Angels & Demons

After the first hour, Angels & Demons becomes repetitive and the audience loses interest in the detective storyline, no matter how dynamic it may be. More ideas wouldn’t be unwelcome. The impressive climax, however, salvages a lot. And the work with the actors (and their hairstyles) is definitely better than in The Da Vinci Code. What fascinates me the most about this “saga” is that for all its straight-facedness, first-class filmmaking team, solid actors and controversial topics, it is unable to be anything but a simple-minded blockbuster for the masses. The masses that are unaware that 50% of their experience is provided by a guy named Hans Zimmer. (05/13/2009)

Brown’s books are undemanding and intellectually shallow, but bloody good page-turners, ideal to relax in summer by the sea. With the films it’s worse because they drag quite a bit, are too talkative and the lack of logic that the books can hide between the lines (or have at least plenty of space to explain in some way) floats to the surface, making it almost impossible to ignore. Angels and Demons suffers from the same problems as The Da Vinci Code, though perhaps it’s more tense. The result, however, is still a not very interesting thriller that might surprise a few people with a couple of rather brutal scenes, but that will bore most due to its chaste asexuality and correctness. 6/10 (06/29/2009)

Howard has the craft down pat like few others. In a way, I admire him for how he managed to turn such a simple script (I preferred to skip the book) into a stylish chase after various symbols, statues, paintings, and crazy conspiracy theories which, despite the constant chatter, isn’t boring whatsoever. Compared to The Da Vinci Code, here we don’t get all that babbling that arouses resentment of the Vatican, which means that while the marketing controversy has been reduced, at least the film has avoided outright stupidity. That doesn’t mean that it’s particularly amazing - Brown is still too cheap a storyteller for that - but as a thriller whose aim is to entertain rather than dumbly lecture, it works surprisingly well. The actors in particular are a treat, and the charisma of Hanks, Skarsgård, and Mueller-Stahl and Zimmer's fantastic choruses alone make me want to watch it again sometime. PS: If I were a woman, I would get wet at the sight of Ewan McGregor in the movie theater. He’s never been this sexy on screen. ;-) 3 ½. (05/19/2009)

It’s the opposite of the book: the filmmakers replaced the excellent exposition with a lifeless tour of Roman monuments in the company of the haughty pawn Tom Hanks, whilst the ridiculous finale in Brown's book was a replaced by a rather solid and visually interesting climax. Undoubtedly positive is the performance of Ewan McGregor, and negative the fact that the mysterious and thrilling pursuit of symbols lacked decent acting and directing, and was without a hint of invention and emotion. Langdon simply has a big problem in books and movies in that he still doesn't know if he's more of an action hero or an academic windbag. In literature, this can be somewhat tolerated, but in film it leaves a very bad impression. I round up the score given the last few final minutes. However, I consider Tom Hanks' involvement to be a historical mistake. In the next film, the poor gay will not even fall through the eyepiece of the Pantheon. There’s no way he swam those 50 laps in the morning. Well, maybe with a motor up his ass. (10/04/2009)

Howard's kiss-ass apology to the Vatican after The DaVinci Code. In the first half it's still a pretty solid conspiracy routine, in the second half it becomes a gala performance of artlessly silly scenes, whose total zaniness is further enhanced by the fatality of Zimmer's music. Soundtrack rating: 4/5 (06/19/2009)

Robert is searching for life, discreetly flirts, and makes enemies wherever he can. Again. But this time, he struggles with a few things regarding The Code. Most notably, he loudly screams a few clichés of the genre. The main characters play for life-saving minutes, but nevertheless, around every corner, there is an explanation for random symbolic curiosities. And most importantly, the syndrome of the second part arrives in its strongest form. Once again, a damaged body, an attractive and randomly found partner, and once again, a punchline that slightly undermines the impact of previous twists. However, I still have to give it a better score of 70%, whether it's because with another actor, Langdon would become just a pawn, which Hanks brilliantly prevents, or because Ewan McGregor celebrates a phenomenal comeback. But mainly because I would not have guessed those two hours to be even halfway through, as everything swiftly zooms by, the plot never pauses for a moment, and the box of the archaeological-adventure film is filled to the maximum. (05/20/2009)

Too bad I can't give it 2.5 stars ... I know, 5 is rounded up, but this movie, I just can't even see the 3 stars, because I was bored for two hours and the remaining 28 minutes kept me entertained with the soundtrack and some acting here and there. I'll put it simply – this movie bored me. I slowly feel sorry for Ewan that he was in it, but that's how people have to make a living :-D (05/23/2009)

I’m not completely happy with the four stars I’m giving, but I had a much better feeling from Angels that from the Code (maybe also because I didn’t bother to read the former). In this movie, Tom again has a whistle-stop tour of attractive locations to the booming chorals of Hans Zimmer (who even adds some good old synthesizer) but at a higher speed than before. We still get a lot of talking about all that what, why and how (I usually like this in books, but in movies too much talking does harm) in order to reveal a simple plot spiced up with the heaviest caliber sci-fi (antimatter in a box?!). But as soon as you adapt to the world that is offered to you here, it starts to be pretty entertaining. The actors are all a class above last time, Ayelet Zurer is foxier than Audrey Tautou and also we see the outstanding Ewan McGregor. And the ending is really powerful and as I said, Zimmer’s synths and chorals are simply a lethal combination. (09/03/2009)

Surprisingly better and more compact than the first part. Ron Howard finally understood that a cute Audrey Tautou and dodgy action scenes won't improve the story better and started relying on other things. For example, an agile script that piles one puzzle on top of another with fairly entertaining and dynamic sequences, and a fantastic (again) Hans Zimmer, who delivers uncompromising bite to the entire piece. He might have composed the same thing for the eighteenth time, but it still sounds beautiful. It sounds unbelievable, even in those few miniature action passages, Howard surprisingly toughened up. It's still a wimpy, predictable, and conflict-free Hollywood shitshow, but at least this was bearable. (10/04/2009)

It's just like the books - Angels and Demons is better than The Da Vinci Code. Thanks to Howard, who made the whole film a frantic race against time, thanks to Zimmer, whose music was almost visible given how distinctive it was, thanks to the interesting Vatican plot, thanks to the likeable Hanks... Yeah, four stars is adequate. (05/22/2009)

[extended] Of course it's pretty stupid in places, Langdon sure knows everything about my mother too, the ending is hella over the top, Hanks acts (like he's) on vacation, and it's practically a week long. I'll take all that, but the formal aspects – cinematography, music, set design – were so pleasing to the eye/ear that those four are it for me. Sure, the final thirty-two deus ex machina get on the nerves, the grand choruses aren't original either, and the priestly cloaks are eye-pleasing in their own right when in motion. But what to say, when you rise above the unnecessary controversy and polish up the script a bit, you're left with a beautiful looking cinematic adventure. (10/21/2010)

Dan Brown has thrilled me with his book "The Da Vinci Code" because it was new, intricate, and well thought out. The movie didn't impress me. The book "Angels & Demons" has exactly the same concept as "The Da Vinci Code", just a little older. Brown became famous thanks to the controversy surrounding "The Da Vinci Code", which pushes "Angels & Demons" to second place. From a cinematic perspective, it doesn't really matter because both movies are equally dramatic, overly adventurous, and pseudo-great. For me, neither of them is something I would need to repeat multiple times. (12/23/2013)