555 reviews
Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.
So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.
Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.
The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.
Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.
Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular.
So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.
Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.
The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.
Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.
Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular.
- DICK STEEL
- May 8, 2009
- Permalink
This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.
- EchoMaRinE
- Jul 24, 2009
- Permalink
I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.
What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.
What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.
- ddrcoaster
- May 14, 2009
- Permalink
I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.
The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.
You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.
Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.
The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.
You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.
Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.
- ocknights71
- May 14, 2009
- Permalink
Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.
The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.
The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.
The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.
However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).
While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.
A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.
7.4/10
The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.
The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.
The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.
However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).
While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.
A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.
7.4/10
Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.
With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.
Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.
Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.
The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.
Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.
If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.
With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.
Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.
Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.
The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.
Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.
If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.
I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.
There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.
Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.
This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.
There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.
Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.
This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.
- robertw477-2
- May 4, 2009
- Permalink
Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.
The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.
Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.
Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.
This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.
The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.
This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.
Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.
It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.
Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.
Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci
The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.
Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.
Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.
This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.
The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.
This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.
Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.
It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.
Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.
Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci
- Stampsfightclub
- Jun 15, 2009
- Permalink
Angels and Demons is not too bad, it comes in a form of entertainment. It is more intense than Da Vinci Code. I remembered that I had to pry my eyes open during the middle part of Da Vinci Code. It is long, not much suspense and consists of babbling about. Yawn. But Angels & Demons, the sequel, is more intense, has more suspense and action. Tom Hanks gets not only to exercise his brain but also his legs. The adventure requires him to move from one place to another.
The story: Tom Hanks plays symbologist Robert Langdon. He has to solve a murder and at the same time, prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican. This time, he has Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to help him solve the mystery. The mystery plot and intense peril scenes kept me on the seat. Hans Zimmer's beautiful score makes the movie more epic. The adventure is an intense ride but not as intense as I thought. The sets are amazing too.
Overall: Fans of the book will flock the cinemas to catch this. Fans of the previous movie, Da Vinci Code, should also catch this. Those who like thrillers, this one may suit. This is supposed to be a fictional thriller which is not to be taken seriously.
The story: Tom Hanks plays symbologist Robert Langdon. He has to solve a murder and at the same time, prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican. This time, he has Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to help him solve the mystery. The mystery plot and intense peril scenes kept me on the seat. Hans Zimmer's beautiful score makes the movie more epic. The adventure is an intense ride but not as intense as I thought. The sets are amazing too.
Overall: Fans of the book will flock the cinemas to catch this. Fans of the previous movie, Da Vinci Code, should also catch this. Those who like thrillers, this one may suit. This is supposed to be a fictional thriller which is not to be taken seriously.
I am sorry for all the readers, but I don't know where to begin.
Let me say at first that I'm not a big Dan Brown fan, but I read Angels & Demons with great pleasure. The book deals a lot with the eternal question of Science vs. Religion and that made me think a lot about that subject again. That big battle is totally lost in the movie.
A lot of the important lines in the book (CERN, Maximilian Kohler, the scepsis of the Swiss Guard, the love relationship between Robert and Vittoria, the Hassassin, the relationship between the Camerlengo and the pope) are lost in the movie screenplay. This makes the movie a very cut-down and over-simplified version.
Would the movie be any good if I hadn't read the book? I still doubt it. From scene 3 on, the movie is a 'chase-movie' without interruption. There is no time for contemplation or depth. No story-line, no backgrounds. It's just a chase movie in a GREAT decorum.
You would think that with a running time of about 140 minutes a movie is able to bring more. Much more.
Let me say at first that I'm not a big Dan Brown fan, but I read Angels & Demons with great pleasure. The book deals a lot with the eternal question of Science vs. Religion and that made me think a lot about that subject again. That big battle is totally lost in the movie.
A lot of the important lines in the book (CERN, Maximilian Kohler, the scepsis of the Swiss Guard, the love relationship between Robert and Vittoria, the Hassassin, the relationship between the Camerlengo and the pope) are lost in the movie screenplay. This makes the movie a very cut-down and over-simplified version.
Would the movie be any good if I hadn't read the book? I still doubt it. From scene 3 on, the movie is a 'chase-movie' without interruption. There is no time for contemplation or depth. No story-line, no backgrounds. It's just a chase movie in a GREAT decorum.
You would think that with a running time of about 140 minutes a movie is able to bring more. Much more.
With all do respect to all those who read the book and tried to compare it with the movie,I never read the book but i just came from the premiere night here..and i have to say..I was WOWed !
Why all the negative reviews and the disappointed moods ?
This is a stay on the edge of a seat kinda flick,which guarantees great viewing and a heck of a good time.there is no dull moments on this one that's for sure.
I have to say in my opinion that it exceeds TDC,with Ewan Mcgregor who totally stood out next to Tom Hanks,but don't get me wrong..all cast was well put and up to the task..I'm just pointing to an outstanding performance by Ewan Mcgregor.
Tom hanks is Tom Hanks,it seems like he is Prof Langdon after all..no one can do it better than him.
Ron Howard on the director seat however did an amazing job that exceeds his previous work in TDC .
Anyways..go see it..and don't be fired down by the negative reviews.. total summer blockbuster.
Bravo
Why all the negative reviews and the disappointed moods ?
This is a stay on the edge of a seat kinda flick,which guarantees great viewing and a heck of a good time.there is no dull moments on this one that's for sure.
I have to say in my opinion that it exceeds TDC,with Ewan Mcgregor who totally stood out next to Tom Hanks,but don't get me wrong..all cast was well put and up to the task..I'm just pointing to an outstanding performance by Ewan Mcgregor.
Tom hanks is Tom Hanks,it seems like he is Prof Langdon after all..no one can do it better than him.
Ron Howard on the director seat however did an amazing job that exceeds his previous work in TDC .
Anyways..go see it..and don't be fired down by the negative reviews.. total summer blockbuster.
Bravo
- dee_zine_610
- May 12, 2009
- Permalink
Let's get one thing straight: The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, as written by Dan Brown, are both books that are best described as "airplane literature", i.e. stuff that one can read cover-to-cover while on a plane, train or something without assuming said tome is going to leave anything meaningful once the reading is over. The film version of The Da Vinci Code, while certainly not the best summer blockbuster of 2006 (Mission:Impossible III, X- Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns were much smarter and more memorable), was an enjoyable piece of work because director Ron Howard, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman and star Tom Hanks got it right: the story is deliberately provocative (in a bad way) and slightly pretentious, but as a slick, well-executed thriller it works quite reasonably. The trio (with the addition of David Koepp in the writer's chair following the WGA strike) returns with Angels & Demons, and the results are, sadly, less thrilling than expected.
Once again, Europe and religion are involved: the story unfolds in Rome and the Vatican, with two brief detours in Geneva and Massachussetts. The story is the following: someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, aka Eric Bana's wife in Munich), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected. Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 p.m., after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican (yes, it's silly as hell, but who cares so far?). Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favors science over religion, are behind the whole thing, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.
Setting aside possible chronology issues (the book is a prequel, whereas the movie is a sequel, reflecting the fact that most people discovered Angels & Demons after reading The Da Vinci Code first), the film sticks to the previous entry's blueprint: running from one location to another, clues hidden in works of art, Langdon explaining things, potentially controversial revelations (although the novel's main twist has been removed). It should work, right? And yet Angels & Demons struggles when it comes to delivering thrills and excitement, even if the key set-pieces - one involving the Vatican archives, the other a helicopter - are admittedly spectacular. The main reason the film is less efficient as a thriller lies in the excess of exposition: too much is revealed too quickly, courtesy of some very long conversations between Langdon and, alternatively, Victoria, a Roman police officer (Pierfrancesco Favino) and two unhelpful Swiss guards (who are played, funnily enough, by Scandinavian actors).
The cast is another problem: Hanks is never boring (and he's cut his hair since last time, meaning he looks less laughable), and the support he gets from Favino, Stellan Skarsgard (whose part was extended compared to the book) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (always a good choice, no matter the film) is pretty solid, but Zurer is so bland she even makes Audrey Tautou's much derided final scene in The Da Vinci Code look good: not only is her chemistry with Hanks close to zero, she also has the ungrateful job of sounding convincing when she delivers lines in Italian (the character, of course, was born in Italy; the actress, on the other hand, is from Israel, and it shows). McGregor also has some difficulty conveying the apparent solemnity of his part, but at least they changed the Camerlengo from Italian to Irish to avoid accent problems. And, quite frankly, replacing Paul Bettany's Silas with a textbook hit-man doesn't help much either.
Any good bits, then? Well, the locations - all studio-built, given the Vatican's policy of never allowing any filming on its territory - are a superb piece of eye-candy, and amidst the clumsy exposition there are a few intriguing (but largely inaccurate, apparently) anecdotes regarding a bunch of famous people that should appeal to art aficionados. That's pretty much all Angels & Demons has to offer: it isn't exactly not entertaining (the aforementioned set-pieces and some witticisms coming from Hanks make sure real boredom never ensues), but the beautiful production design can't hide some pretty serious storytelling issues (since when does someone who analyzes ancient texts for a living need help with Latin inscriptions?). Then again, no one ever expected the film to change their views on the religion vs. science debate, right?
Once again, Europe and religion are involved: the story unfolds in Rome and the Vatican, with two brief detours in Geneva and Massachussetts. The story is the following: someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, aka Eric Bana's wife in Munich), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected. Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 p.m., after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican (yes, it's silly as hell, but who cares so far?). Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favors science over religion, are behind the whole thing, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.
Setting aside possible chronology issues (the book is a prequel, whereas the movie is a sequel, reflecting the fact that most people discovered Angels & Demons after reading The Da Vinci Code first), the film sticks to the previous entry's blueprint: running from one location to another, clues hidden in works of art, Langdon explaining things, potentially controversial revelations (although the novel's main twist has been removed). It should work, right? And yet Angels & Demons struggles when it comes to delivering thrills and excitement, even if the key set-pieces - one involving the Vatican archives, the other a helicopter - are admittedly spectacular. The main reason the film is less efficient as a thriller lies in the excess of exposition: too much is revealed too quickly, courtesy of some very long conversations between Langdon and, alternatively, Victoria, a Roman police officer (Pierfrancesco Favino) and two unhelpful Swiss guards (who are played, funnily enough, by Scandinavian actors).
The cast is another problem: Hanks is never boring (and he's cut his hair since last time, meaning he looks less laughable), and the support he gets from Favino, Stellan Skarsgard (whose part was extended compared to the book) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (always a good choice, no matter the film) is pretty solid, but Zurer is so bland she even makes Audrey Tautou's much derided final scene in The Da Vinci Code look good: not only is her chemistry with Hanks close to zero, she also has the ungrateful job of sounding convincing when she delivers lines in Italian (the character, of course, was born in Italy; the actress, on the other hand, is from Israel, and it shows). McGregor also has some difficulty conveying the apparent solemnity of his part, but at least they changed the Camerlengo from Italian to Irish to avoid accent problems. And, quite frankly, replacing Paul Bettany's Silas with a textbook hit-man doesn't help much either.
Any good bits, then? Well, the locations - all studio-built, given the Vatican's policy of never allowing any filming on its territory - are a superb piece of eye-candy, and amidst the clumsy exposition there are a few intriguing (but largely inaccurate, apparently) anecdotes regarding a bunch of famous people that should appeal to art aficionados. That's pretty much all Angels & Demons has to offer: it isn't exactly not entertaining (the aforementioned set-pieces and some witticisms coming from Hanks make sure real boredom never ensues), but the beautiful production design can't hide some pretty serious storytelling issues (since when does someone who analyzes ancient texts for a living need help with Latin inscriptions?). Then again, no one ever expected the film to change their views on the religion vs. science debate, right?
Can Robert Langdon save the Catholic Church and prevent Vatican City from destruction? The race is on as Ron Howard's multi-million dollar blockbuster sequel finally hits the big screen. We last saw Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) 3 years ago, when he uncovered the truth behind a secret society. Now, he's called on once again. This time the stakes are higher, the case is deadlier and the mystery is unlike anything he's witnessed. Here, he's called to Rome to study a mysterious death of one of the 4 cardinals. Little does he know that he's tangled up in a war between the Catholic Church and a Secret Society known as the Illuminati (the enemy to the Catholic Church.) He soon learns that a member of Illuminati has kidnapped 3 other cardinals, threatening to kill one an hour and seizing to destroy Vatican City when the conclave begins. There on he goes on the hunt with a brilliant Scientist (Ayelet Zurer) followed by mysterious twists, turns and deaths headed their way. The only question is can they stop the attack in time? Ron Howard's Angels and Demons is better than his first outing (Da Vinci Code) in every single way possible. It's better in terms of quality, story, and entertainment. The suspense started very early (unlike the slow moving Da Vinci Code) and has enough action and great shots of the Vatican to keep you in your seat for at least 2 hours. Think of it as National Treasure meets 24 in Rome. Despite its potential, it also does has some flaws. It's still preachy, preposterous, and somewhat predictable. Did I mention it also felt like it went on for longer than it needed to be? If you're an open minded person, and often use "That can never happen" then you then you may want to take this one off your alley. For those who want mindless and heart pounding entertainment, this is a neatly crafted action thriller, with twists and turns headed every direction. Be sure to take a chill pill after this film is done because it was really that suspenseful. The supporting cast including the very underrated Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgård all had deserving roles, and it was neat to see Ewan back on the screen (he's been gone far too long.) Bottom line, though it can't compare with the book, it's still terrific entertainment, and if you liked Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard has a big surprise for you.
- mexicospidergreen
- May 15, 2009
- Permalink
No doubt Ron Howard is the great hero of this movie and has proved to be a truly professional and skilled director: he has perfectly understood the nature of Dan Brown's novel and the aim of the production, thus being the result a well-focused, well made and well performed product that will certainly be a top box-office movie.
Dan Brown wrote this impressive thriller, made of action, suspense, paradoxical and surprising twists, with the aim of selling. Ron Howard spares no effort and succeeds in rendering the same thrilling and engaging story, based on a well consolidated narrative outline, where we find the trustworthy hero, Robert Langdon, capable of unraveling every mysterious sign and leading us to a shocking finale. Everything, of course, sounds too excessive, there is a crescendo of excess, at the limit of ridiculous, but what is worth underlining is the typical capability of Hollywood great productions to take their job very seriously, and to make a good product out of nothing, being both them and the viewer conscious of the real nature of what is being displayed. What counts is that the final result is an aesthetically good and entertaining movie: and it is, indeed.
Evidently, the movie, like the book, represents no threat to the unbreakable solidness of the Roman Catholic Church, and even less to the faith of real faithful people. The fears and reluctance of clerical authorities when the movie was distributed, sounded a little excessive, too (and indeed, in the end even L'Osservatore Romano gave it a favourable review). It is not even a thought-provoking movie, at least it offers no new or interesting perspective: the ancient, and let's admit, quite old-fashioned (but probably not so out of fashion) dichotomy between science and religion, is just a pretext on which to build a strong and till the end entertaining story, still able to attract millions of viewers all over the world: all the remaining nonsense is forgivable.
The whole cast prove good performances, Tom Hanks is a certainty from the beginning, being however in my opinion Ewan Macgregor (the Camerlengo) the most interesting character, and the one with whom Langdon has the only interesting exchange on faith, but all actors (even "our" Pierfrancesco Favino) contribute to the enthralling atmosphere of the story.
Dan Brown wrote this impressive thriller, made of action, suspense, paradoxical and surprising twists, with the aim of selling. Ron Howard spares no effort and succeeds in rendering the same thrilling and engaging story, based on a well consolidated narrative outline, where we find the trustworthy hero, Robert Langdon, capable of unraveling every mysterious sign and leading us to a shocking finale. Everything, of course, sounds too excessive, there is a crescendo of excess, at the limit of ridiculous, but what is worth underlining is the typical capability of Hollywood great productions to take their job very seriously, and to make a good product out of nothing, being both them and the viewer conscious of the real nature of what is being displayed. What counts is that the final result is an aesthetically good and entertaining movie: and it is, indeed.
Evidently, the movie, like the book, represents no threat to the unbreakable solidness of the Roman Catholic Church, and even less to the faith of real faithful people. The fears and reluctance of clerical authorities when the movie was distributed, sounded a little excessive, too (and indeed, in the end even L'Osservatore Romano gave it a favourable review). It is not even a thought-provoking movie, at least it offers no new or interesting perspective: the ancient, and let's admit, quite old-fashioned (but probably not so out of fashion) dichotomy between science and religion, is just a pretext on which to build a strong and till the end entertaining story, still able to attract millions of viewers all over the world: all the remaining nonsense is forgivable.
The whole cast prove good performances, Tom Hanks is a certainty from the beginning, being however in my opinion Ewan Macgregor (the Camerlengo) the most interesting character, and the one with whom Langdon has the only interesting exchange on faith, but all actors (even "our" Pierfrancesco Favino) contribute to the enthralling atmosphere of the story.
After the death of the Pope, the conclave has gathered in a locked room to choose his successor among four cardinals named "preferitti"; however the quartet is abducted in a revenge of the Illuminati, a secret brotherhood that was supposed extinct. The symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and the scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), who had her powerful and dangerous prototype of antimatter research stolen, are invited by the Vatican police to help them in their investigation. They are received by the receptive Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) and by the reluctant Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgård) and are informed that the Illuminati have promised to kill each cardinal every hour from 8:00 PM and then explode the Vatican City with the antimatter. Robert and Vittoria have a few hours to unravel the clues and discover where the lethal weapon might be hidden.
The novel and bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" of Dan Brown was one of the most intriguing books that I have read. I was curious about the adaptation to the cinema of that complex and detailed story, and I found it only reasonable and the movie frustrated my expectations. I have not read "Angels & Demons", and I liked very much this film. The story has many plot points in wonderful locations; the acting is excellent and holds the attention until the last sequence. My daughter read the novel and told me that the adaptation is also frustrating. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Anjos e Demônios" ("Angels and Demons")
The novel and bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" of Dan Brown was one of the most intriguing books that I have read. I was curious about the adaptation to the cinema of that complex and detailed story, and I found it only reasonable and the movie frustrated my expectations. I have not read "Angels & Demons", and I liked very much this film. The story has many plot points in wonderful locations; the acting is excellent and holds the attention until the last sequence. My daughter read the novel and told me that the adaptation is also frustrating. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Anjos e Demônios" ("Angels and Demons")
- claudio_carvalho
- Nov 9, 2009
- Permalink
- rasmus_persson90
- May 13, 2009
- Permalink
The Da Vinci Code movie was received with a mixture of enthusiasm and disappointment when it first arrived. The fans of the book couldn't wait for it, the Catholic church were going mad about it being released, and the average person was being shepherded to see a movie that they just wanted to know what all the media attention was about. I'll be the first to put my hands up and admit I was looking forward to it. I loved the book and wanted to see a great adaptation. I admit I enjoyed the movie, though a lot really didn't, but I will admit its slow moving, a bit tedious and way, way too faithful to the book. However I had read Dan Brown's other Langdon novel before Da Vinci Code, and I always found Angels and Demons the far superior story. And so here is the inevitable adaptation, and much like the books I prefer Angels and Demons. Demons is a fast paced, beautifully shot and brilliantly acted piece of popcorn entertainment. Yes it has its flaws, the story is still a bit all over the place, and various changes from the novel are not very welcome in my eyes. But for the most part this is a piece of superior entertainment, and after the disaster of Wolverine it is nice to see a sequel with a bit of thought behind it.
So onto the acting. First off is Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. First things first, the hair has been improved, I know that was a huge distraction for a lot of people in its predecessor. Hanks is pretty good here, I'm not going to lie and say he's incredible, as sadly Langdon isn't the greatest character ever. His motivations are vague at best. Still for the material he is given he makes the most of it. Ewan McGregor gets a great role in this movie, he was always the character that intrigued me most in the novel and McGregor does him justice. I won't spoil about him, but you understand after the halfway mark why such a famous actor was cast in the seemingly unimportant role. Ayelet Zurer does a great job as Vittoria Vetra, but the lack of screen time she gets in comparison to how much she is in the book really did frustrate me. Stellan Skarsgård is a bit wasted and I'm not too sure why he signed on for it all. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my personal favourite, have never really encountered the actor before, but his performance definitely is a highlight.
The key to Angels and Demons superiority is in the pacing. Da Vinci Code had very sluggish moments and too many endings for its own good. Here the movie is set over a night, and it works all the better for it. The plot zips along, and all the talky dialogue is usually done while driving or running to the next location to prevent a murder. The murders themselves are shot superbly, although the Air murder is nowhere near as gory as depicted in the novel. The Fire and Water murders are superb though. I liked the execution of the twist for the most part, and I don't think it was as blatantly obvious as I feared, considering it completely threw me when I read the book. The helicopter bit from the novel however is still ludicrous, and the whole antimatter scenario is a OTT for its own good. But these are the flaws of the novel, and at least the ridiculous divine intervention garbage has been scrapped.
Overall Angels and Demons is a fun thrill ride for the summer. Its a superior movie to Da Vinci Code, and I just hope The Lost Symbol (the upcoming Dan Brown novel) is good enough to warrant Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to sign on for yet another one.
So onto the acting. First off is Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. First things first, the hair has been improved, I know that was a huge distraction for a lot of people in its predecessor. Hanks is pretty good here, I'm not going to lie and say he's incredible, as sadly Langdon isn't the greatest character ever. His motivations are vague at best. Still for the material he is given he makes the most of it. Ewan McGregor gets a great role in this movie, he was always the character that intrigued me most in the novel and McGregor does him justice. I won't spoil about him, but you understand after the halfway mark why such a famous actor was cast in the seemingly unimportant role. Ayelet Zurer does a great job as Vittoria Vetra, but the lack of screen time she gets in comparison to how much she is in the book really did frustrate me. Stellan Skarsgård is a bit wasted and I'm not too sure why he signed on for it all. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my personal favourite, have never really encountered the actor before, but his performance definitely is a highlight.
The key to Angels and Demons superiority is in the pacing. Da Vinci Code had very sluggish moments and too many endings for its own good. Here the movie is set over a night, and it works all the better for it. The plot zips along, and all the talky dialogue is usually done while driving or running to the next location to prevent a murder. The murders themselves are shot superbly, although the Air murder is nowhere near as gory as depicted in the novel. The Fire and Water murders are superb though. I liked the execution of the twist for the most part, and I don't think it was as blatantly obvious as I feared, considering it completely threw me when I read the book. The helicopter bit from the novel however is still ludicrous, and the whole antimatter scenario is a OTT for its own good. But these are the flaws of the novel, and at least the ridiculous divine intervention garbage has been scrapped.
Overall Angels and Demons is a fun thrill ride for the summer. Its a superior movie to Da Vinci Code, and I just hope The Lost Symbol (the upcoming Dan Brown novel) is good enough to warrant Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to sign on for yet another one.
- simonparker1990
- May 14, 2009
- Permalink
- AndrePhilidor
- May 15, 2009
- Permalink
Robert Langdon is back and better than ever – and, by better, I mean that he finally got himself a haircut. In 2006, Ron Howard's 'The Da Vinci Code' was released amid a storm of controversy, snagged $750 million at the box-office, and suffered a crucifixion at the hands of critics worldwide. I remember the film well because it inspired me for the first time to discuss, at length, a film's merits – I was, for better or worse, Howard's most ardent defender. Howard's follow-up 'Angels and Demons' (adapted as a sequel) opened with only a polite smattering of debate, and is all the better for it. Now both films can comfortably be enjoyed for exactly what they are – entertaining pulp thrillers, replete with exotic locations, beautiful women, brutal murders, ancient conspiracies, treasure hunts, and a race against time. Owing to the source novel's more limited reputation, 'Angels and Demons' lacks the bloated self-importance, whether conscious or not, of its predecessor, and so can be enjoyed, without reservation, as a fanciful, unpretentious two-hour page-turner.
Screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have shorn the majority of Dan Brown's ludicrous plot twists – most fortunately a parachute- substitute that would have sent audience eyes rolling – but, even so, the film remains thematically inconsistent, a flaw that extends back to the source material. When Brown originally published "Angels and Demons" in 2000, he was at the cross-roads of a transition in his writing style. "Digital Fortress" and "Deception Point" were pretty straightforward conspiracy thrillers, with government organisations using ultra-modern technology to perpetrate their crimes and threaten the truth-seeking heroine. By "The Da Vinci Code (2003)," all elements of science-fiction had been discarded in favour of historical documents and religious iconography. But "Angels and Demons" finds itself stranded in the middle of this conversion, labouring extensively over fictional antimatter explosions when a simple bomb would have done just nicely. This juxtaposition of history and technology may well have been intentional, used to emphasise the conflict of science and religion, but there is nonetheless an imbalance of tone that jars violently with the viewer.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard "symbologist" Dr. Robert Langdon, and his performance is an improvement. Rather than existing purely as a cypher of ancient symbols, Langdon seems to have developed a fuller persona, though there's some awkward, sitting-on-the-fence attempts at defining his stance on religion. The supporting players – Ewan McGregor, Aylet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino – are dependable without attempting to steal the limelight, as Ian McKellen did so successfully in 'The Da Vinci Code.' Only Nikolaj Lie Kaas, as the Illuminati assassin, doesn't quite feel the part, lacking the ghostly creepiness of Paul Bettany in the equivalent role. Salvatore Totino's cinematography isn't the most handsome you'll see this year, but nevertheless captures the art and architecture of Rome and the Vatican (whether real or recreated) with stunning vibrancy. Hans Zimmer's score is energetic and emphatic at the right moments, not only underscoring events in the film but forcefully stamping their significance. All flaws aside, I can certainly see future generations enjoying 'Angels and Demons' for its preposterous sense of fun.
Screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have shorn the majority of Dan Brown's ludicrous plot twists – most fortunately a parachute- substitute that would have sent audience eyes rolling – but, even so, the film remains thematically inconsistent, a flaw that extends back to the source material. When Brown originally published "Angels and Demons" in 2000, he was at the cross-roads of a transition in his writing style. "Digital Fortress" and "Deception Point" were pretty straightforward conspiracy thrillers, with government organisations using ultra-modern technology to perpetrate their crimes and threaten the truth-seeking heroine. By "The Da Vinci Code (2003)," all elements of science-fiction had been discarded in favour of historical documents and religious iconography. But "Angels and Demons" finds itself stranded in the middle of this conversion, labouring extensively over fictional antimatter explosions when a simple bomb would have done just nicely. This juxtaposition of history and technology may well have been intentional, used to emphasise the conflict of science and religion, but there is nonetheless an imbalance of tone that jars violently with the viewer.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard "symbologist" Dr. Robert Langdon, and his performance is an improvement. Rather than existing purely as a cypher of ancient symbols, Langdon seems to have developed a fuller persona, though there's some awkward, sitting-on-the-fence attempts at defining his stance on religion. The supporting players – Ewan McGregor, Aylet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino – are dependable without attempting to steal the limelight, as Ian McKellen did so successfully in 'The Da Vinci Code.' Only Nikolaj Lie Kaas, as the Illuminati assassin, doesn't quite feel the part, lacking the ghostly creepiness of Paul Bettany in the equivalent role. Salvatore Totino's cinematography isn't the most handsome you'll see this year, but nevertheless captures the art and architecture of Rome and the Vatican (whether real or recreated) with stunning vibrancy. Hans Zimmer's score is energetic and emphatic at the right moments, not only underscoring events in the film but forcefully stamping their significance. All flaws aside, I can certainly see future generations enjoying 'Angels and Demons' for its preposterous sense of fun.
I should have known you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Religion, science, worlds end, moment of creation, ancient secret societies... Ron Howard stays faithful to his cues, but ultimately the downfall of this movie lies solely in plot and writing. Today, audiences can suspend disbelief if they go into a theater with such intention, but that was the magic behind The Da Vinci Code, wasn't it? We walked out of the theater with a sense of "what if?" despite having been ready for a movie that was supposed to be unbelievable. Angels and Demons fails on this note because the plot is childish and absurd, in no way a justice to its paperback counterpart. It seemed rushed, despite being too long, and many a minute were wasted on meaningless dialog that could have otherwise been used to develop characters whose interactions were arbitrary, to say the least. There is, though ill-fated, an attempt made for a Langdon/Sophie relationship here... which in itself was just pathetically copycat material. And to make matters worse, characters who exist long enough and seem to finally be taking a decisive role suddenly are either killed or shooed away for more haywire plot development. And when I say haywire, I mean insanely over-the-top ridiculousness. It's sporadic and even a bit desperate to capture the essence its predecessor left behind, and in the end it just doesn't compare. Wait for the DVD folks.
Personally, I enjoyed ANGELS AND DEMONS much more than the DA VINCI CODE. It moves at a quick pace, never becomes boring despite the bits of exposition needed to explain the plot, and is accompanied by another good Hans Zimmer score that accentuates the suspense at every turn.
The plot is much more straightforward and easier to follow than the previous Dan Brown story, although the clues seem a bit hard to swallow for the average man. In this, we trust the screenwriter that a man such as TOM HANKS plays would be able to pick up on all these facets of the church to know what he's doing and where he must turn next.
The assassin played by NIKOLAJ LIE KAAS does a superb job of keeping the sinister aspect of the Illuminati plot chilling enough to keep you glued to your seat. He's highly believable in a pivotal role even though his motivations are never quite clear. EWAN McGREGOR does a fine job as Camerlengo and his participation in the film's final twist is handled with style by director Ron Howard and his screenwriter.
AYELET ZURER is much better at portraying Tom Hanks' assistant in solving the mystery than the woman in the previous film, her accent not as thick as the French actress which was a huge drawback in THE DA VINCI CODE. Others in the cast do commendable work, but it's the whole look and style of the production that fascinates from beginning to end.
The photography is outstanding in its recreation of the Vatican artwork, the night scenes through the streets are done with great flair, and the story builds in intensity toward a very smashing climax.
It's a lot less offensive in dealing with the Catholic Church than the previous work was, using the Illuminati only to provide a chilling current tale of corruption and deception. It works beautifully.
One of the best action thrillers of the year, highly entertaining and full of gripping suspense.
The plot is much more straightforward and easier to follow than the previous Dan Brown story, although the clues seem a bit hard to swallow for the average man. In this, we trust the screenwriter that a man such as TOM HANKS plays would be able to pick up on all these facets of the church to know what he's doing and where he must turn next.
The assassin played by NIKOLAJ LIE KAAS does a superb job of keeping the sinister aspect of the Illuminati plot chilling enough to keep you glued to your seat. He's highly believable in a pivotal role even though his motivations are never quite clear. EWAN McGREGOR does a fine job as Camerlengo and his participation in the film's final twist is handled with style by director Ron Howard and his screenwriter.
AYELET ZURER is much better at portraying Tom Hanks' assistant in solving the mystery than the woman in the previous film, her accent not as thick as the French actress which was a huge drawback in THE DA VINCI CODE. Others in the cast do commendable work, but it's the whole look and style of the production that fascinates from beginning to end.
The photography is outstanding in its recreation of the Vatican artwork, the night scenes through the streets are done with great flair, and the story builds in intensity toward a very smashing climax.
It's a lot less offensive in dealing with the Catholic Church than the previous work was, using the Illuminati only to provide a chilling current tale of corruption and deception. It works beautifully.
One of the best action thrillers of the year, highly entertaining and full of gripping suspense.