Angels & Demons

Angels & Demons

Angels & Demons - Directed by Ron Howard, starring Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, and Ewan McGregor - Rated PG-13

This one has Bruce Banner's dad written all over it.




Ron Howard has not done it again. The director took another hugely popular Dan Brown novel and allowed it to become a hectic mess. When Howard made The Da Vinci Code back in 2006, the expectations were huge. It was based on a hugely popular novel and it had Tom Hanks in the main role as Robert Langdon. But somewhere it all went wrong. Characters were changed and plot points dropped completely in lieu of more action/chase scenes. And Tom Hanks had one of the dumbest looking haircuts in recent movie history. Sadly, the only major change with Angels & Demons is Hanks’ hair.
Apart from a new haircut, Robert Langdon (Hanks) is the same symbologist who cracked the Da Vinci code. This time he’s contacted by the Vatican to try and solve the mystery of the Illuminati, a supposedly dead secret society which is waging war on Catholicism. This war is fought through the kidnapping of four cardinals who are the favorites to succeed the recently deceased pope. The group threatens to kill all four of the cardinals publicly and, to top it all off, they plan to destroy Vatican City with some stolen anti-matter. That summary may seem overly complicated and more suited for a novel rather than a movie and that is exactly what’s wrong with this film.

A book to movie adaptation is a tricky situation. Some stuff just has to be cut (especially from a lengthy book like Angels & Demons) and changes must be made to simplify and shorten the film version. But I think Dan Brown’s Langdon novels are just too complex and vast to translate to film, no matter what changes are made. The changes in this film, though, are certainly mistakes. There is almost no benefit from the changes to the characters. There are two major relationships that are removed from the novel which leave plot points feeling completely empty. It also doesn’t help that this movie missed the point that the book made concerning science vs. religion. The movie is too quick to get to another dead body when it should start off a bit slower and completely explain the rift between science and religion and consider the possibility of the two groups working together for a change.

Ron Howard does his best to cover up these mistakes with touches of style and music. Some of it works. The sequence with the large hadron collider near the beginning looks great and the visuals in the final scenes are impressive. It also helps that there are many great and famous locations which instantly make some scenes more interesting visually.
What doesn’t work, however, is the score. There are times when the music is so loud and overbearing that it becomes a distraction. The score is used to try to create suspense when it is simply not there. It almost seems like the actors can hear the music themselves at times because they will be calm about something, but when the music is cued, they start running and yelling. Music can add suspense, but it cannot create it. The only thing the music did for me was make me appreciate the few scenes not accompanied by a score. The most suspenseful scene in the film (it features someone being locked in) has no music. If Howard would have realized that an audience doesn’t have to be told how to feel through music, then this film wouldn’t have seemed so messy and rushed.
Angels & Demons might work as a novel, but it’s far too loud and hectic as a film. So if you want a suspenseful story about science and religion, read the book. If you want to hear blaring suspense music set to a weak plot, watch the movie.

**Once again, this one might be in the Perry County News, so here are some of my expanded thoughts on this mediocre movie.
I didn't really comment on the acting above because it was all so basic. Also, it all moves so fast that there isn't time for an actor to give any kind of memorable performance. So it isn't bad or anything, it just is.

The main thing I wanted to write about, though, is the end and the changes from the book to the movie. So this is obviously going to be filled with SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE MOVIE AND THE NOVEL. So I considered the main idea of the novel to be the battle between science and religion and how the groups could possibly work together. With this plotline, it was more about the church changing their ways rather than science slowing down for religion (which is how it is in the movie, Ewan McGregor's character even states that science should slow down). Part of the church changing concerned their openness to the rest of the world. Church leaders in the book discussed the possibility of embracing science and embracing the media. This is mentioned slightly in the movie, but it isn't focused on. In the book, a BBC journalist is a minor character and that journalist is allowed to follow the main characters around to the end. In the end, when corruption has been discovered along with murder, the media is there to share it with the world; the point being that the world would be shown the troubles the church has gone through, and would renew their faith not only because they witnessed what the church has survived, but also because they were now in a new era free of cover-ups and lies. But guess what happens in the movie? The journalist character is gone, and everything the church goes through is covered up and hidden from the public. The pope wasn't murdered, he just died. Those cardinals weren't killed, they died in a fire. And that guy who masterminded the entire thing? He's on the fasttrack to sainthood. Seriously? This is the hopeful, changed church at the end? They survived major problems, but they still lie through their teeth to their own believers.
Finally, I want to expand on the deleted relationships I mentioned in the main review. Once again, major SPOILER here. The recently deceased pope is McGregor's adopted father in the book and movie, but it is revealed in the book that he is his actual father (through artificial insemination), which makes his murder at McGregor's hands even more devastating. Another father issue: Ayelet Zurer (Langdon's gal pal in this one) plays the scientist who helped create the antimatter. In the movie, her partner is just another scientist. In the book, it's her father. She might have been able to show some more emotion if she was dealing with the death of her father in the movie, but instead she's just along for the emotionless ride.

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Last updated: 2010-05-10 22:46:23 by user06

Angels and Demons

I saw Angels and Demons last night, and I have to say I loved it. I've never read the book, but I thought that the story telling by Ron Howard was phenomenal, and the Acting by Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Stelin Skarsgard, and really the whole cast was suburb. Dan Browns writing is so great at grabbing audiences, and keeping them on the edge of their seats. Angels and Demons had me guessing the whole way through.

I've heard that some book fan's are a little upset about some inconsistencies, and even some major characters being completely left out. To them I say: so what? My wife has read the book and she explained some of the major differences (ie: the description of the bad guy, the wheelchair guy, the love story etc...) and to be completely honest with you if any of those things had been left in the movie it would've been too much. Dan Brown's storys are so complex already that anymore relationships, or plot twists, would've been overwheliming, and too hard to follow for the average movie-goer. I give kudos to Ron Howard and the writers for simplifying and only keeping what was needed to tell the story.

Without giving away too much of the story allow me to tell you some of my favorite things:

1. Tom Hanks. He has always been one of my favorite actors, and I think he can do anything. He nails this younger version (even thoughTom is now older) of Robert Langdon. Without going overboard he subtly makes us believe that this character is actually 'that good'. When he finds the clues we don't say "oh that was convienient..." we say "this guy is  awesome!"
2. I have to say that Ewan McGregor was perfectly cast! I can't think of anyone better to play the role of the Camerlengo. His performance was excellent.
3. I think that Catholics will be very pleased with the way thier church was portrayed overall. I know that there was a lot of fuss over The Divinci Code, but I feel that both Ron Howard and Dan Brown were very delicate in the way they handled religion in this movie. This is a fictional movie, I hope people remember that.
4. The ending was great. But then again the whole movie was great. You laughed, cried, cringed, gasped, cheered, and in the end you were completely satisfied. It was $7.50 well spent if you ask me.

I  give it an A-

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Star Trek (2009), The Matrix , (500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

Last updated: 2010-04-12 10:42:35 by user08

Angels & Demons

I give the movie: 3.0/5

Right after anti-matter was successfully created, the leading scientist was killed and the substance stolen. It is later discovered that the mastermind is apparently an ancient brotherhood called the Illuminati that is bent on destroying Vatican City, on the same day the Catholics are to elect their new Pope. The history books state that the Illuminati are a group that believes - in an extremist point of view - that Scientific reasonings of life should be made known, and that Religious beliefs should be set aside in light of the 'truth'.

Famed symbologist, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks reprising his role) is chosen yet again to follow a series of ambigrams (illustration of a word that reads the same even upside down) to find the path of Illumination, which will lead them to the whereabouts of that deadly substance that threatens to eliminate the city.

In comparison with The Da Vinci Code, also another Dan Brown adaptation, Angels obviously has a bigger budget to play with. The final explosion scene is quite stunning, but that is probably the highlight of the film, in what appears to be a standard by-the-numbers mystery ride with a few controversial elements peppered in.

FINAL SAY:

 Exciting and intriguing enough to sit through, but nowhere as fun as National Treasure.

Wilson Ng - http://wilsoniscurious.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-03-13 23:35:02 by wilsoniscurious

Angels & Demons

Starring:

Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard

Director: Ron Howard

Genre: Drama, Thriller

Rated: PG-13

Angels & Demons the prequel to the Controversial Da Vinci Code, Once again Stars Tom Hanks as Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon this time he is summoned to the Vatican to find out who kidnapped four Cardinals who are in line to be the next pope as well as find a missing Antimatter bomb which threatens to destroy Vatican City.

While not having the same controversy surrounding it as the Da Vinci Code, Angels &  Demons based on Dan Browns first novel starring  Symbologist Robert Langdon is set against the backdrop of Vatican City and is a religious based thriller, Rather than the Templar’s this one has the Illuminati as the Antagonists. Angels & Demons however feels like a paint by numbers thriller. Rather than feeling like you are part of the mystery Robert Langdon drags you along for what feels like a historical scavenger hunt. The film panders to the audience explaining everything as it is happening basically holding your hand step by step until it’s over. One huge flaw of the film is the terrible CGI, I expect a little more from Ron Howard. The helicopter at the end looks so fake that rather than being engrossed in the final minutes you are thinking that they ran out of budget and had an intern finish up the effects. From the get go the entire two hours and twenty minutes is explain what your looking for, find what your looking for and repeat until the trail leads to the end. Even the somewhat of a twist ending is so easy to figure out that it isn’t much of a twist at all.  In fact the best part of Angels & Demons Is that the Power Mullet hairstyle Tom Hanks sports in the Da Vinci Code is thankfully absent here.

(Read Less...)

angels and demons

maybe if i hadn’t seen star trek last week this film might have been better.  but then again, it’s not as good as the da vinci code anyway.  well, it’s actually pretty much the same movie as the da vinci code but since we’ve already seen that one, this one seems just a little flat.

it’s basically tom hanks running around rome looking for ancient symbols leading him on a path to other symbols that point him in other directions.  and if you saw da vinci, then you can take out the knights of the templar and replace them with the illuminati and you have angels and demons.

angels and demons was the first of the two books by dan brown made into movies yet in this film angels is set up as a sequel.  which is no big deal.  but some key elements from the book are simply left out.  for what reason, i do not know.  it’s in this book that professor langdon has a serious romantic interest in his female lead.  but there is none of that in the film.  there was more of a relationship for him in the da vinci code.

all in all, it’s still a pretty good film.  like i said, if i hadn’t seen star trek last week this might be a better movie to me.  but star trek just blows everything out of the water so far this summer.  it’s not even close.

the history and things like that just don’t seem as interesting to me this time around.  meaning, the da vinci code was just way better.  sorry ron howard, you just missed on this one a little bit.  i’m sure you’ll still make a hundred million bucks, but maybe not.

one of the things that makes da vinci a better film is there is a compelling villian in the albino.  but there is none such in angels and demons.  the peices to the puzzles just don’t seem to fit as well in this one as in the last film.  and it’s a shame.  it’s a pretty good story, they just missed a little.

two dead catholic popes out of five.

Cal Reed

Angels and Demons

Basic Premise:

Robert Langdon is back and this time he's helping the church. The Vatican has suffered a great loss with the death of the Pope and it is time for a new pope to be chosen, except the preferitti -- those cardinals favored by the pope -- have been kidnapped in a revenge plot that dates back centuries. Robert has to follow the clues of an ancient order before time runs out, because if he fails millions could perish.


Review:

As always I must first establish that I have never read Dan Brown's books so I cannot compare this film to the novel. I must also say that if you were religiously offended by the first movie, I wouldn't suggest seeing the second because it is more of the same.

I love conspiracy theory. This movie was chock full of it. Dan Brown and Ron Howard did not disappoint. This was a great installment to the Robert Langdon files. I have to say, Dan Brown kept me guessing until close to the very end. I kept changing my mind and revising my guess as to the true "bad guy".

Tom Hanks did a beautiful job. I'm also very happy that he cut his hair. :D

Just to let you know how much I liked this movie, I came out of it with an adrenaline headache. There was laughter and nail-biting and gasps of shock and surprise. There were times you wanted to smack the characters and times when you wished you could help. Every emotion was felt and I would dearly love to see this movie again. Alas, it is summer and there are other movies that must be watched.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Star Trek (2009), Avatar, 300

D. Renee Bagby<br />
Building New Realms of Passion<br />
http://dreneebagby.com

Angels & Demons

Dan Brown is a mystery to me. His books appear to be written by a (vending) machine. His characters possess all the idiosyncrasies of spoons. His understanding of Catholicism would look dim-witted for a mollusc. And yet he sells in the millions. There’s an existential hunger for his bullshit. Even though the average Dan Brown novel only has four component parts (1) an obscene amount of exposition, 2) a kinky hit-man, 3) Professor Robert Langdon, 4) a tourist-friendly setting) he’s held up as king of thrillers just for throwing in the odd twist. The latest movie to come from a Dan Brown novel (Angels & Demons) is so silly even the ampersand looks embarrassed.

It begins with some anti-matter being stolen from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research in Geneva. Then four cardinals are kidnapped from the Vatican. Since the poor dumb schmucks in Italy and Switzerland can’t be expected to crack the case, it’s down to Dan Brown regular Professor Robert Langdon to solve it. Langdon is contacted by the Vatican because he knows about symbology (surprisingly, Dan Brown did not make this discipline up). When the cardinals were kidnapped, the kidnappers left behind an ambigram (i.e. a word that can be read the same upside down as normal). The church bods already know what the ambigram says, but they need Langdon to tell them what it means. He doesn’t speak Italian or Latin, but goddamn it!, he’s played by Tom Hanks.

You need a big star in a piece of crap like this. Without Hanks – with, say, Rutger Hauer playing Langdon – the whole enterprise would head straight to DVD. Hanks – banking on the credibility he earned playing gay men and messianic idiots – runs around Rome in a good suit, looking serious. His job is to act as a sort of hysterical, conspiracy-minded tour-guide; explaining how every artwork in Christendom is really a cryptogram leading to a kinky hidden truth. With his stout head and financial investor’s expression, Hanks nearly manages to avoid the script’s explaining-this-to-a-six-year-old tone. But, as ever with Dan Brown, the sheer weight of exposition crushes any human interaction. Langdon is a character the way the .44 Magnum is a character in Dirty Harry; he exists to be point at people and to get information out of them, but you can’t picture him sunbathing.

Of the plot, the only sensible thing to say is: WTF? “Implausible” isn’t even a word in Dan Brown’s vocabulary. It vanished along with “blasphemous” and “asinine twaddle”. We’re asked to believe not only that one man could kidnap four cardinals from the Vatican, but that he could also stick ’em in the back of a truck and drive around Rome, disembowelling them at regular intervals. This man’s motivations are apparently faith-based, much the same way Dan Brown’s motivations are based on faith, that no-one will examine his plots too closely. I’m guessing it was this same supremely dexterous killer who broke into the CERN facility in Geneva and pulled out a priest’s eyeball without anyone noticing. Why he lets Professor Robert Langdon live at several key moments is also left in the air. Though, considering the movie’s climax rests on a priest parachuting out of an exploding helicopter, I probably shouldn’t worry overly about the impracticalities of offing a member of the clergy inside the Large Hadron Collider, or why anyone would spare Tom Hanks.

If there is something to be learned from reading Dan Brown, God help us. The man writes pot-boilers that make Michael Crichton look like Umberto Eco. People used to complain about the writing in Jurassic Park, but at least Jurassic Park had dinosaurs. In Dan Brown, the story is like reading a Lonely Planet entry written by Robert Ludlum; famous sites are visited, lurid mysteries unveiled… the holiday ends in a shoot-out, but you’re no wiser than when it began. I’m guessing people respond to these books because they have nice pictures on the cover.Angels & Demons is the sort of thriller that makes you sympathise with the last seven words of Christ.

Review Title

BACK COVER SYNOPSIS: In Ron Howard’s thrilling new prequel to The DaVinci Code, expert symbologist Robert Langdon (Academy Award winner Tom Hanks, 1994, “Forrest Gump”) is called to Rome when four Cardinals are kidnapped by the church’s deadliest enemy, the secret society known as The Illuminati. Teamed up with the beautiful scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), Langdon follows ancient clues on an action-packed hunt through catacombs, cathedrals, sealed crypts and the most secretive vault on Earth to stop the Illuminati from killing the cardinals and detonating a bomb that will both Vatican City to heaven.

FILM REVIEW: The DaVinci Code was perhaps one the biggest disappointments in a Hollywood blockbuster that has come out in recent years after all the hype and excitement generated by the Dan Brown novel of the same name. Coming in to “Angels & Demons”, one would be forgiven for being sceptical about the quality. Although director Ron Howard and company have actually created a cinematic experience this time, perhaps because the book upon which it is based had a more filmic quality to it, “Angels & Demons” does still come up short in some areas, largely in the climax which degenerates in to complete silliness and implausibility. On the plus side, the first half is quite thrilling as Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon character is racing against time to prevent four cardinals, and the Vatican itself, from death and destruction.
The Vatican faces a crisis when the top four cardinals to replace the recently deceased Pope are kidnapped by members of the Illuminati, a secret society dedicated to scientific truth, and a mortal enemy of the Church. The Church is told that each cardinal will be killed one per hour starting at 8pm, culminating with an anti-matter bomb exploding under St Peter’s Cathedral at midnight, wiping out the Vatican forever. To face down this nasty threat, the Church calls upon the services of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) who has expertise and knowledge of the Illuminati. He is put to work straight away, racing against time to find the kidnapped cardinals by deciphering clues, symbols and other historical tidbits. As he digs deeper however, all is not as it seems, with the threat coming back in to the Vatican itself, leading to a few surprises and grisly endings for those involved.
The filmmakers have very clearly made an attempt to address the problems inherent in The DaVinci Code. This time, rather than having characters talk through endless exposition and explanations of things without any cohesive narrative, everything is done with a sense of critical urgency. Langdon explains his history on the move this time, with the clock always ticking. The film does not drift in to exposition for too long as the plot pertaining to the missing cardinals keeps jumping back in to remind everyone that we have a crisis. There is even a sequence or two of genuine cinematic thrills, with the prime example being when Langdon and a Swiss Guard officer find themselves locked in the Vatican Vault with the oxygen running out. The film does well to engage interest through its explanations of history and the inner workings of the Vatican (whether accurate or not).
With a strong plot line, the characters have something to be emotionally invested in, and all do very well, starting with Tom Hanks who does not seem to be bored this time, Ewan McGregor as a seemingly well intentioned but dangerously misguided priest, and Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria who apart from lending her beauty to the screen also holds her own against Hanks. Stellan Skarsgard is also quite good as the head of the Swiss guard Commander Richter. Nikolaj Lie Kaas is quite chilling and professional as the assassin, particularly with his quite efficient and gruesome killing techniques. And serving as a supporting anchor of sorts is the always good Armin Mueller-Stahl who plays an old-school, but empathetic cardinal in charge of the Conclave, the time when the new Pope is to be selected.
The film does fall off the rails around three quarters of the way through its running time. When Langdon and company find the bomb, Carmelengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) makes a seemingly sacrificial attempt to destroy the bomb by flying up high in to the sky in a helicopter, but then magically falls back to Earth in a parachute just in time to see the anti-matter bomb explode in a blaze of glory in the upper atmosphere. Aside from the fact that we have to accept as a given that this priest can fly a helicopter, he also manages to survive the extremely bumpy parachute jump, even after he had been branded painfully on the chest with an Illuminati symbol just moments earlier. The bomb itself we are told is enough to destroy the whole Vatican and a good portion of Rome but it only manages to knock everyone over and not destroy much. Then it lurches forward in to further absurdity when we are told the the Carmelengo actually staged the whole Illuminati threat when there was none to begin with in an attempt to make the Church more sympathetic by making the Illumaniti and what they stand for appear evil. This includes poisoning the Pope to make it look like the Illuminati did it, hiring the highly intelligent assassin without him knowing that the whole thing was faked, and keeping it all out from under the nose of the Swiss Guard, and in particular, Commander Richter who has cameras installed everywhere to track everyone’s movements but somehow does not find out about the Carmelengo’s treachery until the very last moment. This climax unfortunately makes the whole exercise a waste of time. The Illuminati are interesting; to be told in the end they did not exist is almost a cheat and diminishes the sense of history attached to the story.
The film does look good and is perhaps Ron Howard’s best looking film to date. The images of Rome are glorious, as is a visual motif of blending lens flares which stand in for the crowds of onlookers in St Peters Square which show up throughout the film. He manages to integrate a number of computer generated images in to the film seamlessly, although there are others that look woeful, particularly in the climax when the bomb goes off; the CG helicopter looks ridiculous in this scene, as do a number of other CG elements.
“Angels & Demons” is quite entertaining for most of its run time, only let down by a ridiculous and demeaning climax.

TECHNICAL REVIEW: The transfer of this film to DVD is by and large flawless. The picture is quite stunning, particularly in the richness of colour, sharpness and contrast, with all the images and certain visual effects perfectly represented in their true presentation. The soundtrack is likewise impressive, creating an environment that befits the thrilling nature of the piece, with the musical score thundering out of the surrounds in the big moments. Overall, this film has been given an excellent transfer to DVD.

EXTRAS REVIEW: The extras package on this DVD is not extensive, comprising of four main featurettes which offer some insight in to the production. The two most interesting featurettes, lasting ten minutes a piece, are “Writing Angels & Demons” and “Angels & Demons: The Full Story”, which give an overview of the journey taken by the filmmakers to bring the Dan Brown novel to the screen. There is some interesting stuff here, but also some back-slapping as well on behalf of the filmmakers, particularly when Ron Howard says that he felt compelled to do this film after the fact that so many people liked The DaVinci Code… right… (at least he made a better film this time). The other two featurettes specifically deal with the ambigrams depicted in the film and the props. There are also some trailers for other Columbia films. Overall, these featurettes complement the film quite well but are not anywhere near extensive enough, especially considering that they only hint at the mammoth amount of logistical work that went in to getting the film made which actually looked quite interesting.

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it.

FILM RATING: 6.5/10 -- EXTRAS RATING: 6/10 -- OVERALL DVD RATING: 6.5/10 

(Read Less...)

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

ANGELS & DEMONS (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: “Angels & Demons” works surprisingly well as a piece of popcorn entertainment; far better than its poorly made predecessor The Da Vinci Code but still manages to descend in to the absurd in the final act, leading one to question how Oscar winners Ron Howard and Tom Hanks could still make something so average given their pedigree.

HE GOOD: “Angels & Demons” works far better as a film than The Da Vinci Code simply because the overarching story follows a classic running-out-of-time thriller plot while sprinkling conspiracy theories on top of it as a windows dressing. This time, lead character Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called in by the Vatican to use his knowledge of the ancient secret society “The Illuminati” to find four kidnapped cardinals who are all the preferred candidates to be the next Pope. Time is running out as the kidnapper’s letter indicates that each cardinal will be killed one per hour until midnight, after which an anti-matter bomb will explode and wipe out the Vatican. It’s all over the top but these particulars do not matter as finally a sense of urgency has been instilled in to the franchise by director Ron Howard who manages to stage scenes that engross you in Langdon’s quest to decipher the codes in time to save the cardinals. It may be that the original novel by Dan Brown lended itself better to a silver screen translation than The Da Vinci Code, or that Ron Howard shows off a little more directorial flair in this instalment, but whatever the reason, “Angels & Demons” actually works well as a film by using clever devices that put the characters in jeopardy, setting them tasks to solve with very little time, and introducing a sense of mystery and intrigue about who is responsible for setting all these events in motion, all factors which its predecessor failed to deliver. Hanks is good as the anchor in the cast, even though he still looks like he is sleep-walking through the role. Ewan McGregor is quite good as the Carmerlengo who is temporarily in charge of the Vatican after the Pope dies, except for his final scenes. Ayelet Zurer has a far better lead female character to play than poor Audrey Tatou did in the previous film. Ron Howard manages to create some more visually rich images this time around, particularly with the use of blurred images becoming focused and unfocused through lens flares which add some layers of visual texture to the film. Overall, “Angels & Demons” manages to work well as a piece of popcorn entertainment which will not waste your time.

THE BAD: Although the film is far better than The Da Vinci Code, one has to wonder that with Oscar-winning talent like Howard and Hanks helming these films that something far better did not result. The Da Vinci Code was a bad film period. “Angels & Demons” feels like a first-timer’s effort done right, or a student who delivers a decent piece of work after learning from their mistakes. The film works well as a standard genre entertainment, but you would expect a hell of a lot more from Ron Howard given his previous efforts, not a by-the-numbers thriller that uses standard conventions to move things forward. To be fair, the first ninety minutes uses these conventions quite effectively, however the last thirty minutes descend in to absolute absurdity. Poor Ewan McGregor ends up with the brunt of it as the plot, through his character, goes through a number of quick and poorly constructed twists that by the time they conclude with the Carmerlengo’s death, you will be laughing more than feeling the supposed tragedy unfolding. The revelations in the Final Act feel almost like a cheat. The film sets up the mystery of the Illuminati only to take it away in the end by a character whose motivations never really seem to make sense, at least for the story. At the end of the day the film is good and will entertain, but Howard and Hanks are capable of delivering far better work than this and it is from this point that “Angels & Demons” is still a disappointment.

RATING: 7/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Angels and Demons

Usually, when a super-hyped movie is made and it recieves negative reviews from critics and fans, a second film is not made. That is why, upon reading that they were making “Angels and Demons,” I thought “what the hell?” I couldn’t believe it, and thought that it had to be some straight to DVD, crappy, B-movie. Ron Howard’s directing it? Tom Hanks is in it again? What the hell? Who green-lit this? The months wore on and I have to say this film had the absolute worst ad campaign in history. The were barely any spots on TV, hardly any press, and no big controversy. I let my confused self simply stay confused until the release date rolled around.

Going into the movie, I expected this film to be like its predecessor “The Da Vinci Code”,  full of Biblical references and running around ancient cities, followed by ancient secret societies and such. “Angels and Demons” is exactly that, and for that reason, I loved it.

In this Robert Langdon adventure, he is contacted by the Vatican Police because they have found a haunting insignia at the Vatican: an insignia associated with the Illuminati. Apparently, the Illuminati were a group of people who were bored of church and didn’t like how the church was runnin’ the world. The Illuminati was a group that met in secret, hiding from the iron first of the church, who persecuted science (because it contradicts religion and faith) and any naysayers in the way. Fearing a threat, the Vatican fetches symbolist Robert Langdon to get to the bottom of this.

When he arrives in Rome, he learns that the four prefferiti (the four people who are most likely to be elected as the next Pope) have been kidnapped by the rouge group, and that one will be killed every hour starting at 8 pm. At midnight, a bomb (actually some anti-matter canister thing) will blow up, sending the Vatican, and some of Rome to the skies. In order to stop the Illuminati, Robert’s got to understand archaic symbols and go to this church and that church, trying to save the four preferitti and find the bomb. . .it is kind of a stressful evening.

Now to talk about the actual film aspects, or whatever they are called. “The Da Vinci Code” was alright, but I think a little too hyped up. No film could live up to that much hype. I found “Angels and Demons” not only to be a better movie, but to have a more engaging story, better acting, and a lot more suspense. “The Da Vinci” code was suspenseful, sure, but in this film, Langdon’s got five hours to save four wannabe Popes, find a bomb, and save Vatican City. Damn. . .that is an intense five hours. The performances were good all around. I especially enjoyed the appearances of Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgard. What a nice surprise! Really, everyone gave a good performance.

Do I have any complaints? Honestly, not really. Some of the special effects shots are obviously special effects shots, but I can let that slide. In fact, the special effects are pretty amazing, considering that it takes place in the Vatican, and the Vatican wouldn’t let them film there. Thus, St. Peter’s Square and the Basilica had to be painstakingly recreated, and hey, it looked pretty good to me. During the film, I once even asked myself “Did they film in the Basilica?” Now those are some good special effects.

Other than some ghetto effects shots, “Angels and Demons” is highly entertaining. I understand that someone less familiar with Catholic lore might not connect as well (I was raised Catholic) with the Papal processes and all that mumbo-jumbo, but anyone who likes adventure and action should be satisfied. I sure was.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: (500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

Last updated: 2010-01-12 00:19:04 by rammfan518

Movie Review: Angels & Demons (2009)

Yesterday I saw Angels & Demons, you know, the highly anticipated follow-up to the controversial (and hugely successful) The Da Vinci Code, also adapted from the novel of the same name written by Dan Brown.

After the somewhat modest reactions to the The Da Vinci Code (which I actually think deserved more credit), my expectations were held in check this time.  Another good thing is that it had been so long since I read the book that I had kind of forgotten what it was all about.  Consequently, I was pleasantly surprised.  It was fun, exciting, and the pieces came together at the right moments.

In short, it was a vast improvement on the first film and I totally enjoyed it!

Background

Angels & Demons the book is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code, but the movie is filmed as a sequel (and there are several references to the events of the first film in the opening scenes).  As per my review etiquette, I won’t divulge plot details, but given the success of the novel, it’s safe to assume most people at least have an idea of what it is about.   All I will say is that, like its predecessor, Angels & Demons is heavily influenced by religious themes and involves a desperate race against time that leads to a lot of running around.  Whereas The Da Vinci Code was set predominantly in Paris, Angels & Demons leads you through a breath-taking adventure through the various attractions and sights of Rome and Vatican City.
Action, action and more action

Dan Brown’s novels are known to unveil at neck-breaking pace.  However, unlike the book, many felt that The Da Vinci Code movie was, frankly, a bit of a bore.  Angels & Demons doesn’t suffer from the same problem because it’s made as more of a popcorn movie with full-throttle action right from the beginning, rarely pausing to catch its breath.

The difference is in the adaptation.  The Da Vinci Code movie was bogged down by the need to fully explain its complex conspiracy theories, and despite doing so very well (and innovatively), it led to dull patches that killed the momentum.  Director Ron Howard certainly learned his lesson, because even though the plot and theories of Angels & Demons also require a fair amount of explanation, this time they did it right – by giving you the essentials upfront and then feeding you bits of information at a time so that the pace never sags for very long and things are kept moving.

Though I couldn’t recall much from the book, Ron Howard definitely changed or deliberately left out certain parts of the storyline in the film – and I think it was for the better.  To be honest, the conspiracy theories in Angels & Demons sounded pretty silly when transformed from the page to the big screen (and coming from me that says a lot because I tend to believe in a lot of that stuff), so I felt it was a smart choice to leave the emphasis off all of that and focus on keeping the foot on the gas pedal.  There’s probably another reason why decided to it, but I won’t say because it may lead to a potential spoiler.  Nevertheless, the end product was much closer in style and pace to the novel than The Da Vinci Code was, and therein lies the biggest contrast between the two films.

Cast
The mullet is gone  

Terrific all-star cast.

Of course, Tom Hanks returned as professor Robert Langdon, sans the infamous mullet from last time (I still think the new hairdo is a FAIL, just not an EPIC FAIL – perhaps he needs sideburns or something).  Hanks clearly got into good shape to portray the character, as evident from his very first scene, but there was still some awkwardness to him.  Maybe he just wasn’t the right choice for Langdon, but it’s too late now because like it or not the character will forever be associated with the actor.
The big upgrade was Ayelet Zurer (Israeli actress best known from Munich – the film not the city), who portrays the scientist/sidekick to Hank’s Langdon.  As much as I like Audrey Tautou (from The Da Vinci Code), Zurer’s chemistry with Hanks was so much better, and she more than holds her own in the film.

I was glad to see Ewan McGregor (as the ‘Camerlengo’) again on the big screen after bumping into him in person while vacationing in Berlin.  By the way, he was brilliant in the role.

There were other solid supporting roles too, such as Stellan Skarsgard as Commander Richter of the Swiss Guard and the always trusty Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss.  Note both names were changed from the novel.

Special Effects

Ron Howard and his special effects team really worked miracles in Angels & Demons, because despite the film being set almost entirely in Rome and Vatican City, the Vatican made it virtually impossible for them to shoot there.  And yet you would have never noticed if no one had told you.

I don’t know how they did it, but it must have involved building full-scale replicas, smaller scale replicas and lots of digital effects.  Really just shows you can pretty much do whatever you want in movies these days (as long as you have the budget).
There were also some other sensational special effects sequences that were done with amazing realism, though I can’t discuss them without spoiling the plot.  You’ll just have to watch it!

Religious Themes

I found it interesting that the Vatican basically condemned this film before it even began shooting.  It probably had a lot to do with the anti-church reputation The Da Vinci Code had developed, but I actually thought that Angels & Demons had a pro-church and pro-faith undercurrent.  Sure, there were some thinly-veiled criticisms of the Catholic Church, but on the whole the film did a decent job of reconciling science and religion, and reminding everyone that religion is, ultimately, a man-made thing that is not perfect.  Perhaps Catholics might even find the film uplifting.  Regardless, I’m sure the boycotts are already in motion.

Dan Brown

Angels & Demons, apart from being a fun action flick, really reminded me of what Dan Brown is capable of. You see all the copycat authors that are out there today and it tends to dilute what Brown accomplished with his two most popular novels.  Seeing the film made me remember how great the storyline was and how brilliant Brown was in being able to link everything together so intricately, making all the pieces fit so perfectly.  A mind-boggling amount of research and thought must have gone into it.  It’s a great example for aspiring writers who want to pen the next international bestseller.  Brown may not be a great (or even good) writer but he’s put a lot of effort into creating these engaging stories.

This has definitely reinvigorated my enthusiasm for Brown’s upcoming new novel, The Lost Symbol, which is coming out this September (s0me preliminary thoughts here).

Final Thoughts

In all, Angels & Demons is a great action film (with a little extra) that doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.  It’s a movie that caters for a wide audience.

Those that have been to Rome or the Vatican will get a kick out of seeing all those places being used in the film (I had a few ‘remember that place?’ moments myself).  It’s also good for people who haven’t, because it will probably make them want to go now!

I’m sure those who have already read the book will enjoy the film because it is genuinely exciting and captures the thrill ride entailed in the novel.  However, I think those that will like the film most are those who haven’t read the book (and there’s probably not many out there), because they will be even more impressed by the scale of the story and the way the symbols, conspiracies, science, religion, action and storyline is all woven together.

Just go in with an open mind, don’t expect everything to make sense, take the conspiracy theories with a large chunk of salt – and you might be surprised how enjoyable the film can be.

4 out of 5 stars!

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-06 22:54:11 by user04

Angels & Demons

I watched “Angels & Demons” expecting escapist entertainment, because really, expecting anything else from a film based on a Dan Brown novel is just silly — I have not read “Angels & Demons”, but I read “The DaVinci Code” and if there’s one thing it teaches us, is that there is such a thing as an overwritten plot (and that, okay, bashing the Catholic Church is fun). I fully expected that for this film, with fast-paced editing to hide all the holes in it and expositional dialogue to make sure the audience could keep up with all the mythology and symbology, because it’s a well-known fact the audience is fully comprised of utter morons like myself who need arrows pointing to the screen in a movie theather so they know where to look at.

And even with my hopes low enough to be capable of withstanding an Aaron Seltzer/Jason Friedberg spoof flick for five or six minutes before slamming my own head with a car door, “Angels & Demons” still managed to fall many miles below said hopes and the more I think about the film, the more its quality approaches the center of the Earth.

In the film, scientists have managed to produce antimatter with the Large Hadron Collider. Right after they do it, the capsule containing the antimatter is stolen by a hired gun. Soon, the battery keeping the antimatter suspended in vacuum will run out of power, which will result in a huge — yes. In other words, the movie simply uses the antimatter as a glorified (and very preposterous) nuke, and the only reason it’s antimatter and not any other kind of powerful bomb is because the plot needed an explosive device that could be made by the Large Hadron Collider (which, in real life, it can’t make anyway), for the sake of pretentious “Science vs. Religion” symbolism (something Ron Howard very subtly depicts by interrupting the flow of the movie to show a bunch of cardinals using cameras and cellphones like that’s a groundbreaking revelation or clever irony). How the hired gun knew the antimatter experiment would be successful, and why he didn’t look for a less complicated bomb, is cleverly left unexplained by the film, since any attempts to actually explain it would certainly result in utter embarassment. Shame the film stops caring about not embarassing itself in a matter of minutes.

The Vatican is about to choose the next fanatic moron to lead them and wear that remarkably goofy hat, since the previous pope has just died. However, the four favorite cardinals have been kidnapped by the same hired gun who stole the antimatter. He claims he will kill one of them every hour, starting at 8 pm, until the battery of the antimatter capsule runs out at midnight. Cry your heart out, Anton Chigurh. You spend an entire movie hunting a redneck with a briefcase and meanwhile this guy steals antimatter and kidnaps four cardinals in the first minutes of the film. However, I think this is because Chigurh is a character in an actually good movie with a believable plot. Also, the Swiss Guard are not depicted as very intelligent or efficient people in “Angels & Demons”, since their reaction to finding a cardinal immediately after he’s attacked is to stare at him dramatically as he dies instead of hunting the killer who is very possibly still around.

With the antimatter stolen and four cardinals kidnapped, the Swiss Guard turns to Robert Langdon, a symbologist who seems to think everyone around him is retarded, judging by how he finds it necessary to use Italian terms mixed in with English sentences and then translate said terms to characters who either speak or are Italian. This is especially dickish of him since he’s a religious symbologist who, in two scenes, needs help to read Italian and, for fuck’s sake, Latin. Granted, all the characters in the film have this overpowering urge to explain everything. Every time someone mentions a religious term, someone else describes it. Or the character himself does. A particularly hilarious moment is when Langdon says “You didn’t tell me they were the preferiti — the favorites to be named the next pope”. And when your character feels the need to explain what the preferiti are to theSwiss Guard — your dialogue is shit. That or your character is a pedantic asshole.

But really, I should have realized that this being a film co-written by Akiva Goldsman, I’d have to be dead and in Hell to enjoy it. Yes, the usually very competent David Koepp is the other writer, but according to imdb.com, he was hired to re-write the script. My guess is that he read it and realized the only way to re-write it would be to throw it in the fire and start over, but probably there wasn’t time for that, so he threw in one or two passable lines of dialogue and called it a day — hopefully moving to a better project that is more suitable to the man who wrote my favorite film, “Carlito’s Way”.

It isn’t only the dialogue being absurdly badly-written and the plot preposterous that ruins this film — it’s also extremely predictable. And the really pathetic part is that it tries its best to hide who the villain is — and that’s precisely why it’s so easy to figure that out. (Rest of this paragraph might reveal the villain, so spoiler warning, if you care) The writers pretty much put a halo in his head and treat him as a complete saint, while making the other characters unreasonable by contrast. They even go as far as hiring an actor who usually plays good guys for said role, while the other ones have played proeminent villains in other productions. And if you’ve ignored the spoiler warning and this reveals who the villain is for you, really, I doubt the movie would be more successful in fooling you. If it is, maybe you’ve hit your head recently.

However, what truly destroys this film and makes it such a disaster is how pretentious it is. It actually thinks it has something relevant to say about the ongoing debate (and in several cases, war) between Religion and Science. In fact, the characters feel the need to spell the movie’s simplistic message out for us, the poor misleaded audience, in case we have failed to grasp it. And at the same time, “Angels & Demons” ignores that it has invalidated its own message — and if at this point you still care about spoilers, don’t read the rest of this paragraph (or the entire review, since I’m not being too careful with spoilers anyway) — it is revealed the Illuminati do not exist in this film and are used as a deception by the villain, who is a Catholic fanatic. In other words, this whole mess has originated within the Church and there is no war between Science and Religion at all. The blame falls squarely on the Catholic Church alone. This explains why, in the ending, when a character says there is room for Religion and Science in the world, I wanted to claw my own eyeballs out.

There’s also the plotholes, of course. The executions of the preferiti are supposed to be public in order to achieve the desired effect, and yet most of them would have gone unnoticed if Langdon hadn’t found the bodies; the Great Elector says there will be no election without the preferiti, and half an hour later there he is trying to elect the new pope without them; and not only the movie fictionalizes some Vatican procedure (the Camerlengo is not as powerful as the pope during his absence, as depicted), but it fictionalizes science as well. Not only the depiction of antimatter is very dodgy, but for the love of Albert Einstein, since when taking a nuke (or antimatter that acts like a nuke) about a mile above the ground is a way of preventing destruction? Nukes detonate on the air for maximum impact — otherwise the ground soaks up a good portion of it. So when a character takes the nuke/antimatter/whatever to the skies in a helicopter, the other characters should have been trying to shoot it down with an RPG or something — but maybe then they remembered they’re in a film written by Akiva Goldsman based on a Dan Brown novel and relaxed.

The movie adds another interruption to the story so the Camerlengo can deliver a speech about Science vs. Religion that once again reiterates the film’s stupidity. “Who is more ignorant: the man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its natural awesome power?”, like you cannot both define it and respect it — and in fact, it’s thanks to attempts to understand electrical power that there is such a thing as a lightning rod. But the real gem is “There are things Science is too young to understand,” — and meanwhile the Bible claims the world was made a few thousand years ago. By an invisible man in the sky.

All this and I haven’t even talked about the technical aspects yet. I will avoid talking about the cast, since not a single actor receives a good character to play in this film. All I’ll say about the actors for having accepted their roles: are you all idiots/not rich enough yet?

Director Ron Howard continues his partnership with Akiva Goldsman by directing the film which as much ability as Goldsman writes it. Howard insists on spinning his camera around the characters while zoomed in on them, which causes that epic visual effect: the object or person focused by the camera spins slowly while the unfocused scenery behind them pans much faster. This, I presume, was Howard’s desperate attempt to make up for the endless talking and explanations. He does not restrain himself and as a result his job lacks subtlety — although the script (and Hans Zimmer’ overdone chorus-filled soundtrack) already did, but still. In fact, in two occasions, when Langdon is arriving at the possible location of a murder, he is startled by sounds that could be gunshots but are revealed to be perfectly innocent sounds from the crowd — this happens twice, consecutively.

The cinematography is not bad, although it overuses lighting coming from windows in otherwise dark rooms to shadow the many, many,many dialogue scenes. But considering this film happens in the Vatican, I can’t blame it for that, really. However, the cinematography is sabotaged by the inconsistent special effects, which reach their lowest by failing to depict the flight of helicopters convincingly — but to be fair, this might be due to Howard’s overdone camera movements.

Predictable and repetivive with only one action scene worth a fuck (the shootout in the church with a man being burned), “Angels & Demons” basically believes itself relevant and smart while at the same time believing the audience to be idiots, and the final shot is so nauseatingly optimistic and so horribly misses the point I could feel the bile trying to corrode its way out of my liver.

Written by André Navarro on October 6th 2009

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-25 08:12:45 by FadingMemory