Angels & Demons
Movie Review
"Angels & Demons"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, May 15, 2009
Directed by:
Cast:
Part of the problem with the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code" was that it took itself too seriously. You had these people dashing around Europe, investigating obscure clues and uncovering outrageous conspiracies, but the only person who seemed to be having any fun with it was Ian McKellen. "Tom Hanks has never seemed so dull," I wrote in my review.
Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. "Angels & Demons," the "Da Vinci Code" sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the AUDIENCE?
Not having read Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons" novel (which actually came before "Da Vinci," not after), I was able to find some entertainment in the mechanics of the plot -- not knowing how the mystery would be unraveled, curious to see what the clues would mean. The screenplay, by veteran action writer David Koepp ("Panic Room") and Ron Howard regular Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind"), basically adheres to a limited point of view -- we don't know any more than the Hanks character, Robert Langdon, does. For viewers who already know where things are going, there may not be much pleasure in watching Langdon figure it out, unless the movie has deviated significantly from the book.
This time around, Langdon, relieved of his absurd haircut and back at Harvard University, is summoned by the Vatican after four high-ranking cardinals are kidnapped. The Vatican, in a state of high alert anyway due to the pope having just died, believes the evildoers are members of the super-secret group known as the Illuminati. The reason they believe this is that whoever abducted the cardinals left behind a piece of paper that says "ILLUMINATI" on it.
Langdon's expertise is needed because this "ILLUMINATI" symbol is written in the form of an ambigram, i.e., it reads the same right-side-up and upside-down. (Look at how "Angels & Demons" appears on the cover of the novel.) Allegedly, this is an ancient secret, the sudden appearance of which can ONLY mean the Illuminati have come out of hiding, because surely no one else could have figured out how to design an ambigram out of "Illuminati."
The kidnappers have also swiped a canister of anti-matter from a Vatican-funded lab in Switzerland, with the apparent goal of using it to blow up Vatican City. In the meantime, they've left a video message for the Vatican in which their language sounds normal but is actually densely packed with clues about their plans and whereabouts. Langdon deciphers these clues and, with a scientist named Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) at his side, dashes all over Rome in an effort to thwart the evildoers. It kind of makes you wonder why the evildoers went to the trouble of hiding clues in their message, unless they WANTED to be thwarted. Maybe it was a cry for help?
Assisting Langdon is Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), chamberlain to the late pope and current acting head of state of Vatican City (something of a placeholder until the college of cardinals chooses a new pontiff). An orphan, Patrick is devout and humble, and unafraid of uncovering the truth, no matter what it may be. Somewhat fussier and more old-fashioned is Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), the head of Vatican City's police force, who scoffs at Langdon's code-breaking and old-sculpture-interpreting.
As I said, there's a certain rote enjoyment to be had in seeing the elaborate story unfold, a basic thrill in wondering what's going to happen next. What it lacks is a human touch. Vittoria Vetra is a total blank who might as well have been played by a pile of socks for all the personality she brings. Patrick and Richter are generic types, a Sympathizer and Antagonist, respectively, whose characters never got fully fleshed out. Even Langdon -- being played by the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- seems like nothing more than a perturbed academic who must hastily solve riddles and save Rome. He's busy and frantic, but that is not the same as being interesting.
The film also lacks a crisis that can measure up to the one in "The Da Vinci Code." That story was ultimately about the divinity of Jesus Christ, with secrets emerging that threatened to shake the Roman Catholic Church at its very foundation! "Angels & Demons" is about imperiled clergymen and a terrorist plot to destroy Rome -- big deals, sure, but hardly on a par with what sequel-goers are expecting. As a means of dealing with that shortcoming, "Angels & Demons" flirts with bigger issues, including science vs. religion, and briefly claims that the anti-matter relates to "the creation of life." But this is merely bluster, an effort to make us think the film is deeper than it is. It's ultimately just a "24"-style murder-and-mayhem thriller -- which is a fine thing to be. Why take it so seriously, though?
Grade: C+
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, moderate violence
2 hrs., 18 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 21 comments
May 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm
..I don't think the link is linked to the link you wanted the link to link to.
I'm tired.
May 14, 2009 at 11:15 pm
What Dave said. Cinematical link is noooot working. You better hurry up and fix it... or I'll... I'll... fall asleep. And that will be so sad for you!
May 14, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Thanks. I wouldn't have believed you if only one person had said it. It's fixed now.
May 15, 2009 at 1:58 am
I actually liked the "Angels & Demons" book, much better than "The DaVinci Code" book, so I was hoping the movie would be better as well! Sounds like it might be, if even only slightly. At least we don't have to be distracted by a horrible Tom Hanks hairstyle this time around!
May 15, 2009 at 7:50 am
(sp?) Relieved of his hairstyle. Not relived.
May 15, 2009 at 8:18 am
"Angels and Demons" is a ridiculous book. Sorry Jenn, but only an idiot could have been entertained by this. The plot is ridiculous. The twists and turns could be conceived by a talented 6th grader. Even I can write a book like this, and I promise you that is NOT a compliment to Dan Brown. Within the first 100 pages, I realized I was reading "da Vinci Cide" by a differeent name. When I had 50 pages to go, I was serving jury duty waiting to be called. Normally one would WANT to read to pass the time. I had to fight the urge not to throw the book away or give it away at the courthouse. I rolled my eyes so much that I'm surprised I don't have a serious sprain. Believe me or not, I actually feel dumber having read that book. Oh, and by the way, mý wife felt the same. And I don't know anyone who reads more than her. If she's at home, she's reading. Needless to say, I won't be spending money to see this film. I'm sure I'd rather rip off my fingernails.
May 15, 2009 at 10:46 am
Geez Garret, why bother with the "Sorry Jenn" part if you were just going to imply she was an idiot for liking the book anyway. That is like using a disclaimer of "No Offense" and then saying something offensive. It doesn't magically make it ok to say Sorry before you insult someone. Who cares if she liked the book or not? She says she liked it better than "Da Vinci Code", but it's not like she was listing it as her top ten favorite books of all time or anything, just that she liked it better. But even if she did really love the book, so what? I have read both books and I agree with you, they aren't that great. But I also agree with Jenn, in my opinion "Angels and Demons" was the better book of the two.
May 15, 2009 at 11:34 am
I'm rereading The Da Vinci Code right now, and I just barely realized how much I hate the writing style. Every other page is full of the characters bewilderment and jaw-dropping. Dan Brown uses the same phrases to describe things over and over until you want to die... Some things seem just kind of haphazardly thrown in there and not developed. Blech. I wondered how I could have liked the thing so much the first time I read it.
If Angels and Demons is more of the same, I will stay far far away from the movie and the book.
May 15, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Everyone takes these works so seriously! Quality-schmality - Were you entertained by the book/movie? Just answer the question. If you did, best to stop over-analyzing it and end up ruining it for yourself and others. If you didn't, let us know why, but don't insult everyone who did like it.
I, for one, have had to work on my ability to suspend my disbelief. It seems many of the people who dislike da vinci code (the book), Star Trek (the new movie), etc., have difficulty with this.
The DaVinci Code was a FUN read. And few works of fiction have sparked so much discussion (mostly due to the dubious "research" and its conclusions). The movie, eh., the fun factor was missing.
Star Trek was FUN to watch for most trekkies and most non-trekkies. Analyzing how a juvenile delinquent can go from the brig to captain in a couple hours just ruins the ride!
Of course, if over-analyzing non-serious books and movies is part of the fun for you, who am I to tell you to stop?
May 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I generally agree with you, Eric, so I'm sorry I probably won't like this movie better. Like Jenn I thought the book was quite enjoyable, even more so than the Da Vinci Code, but also I liked it because it was fun to read about CERN. For those of you who felt dumber reading the book, particle physicists around the world are giving lectures meant to clarify the science behind it. Here is the schedule of talks: http://www.uslhc.us/Angels_Demons/schedule.html. So you can take the opportunity to become smarter!
May 15, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Garrett, I don't take offense to having an idiot title implied towards me. Not the first time, & probably won't be the last, as I still have to explain to people why I like the "Twilight" series!! I always figure it's because people take their book reading seriously & don't read, just for the fun of reading. Sometimes you just have to suspend reality & use your imagination a little more.
I honestly think that Dan Brown's books get worse as they go. I haven't really enjoyed any of the rest of his books & pretty much stopped halfway through the last one I read. I know he has another one coming out soon & can't really say that I'm itching to read it. But I did go & see A&D today, & found that I actually enjoyed it better than "DaVinci Code" as well, although it was a little bloody!!
May 16, 2009 at 10:25 pm
OMG I luvvvv Twilight!! And!! I hanve't red The Angels/Demons yet but it is probubly AmA-ZINGg!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 17, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Saw it last night. Frankly,the plot seems interesting at first glance but it's really canned boredom. I grew tired of watching Hanks run all over Rome and Vatican City real quickly and that's 3/4 of the movie.
May 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm
You got to admit everybody...
[BOOK SPOILERS]
A pope using artificial insemination in order to have a child so he may keep his covenant of chastity is ridiculous. Give me a break. There's a reason nobody had ever heard of "A&D" before "da Vinci". Remember, it was published first. No one had heard of it because it was GARBAGE. I feel like I wasted 10 bucks buying it. My brain can only handle so much numbing. No more Dan Brown for me.
May 17, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Ivan: After reading Garret's comment, I was just about to post a comment saying the exact same thing as you did. I agree with everything you said.
Jenn: Mad props for not getting offended by Garret's comment. You're a better person than I am. And I agree with you - sometimes people just need to watch a movie or read a book and enjoy it, even if it's not the best thing ever and has serious flaws.
Garret: I'm amazed that you're married. Calling someone an idiot because they liked a book is a sign of severe lack of social skills; especially when you think it's okay because you started with "I'm sorry." You'd better treat your wife better than that. I guess it's no surprise that she spends her time at home reading rather than doing things with you.
As far as these books and movies go, I have every intention of going to this C+ movie expecting to be entertained but not amazed by the writing, acting, and directing. After all, everything Ron Howard does after Arrested Development will be less than his best.
May 18, 2009 at 12:37 am
Garret, what book did you read? I don't remember any of that being in the book. Are you sure you were reading "A&D"? Oh & I actually read "A&D" before I read "DaVinci", otherwise I probably wouldn't have read it.
Thanks Jake!!
May 19, 2009 at 12:22 am
[BOOK SPOILERS]
I'm going to be as polite as possible.
Jenn- First, I apologize for calling you an idiot. It was wrong of me, and I sincerely apologize. Second, the portion of the book that refers to the artificial insemination is towards the end. It is what supposedly created all the "conflict" for the camerlengo, as he had murdered his own father, the Pope. I admit, I found this to be a stretch by Dan Brown. I felt he was reaching too far for a plot twist. The Catholic Church is openly against IVF, however, the novel never states which method was used in conceiving the camerlengo. That was a bit much for me to believe. Also, the whole Robert Langdon free-falling from a mile up out of a helicopter and not dying from the impact, even into water, is too much. Sorry, too much.
Jake- I do not justify my behavior. It was immature. Thank you for pointing out to me how big of a jerk I am.
All- My opinion regarding the novel remains unchanged.
May 19, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Garret, I thank you for your apology, but it really wasn't needed. I wasn't offended by it, & we all have our own opinions. I guess I'm going to have to find my copy & re-read it, because I really don't remember that in the book. I remember it as they mention it in the movie, that the kid was adopted. Sorry, if that spoiled anything for anyone!!! (it's not a huge plot twist, so that's why I said it.) Of course, we do have to remember that it is a work of fiction, & not based on anything. I mean, we don't have a recently dead pope that's in the middle of a religious conspiracy right now, do we? I always think that unless you know that the film you're seeing is based on actual events, you have to just leave reality at the door. Isn't that why you go to a movie? To get away from reality?
May 21, 2009 at 12:07 am
I just got done reading Angels and Demons and I loved it. Yeah, I agree that the plot was a stretch in some places...and in some of those places downright ludicrous but I rather liked some of the juxtaposition of opposing ideas: science vs. religion, antimatter vs. matter, Who Is This God Person Anyway vs. the Catholic church, etc. The book inspired thought on my part, and that is the measure of a good book to me.
So when I read the movie review, I decided to never watch the movie. Obviously they have changed way, way too much and if the movie turns into a meatheaded Rome-and-Tom-Hanks fest, it maybe ignores some of the deeper issues that the book tangles with in a bit more detail.
So, though the book is in no measure of absolute brilliance or realism, it was fun to read and thought-provoking, at least to me. Dan Brown wrote in enough of the controversial stuff and lets the reader draw conclusions and think however they want to from there.
There's my two-cents. *tingle on the collection plate.
May 29, 2009 at 5:22 am
I havent read the book yet but I loved the movie, the friend of mine read it and she says there are very few distinctions.
December 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Well, here I am...again...This time I'd have to agree with Snider; movie was terrible. It didn't match the storyline of the movie, and it sucked as movie. But most book-to-movies do; unfortunately. However, the people above me say that the book was completely annoying (forgive me for not exactly quoting you--I know how technical people can be these days). I feel that the books were quite interesting, and that's probably because I never read books like them. I mean clue after clue; it was so psychological, and it pissed me off that I couldn't discover who the bad guy was before it was revealed like I usually did. The da Vinci Code was interesting, Angels & Demons fascinating, but everyone should read the last one, The Lost Symbol, and pray to whatever God you pray to that they won't make a movie on that. To Snider,thank you for this review,it should help my paper so much more.