.
That's not to say that I thought the changes were bad. Far too much happened in that book to possibly fit into a ~2 hour movie and a lot of the subplots or background details weren't really necessary. While I've enjoyed Brown's work, I think he's just a bit too in love with his own cleverness. He could use an editor who is a little more heavy handed when it comes to encouraging him to be a bit more selective with what goes into the final print. The more famous an author gets the less involved editors want to be when it comes to the story, which I think is often unfortunate since the more famous an author gets the more he or she wants to give in to the desire to pander to the fans (I'm looking at you, JK Rowling).
All that said, I really enjoyed the movie. I love religious conspiracy stories, I'm fascinated by the political structure and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, and I love mysteries and puzzles. Tom Hanks did a good job, as he usually does. I find that in my mind he's becoming more of an actor and less of an entertainer. It's a fine distinguishing line that really only exists in my own mind and affects most actors who become really famous. No matter how well he does at the role, I never forget that I'm watching Tom Hanks play a role. Maybe it's because he's really starting to show his age, but this time he was far less Tom Hanks and much more Robert Langdon.