Angels & Demons

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. (04/10/2009)

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. (13/05/2009)

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 (29/06/2009)

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. (22/05/2009)

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. (03/09/2009)