[Reviews] Angels & Demons

[claireducky]

 

Angels & Demons

3 Stars, Metascore from metacritic.com: 49 Generally favorable reviews out of 100.

 

Hanks, Howard Exorcize Some Demons With 'Angels'-- James Rocchi

 

Following up 2006's "The Da Vinci Code," "Angels & Demons" continues the adventures of globe-trotting symbologist Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). The no-nonsense academic gets brought into the thick of ticking-clock intrigue as a centuries-old secret society, the Illuminati, strikes out at the Catholic Church as the church's leadership gathers to name a new Pope. The most surprising thing about "Angels & Demons" is that director Ron Howard seems to have listened to the criticisms of "The Da Vinci Code" -- a fairly turgid, bloated blockbuster -- and made a few course corrections as Langdon's conspiracy mission continues. This time around, "Code" screenwriter Akiva Goldsman is aided by David Koepp in adapting Dan Brown's best-selling novel. The action takes place "24"-style, keeping the pace up over a matter of hours, not days. Finally, Hanks' distracting hockey-hair mullet from the first film has been shorn and tamed, so that Langdon no longer looks like the oldest front-line player for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

And while it's easy to mock the first film for Hanks' hair, the fact is that "The Da Vinci Code" was a bit of a slog -- too much exposition, not enough run-and-gun action. (When Langdon refers to "The Da Vinci Code"'s adventures to a visitor from Rome, he mentions how he didn't think "that event had endeared me to the Vatican." He may as well have been talking about the audience.) The compressed time frame in "Angels & Demons" helps: The bad guys in the film have kidnapped four candidates for the papacy, and announced plans to kill them on the hour starting at 8 p.m., culminating in the midnight detonation of an antimatter bomb lifted from the lab of physicist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer). This doesn't mean that there's less exposition in "Angels & Demons," but at least you get fed chunks of Catholic history and renaissance art factoids while the people spouting them are running to beat the clock.

 

Langdon and Vetra have to decipher the secret code that unlocks the stops on the "Path of Illumination," which points to the Illuminati's secret meeting place, which is where the bomb's hidden. Strip away all of the Catholic conspiracy hugger-mugger, and "Angels & Demons" plays out like a classic comic-book adventure, with Langdon as Batman, the Illuminati's sinister secret head as The Riddler and Vatican City subbing in for Gotham. A classic comic-book adventure with plenty of blood and gore, however: The Illuminati brand their victims, and there's plenty of other grisly business, like stabbings, shooting and people being burned alive, to give the movie the occasional shot of ultraviolence to keep things moving. "Angels & Demons" is a weird mix of holy, high-minded religious history and philosophy and grim, gory serial killing; think of it as "The Silence of the Lambs of Christ" and you've pretty much got it.

 

The supporting cast is made of excellent actors -- such excellent actors, in fact, that we can't quite figure out which of them will secretly be among the Illuminati's anti-Catholic rogue scientists and rationalists. Is it Armin Mueller-Stahl's cold Cardinal? Stellan Skarsgård's icy chief of the Swiss Guard? Can Langdon, Vetra and the previous Pope's right-hand man, Fr. Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor, with a Lucky Charms-elf "Oirish" accent that he should consider himself lucky we find charming), crack the code and save the Church and Rome from destruction?

 

There's a certain amount of theology and philosophy on deck in "Angels & Demons": Langdon keeps on being asked by various parties during his efforts if he believes in God, which makes you wish he'd say "Uh, there's a bomb set to go off; can we have this chat later?" But Howard shows the Catholic Church as an institution of fallible men -- some good, some evil; more well-intentioned than not -- and still conveys how Langdon's big, agnostic brain is linked to a good heart. And that stuff's all broken up by bloody business and gunplay, even if the script does bend over backward to have the unarmed Langdon and Vetra always be the first people in the room in the face of danger, or revolve around the world's worst hired killer. Howard even attempts some Hitchcock-style shots here, and while he fumbles, it's nice to see him at least try. The production design is mouth-wateringly sumptuous as well, the sort of thing that has you speed-dialing your travel agent as soon as the film's depiction of the glories of Rome is over. "Angels & Demons" earns a few sympathy points for being that much better than "The Da Vinci Code," but it also gets a nod for being a slick, speedy thriller that cuts between mystery and murder at an agreeable enough tempo to make two hours go by.

 

James Rocchi's writings on film have appeared at Cinematical.com, Netflix.com, SFGate.com and in Mother Jones magazine. He lives in Los Angeles, where every ending is a twist ending.

 

[Kaznen]

I read the book years ago and saw the movie.

 

Meh, it was okay.  The book wasn't as good as The Da Vinci Code to begin with.  And I missed the parts were they talked about why Mike Landon wears a Mickey Mouse watch.  It's the parts like that they took out that made the character likable in the book.

 

And some of the parts other parts removed changed the dynamic of the story in a big way.

[claireducky]

I haven't read this book, but I read Da Vinci Code and just saw the movie for it last week on TV.  I was kinda disappointed by all the exposition that seemed to make the movie drag, but not so much as somebody who hasn't read the book, I would think.  They did a good job of staying fairly close to the plot in that one, so the exposition was a matter of course and pretty unavoidable.  I don't go to the movie theaters, but whenever this one comes out on DVD I will Netflix it.

[Emperor]

It is on my netflix list already.

[Krakalakachkn]

Tom Hanks was such a bad choice for Robert Langdon

[Corki]

*SPOILERS*

 

I saw Angels and Demons tonight as the girlfriend wanted to - but at least I'll get to watch Star Trek sometime soon!  ;D

 

As for A&D, I thought it was a bit wooden. My girlfriend thought it was better than The Da Vinci Code - but I don't. I didn't like the fact they made A&D follow The Da Vinci Code, when the books are the other way.

 

None of the characters really stood out. They did with The Da Vinci Code. It also felt like your hand was being held in A&D, unlike The Da Vinci Code, where you were given the chance to deduce things yourself.

 

And I did not like the fact that they cut out the whole reporter side-story from A&D (if I remember the book correctly, it was a BBC reporter). It gave a viewpoint from the Illuminati, and that was something that would have added something extra to the film.

 

Apart from those flaws, the music was good, and you got great pictures of Rome. I don't think it deserved the slating it has received in the British press (I haven't seen above a 2 star), but I think they could have done a better job.

[Far Dareis Mai]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I agree that I did not care for Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. I also liked Angels & Demons better than the Da Vinci Code too (bookwise). :P

 

 

[Krakalakachkn]

Angels & Demons CRUSHED The Da Vinci Code book-wise

[Emperor]

This from the guy who said T3 was better than T2....

 

Thats right Krak... I am calling you out!!!!!

 

 

 

[Majsju]

I will not see this movie, but I give it 1/5 for being based on a "book" by that Brown-guy.

[Krakalakachkn]

This from the guy who said T3 was better than T2....

 

Thats right Krak... I am calling you out!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Wait...are you saying you liked the Da Vinci Code book better than Angels & Demons?  or are you just trashing me on multiple threads for liking T3 better than T2?

[Vemynal]

T3 sucked, T2 is pretty good

 

Angels and Demons is a far better book imo than the Da Vinci Code

 

*spoilers*

 

Just saw the movie and to be honest i hate both the movies, to bad as i was really hoping they we do it some justice

 

While the changes to the beginning of the movie are understandable to speed things along I felt it cheapened Victoria's character.

 

But what the hell was with leaving out Victoia's superior, Langdon missing the helicopter and in the name of science *why* did they cut out the bad pope guy's (spacing on the name, sorry) entire reason for the movie?

 

He killed his father because his father, the pope, was becoming soft of science and religion, which is what the scientist who in the beginning of the book was trying to prove. That Science and religion can be compatible. preacher dude finds out that the pope is his father (he wasn't supposed to know) via a Nun who died in the bombing he mentions briefly. Since they couldn't have sex they had her artificially inseminated. Preacher guy was born of science and killed the pope for it. The bomb scare wasnt to make him pope it was supposed to discredit science!

 

and in fact in the book preacher guy does become pope, where in the movie he just mentions it is all

[Krakalakachkn]

I was not a fan of Da Vinci Code in movie format....and I will not waste $10 to see Angels & Demons.  I'll see it on HBO or something

[Angel of Death]

I have read the book and seen the movie (neither for Da Vinci Code - i want to read the book first) and i thought the movie was great. Ewan McGregor was really well cast imo.

[Quibby]

SPOILERS

 

I personally preferred the book Angels and Demons over The Da Vinci Code.  Da Vinci Code just seemed to be out to cash in on the religious controversy, whereas Angels and Demons tried to tell a story.  Granted, we're still dealing with Dan Brown, who isn't exactly the greatest author to ever live.

 

Because I had absolutely nothing better to do (seriously, I tried to come up with something), I went and watched the movie's midnight showing.  On one hand, there were some fun moments in the movie.  I'm thinking specifically of the antimatter detonation at the end, which ranks pretty high up there in the coolest visuals department.

 

On the other hand, some of the most emotional parts of the book fell flat on their faces in the movie.  The scene where they open the late pope's crypt, for instance, was better portrayed in the book.  It was more apparent just how ill at ease the idea of desecrating his remains made them.  In the movie, however, they seemed to be more focused on the state of decomposition, rather than any emotional impact.

 

The movie's attempt at humor was painful, at best.  I found myself laughing at moments that were meant to be more serious and groaning at the attempts for humor.

 

Overall, this is a rental at best.  The good moments are not enough to justify paying for a theater ticket.  In the end, the movie's just another attempt to make money off religious controversy.

[Krakalakachkn]

Quibby it's good I hear from you, I feel like it's been a week or two.  Also I concur that angels and demons was telling a story.  I even thought it was a greatly compelling story.  The only two redeeming factors I could imagine for the movie would be the antimatter and swan mcgregor