“Angels and Demons”
2009
*** out of ****
Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, Ewan McGregor
Robert Langdon and I have a history together…
Three years ago, and I had my own little mystery – what the fuck was this “The Da Vinci Code” that I heard about everywhere I went? Bookstores had it on their shelves and anybody who was anybody read it. So I went out one day, bought the book, and fell in love with it. With the movie coming out that summer, it easily became the flick I looked forward to the most that summer. Funny thing about that flick. It turned out to be one of the worst flicks that summer and one of the biggest disappointments of my life.
No one liked the film supposedly, but it made enough money to bring in a sequel… wait… this movie, which was based on a book, had another one following it? NO OF COURSE NOT! “Angels and Demons,” which is a continuation of our (least) favorite symbologist’s adventures in countries that isn’t America, is actually a prequel, but since everyone picked up “The Da Vinci Code” without knowing it was the second book of a trilogy, the book is less known around reading circles.
Before you ask, no, I haven’t read the book. I’ve had it ever since I finished reading “Code,” but my excuse for not reading it is because I’ve had better things to do. Out of nowhere comes the film adaptation, which was supposedly one of the first films affected by the Writers Strike a couple years back. I’m happy to say that this isn’t nearly as close as being as bad as “The Da Vinci Code” was. It isn’t so much good as it is just a fun time, but like your thirty-sixth blowjob, you’ll forget about it by the time you leave the theater and look forward to your next film.
“Angels and Demons” brings our hero Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to Rome this time around. After a pope dies, there are four popes in candidate to become the new pope, and a secret group called the Illuminati kidnaps the candidates and threatens to kill them all, one after one, before it hits midnight. Oh, and there is some kind of bomb that they gotta disarm before it goes off, but no one knows where it is.
This isn’t the most plausible movie, but it doesn’t have to be. Without having to think about much, “Angels and Demons” is just a fun cat-and-mouse game through the city of Rome. The film works best when it focuses on the Illuminati and not the bomb, but it’s still a pretty fun movie with the bomb intact. There are a few good action sequences, even though they don’t go on for too long. Most are just a tease, but they’re the good kind of tease.
Because the film is based off of a Dan Brown novel that is highly controversial, the Vatican wouldn’t let director Ron Howard shoot the film in the area. Instead, he had to use green-screen to recreate most of the setting. I’m not going to say that it was perfectly used, but it is used well enough that unless if you did your research, you wouldn’t have realized it. A lot like “The Da Vinci Code,” most of the historical inaccuracies are still intact, but unless if you’re a history major, this shouldn’t bother most of the movie-going public.
You know what I hated the most about “The Da Vinci Code” though? The script. Whenever Langdon went on one of his lectures (and which there were many), the pace of the film slowed down. Thankfully, it was corrected here. The pace almost never slows down. The film is almost two and a half hours long, but it feels like an hour an a half. That’s what you call a good movie and a better blockbuster, folks.
I’m not going to talk about the acting too much because there isn’t much to it. If you’ve seen “The Da Vinci Code,” it is mostly the same thing. They give Tom Hanks all of the charming but sarcastic one-liners and give nobody else any great moments where they can shine. But if anyone does a great job, it is Ewan McGregor. He plays a Camerlengo for the church, and has several scenes with Hanks where he out-acts Hanks and makes him look like a fool. If there is any flaw in his performance, it is that of the editors for making him look like a fake.
Without any major problems with “Angels and Demons,” it is your standard summer blockbuster. It is our relief without those “National Treasure” movies (and believe me, you know you love those flicks). There are far better movies out there that are worth your money much more than this is (ahem) but if have two and a half hours to waste and want to watch a fun movie where you won’t be bothered by plot-holes or inaccuracies, “Angels and Demons” does it. For everyone else, the obvious answer is “Star Trek.”
Cast: Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, Ewan McGregor
Robert Langdon and I have a history together…
Three years ago, and I had my own little mystery – what the fuck was this “The Da Vinci Code” that I heard about everywhere I went? Bookstores had it on their shelves and anybody who was anybody read it. So I went out one day, bought the book, and fell in love with it. With the movie coming out that summer, it easily became the flick I looked forward to the most that summer. Funny thing about that flick. It turned out to be one of the worst flicks that summer and one of the biggest disappointments of my life.
No one liked the film supposedly, but it made enough money to bring in a sequel… wait… this movie, which was based on a book, had another one following it? NO OF COURSE NOT! “Angels and Demons,” which is a continuation of our (least) favorite symbologist’s adventures in countries that isn’t America, is actually a prequel, but since everyone picked up “The Da Vinci Code” without knowing it was the second book of a trilogy, the book is less known around reading circles.
Before you ask, no, I haven’t read the book. I’ve had it ever since I finished reading “Code,” but my excuse for not reading it is because I’ve had better things to do. Out of nowhere comes the film adaptation, which was supposedly one of the first films affected by the Writers Strike a couple years back. I’m happy to say that this isn’t nearly as close as being as bad as “The Da Vinci Code” was. It isn’t so much good as it is just a fun time, but like your thirty-sixth blowjob, you’ll forget about it by the time you leave the theater and look forward to your next film.
“Angels and Demons” brings our hero Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to Rome this time around. After a pope dies, there are four popes in candidate to become the new pope, and a secret group called the Illuminati kidnaps the candidates and threatens to kill them all, one after one, before it hits midnight. Oh, and there is some kind of bomb that they gotta disarm before it goes off, but no one knows where it is.
This isn’t the most plausible movie, but it doesn’t have to be. Without having to think about much, “Angels and Demons” is just a fun cat-and-mouse game through the city of Rome. The film works best when it focuses on the Illuminati and not the bomb, but it’s still a pretty fun movie with the bomb intact. There are a few good action sequences, even though they don’t go on for too long. Most are just a tease, but they’re the good kind of tease.
Because the film is based off of a Dan Brown novel that is highly controversial, the Vatican wouldn’t let director Ron Howard shoot the film in the area. Instead, he had to use green-screen to recreate most of the setting. I’m not going to say that it was perfectly used, but it is used well enough that unless if you did your research, you wouldn’t have realized it. A lot like “The Da Vinci Code,” most of the historical inaccuracies are still intact, but unless if you’re a history major, this shouldn’t bother most of the movie-going public.
You know what I hated the most about “The Da Vinci Code” though? The script. Whenever Langdon went on one of his lectures (and which there were many), the pace of the film slowed down. Thankfully, it was corrected here. The pace almost never slows down. The film is almost two and a half hours long, but it feels like an hour an a half. That’s what you call a good movie and a better blockbuster, folks.
I’m not going to talk about the acting too much because there isn’t much to it. If you’ve seen “The Da Vinci Code,” it is mostly the same thing. They give Tom Hanks all of the charming but sarcastic one-liners and give nobody else any great moments where they can shine. But if anyone does a great job, it is Ewan McGregor. He plays a Camerlengo for the church, and has several scenes with Hanks where he out-acts Hanks and makes him look like a fool. If there is any flaw in his performance, it is that of the editors for making him look like a fake.
Without any major problems with “Angels and Demons,” it is your standard summer blockbuster. It is our relief without those “National Treasure” movies (and believe me, you know you love those flicks). There are far better movies out there that are worth your money much more than this is (ahem) but if have two and a half hours to waste and want to watch a fun movie where you won’t be bothered by plot-holes or inaccuracies, “Angels and Demons” does it. For everyone else, the obvious answer is “Star Trek.”
Don't give me that look.
Awesome review.
Sadly these films are really a chore to sit through. While slightly better than DaVinci Code, it is still not that good.
Work better as books to me.
In the end, it is at best an average action movie that is easily better than its predecessor. Still, that twist ending really rubbed me the wrong way.
nice review.. one thing though.. shooting movies in the vatican is prohibited to all.. not just ron howard..