Angels & Demons (2009) User Reviews (554)

A Nutshell Review: Angels & Demons

[DICK STEEL · 7/10 · 9 May 2009]

Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.

So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.

Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.

The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.

Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.

Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular.

worth watching but could have been done better

[EchoMaRinE · 8/10 · 25 July 2009]

This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.

Why are People Bashing this Movie?

[ddrcoaster · 7/10 · 15 May 2009]

I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.

What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.

Book>Movie

[ocknights71 · 7/10 · 15 May 2009]

I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.

The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.

You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.

Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.

Despite its obvious flaws, A&D is surprisingly good.

[TJ-Deen · 7/10 · 12 May 2009]

Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.

The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.

The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.

The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.

However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).

While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.

A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.

7.4/10

Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.

[Rafacus · 8/10 · 15 May 2009]

Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.

With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.

Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.

Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.

The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.

Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.

If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.

Angels and Demons Premier in Rome! I was there!

[robertw477-2 · 7/10 · 5 May 2009]

I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.

There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.

Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.

This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.

Slicker and more entertaining than Da Vinci

[Stampsfightclub · 8/10 · 16 June 2009]

Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.

The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.

Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.

Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.

This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.

The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.

This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.

Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.

It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.

Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.

Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci

More interesting than Da Vinci Code.

[helmutty · 6/10 · 16 May 2009]

Angels and Demons is not too bad, it comes in a form of entertainment. It is more intense than Da Vinci Code. I remembered that I had to pry my eyes open during the middle part of Da Vinci Code. It is long, not much suspense and consists of babbling about. Yawn. But Angels & Demons, the sequel, is more intense, has more suspense and action. Tom Hanks gets not only to exercise his brain but also his legs. The adventure requires him to move from one place to another.

The story: Tom Hanks plays symbologist Robert Langdon. He has to solve a murder and at the same time, prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican. This time, he has Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to help him solve the mystery. The mystery plot and intense peril scenes kept me on the seat. Hans Zimmer's beautiful score makes the movie more epic. The adventure is an intense ride but not as intense as I thought. The sets are amazing too.

Overall: Fans of the book will flock the cinemas to catch this. Fans of the previous movie, Da Vinci Code, should also catch this. Those who like thrillers, this one may suit. This is supposed to be a fictional thriller which is not to be taken seriously.

I wish I hadn't read the book

[Nevele · 5/10 · 26 July 2009]

I am sorry for all the readers, but I don't know where to begin.

Let me say at first that I'm not a big Dan Brown fan, but I read Angels & Demons with great pleasure. The book deals a lot with the eternal question of Science vs. Religion and that made me think a lot about that subject again. That big battle is totally lost in the movie.

A lot of the important lines in the book (CERN, Maximilian Kohler, the scepsis of the Swiss Guard, the love relationship between Robert and Vittoria, the Hassassin, the relationship between the Camerlengo and the pope) are lost in the movie screenplay. This makes the movie a very cut-down and over-simplified version.

Would the movie be any good if I hadn't read the book? I still doubt it. From scene 3 on, the movie is a 'chase-movie' without interruption. There is no time for contemplation or depth. No story-line, no backgrounds. It's just a chase movie in a GREAT decorum.

You would think that with a running time of about 140 minutes a movie is able to bring more. Much more.

Solid Thriller

[dee_zine_610 · 9/10 · 13 May 2009]

With all do respect to all those who read the book and tried to compare it with the movie,I never read the book but i just came from the premiere night here..and i have to say..I was WOWed !

Why all the negative reviews and the disappointed moods ?

This is a stay on the edge of a seat kinda flick,which guarantees great viewing and a heck of a good time.there is no dull moments on this one that's for sure.

I have to say in my opinion that it exceeds TDC,with Ewan Mcgregor who totally stood out next to Tom Hanks,but don't get me wrong..all cast was well put and up to the task..I'm just pointing to an outstanding performance by Ewan Mcgregor.

Tom hanks is Tom Hanks,it seems like he is Prof Langdon after all..no one can do it better than him.

Ron Howard on the director seat however did an amazing job that exceeds his previous work in TDC .

Anyways..go see it..and don't be fired down by the negative reviews.. total summer blockbuster.

Bravo

Suspend Belief, Enjoy Thoroughly!

[zkonedog · 7/10 · 12 March 2017]

Much like the Dan Brown novel that this movie was based on, there is a relatively simple formula to be followed for enjoyment: Suspend belief, enjoy thoroughly!

Viewing this film is akin to watching a television show like, say, "24". You don't sit back and nitpick every plot point...you just go with the flow and (more often than not) get caught up in the emotional drama. If you are able to do that, this movie will be very enjoyable for you.

As I look back on the plot, I just watched the film less then a week ago and I'm still a bit shady as to what exactly was going on...something about ancient Illuminati symbols, the Catholic Church, the election of a new Pope, and underground experiments with the highly explosive "dark matter" compound. Much like in "The DaVinci Code", everything flies by in such a hurry that it is a bit difficult to digest. However, due to a great screenplay and competent acting, you will likely find yourself sucked into the whole experience.

I cannot speak for the movie's accuracy with relevance to the original novel, as it was so long ago that I read it, but perhaps a bit of a departure wouldn't have been a bad thing, as don't most entertainment connoisseurs always say that the book is better than the movie anyway?!

Thus, much like the page-turning appeal of the Dan Brown novel of the same name (where you just HAVE to read "one more chapter" before turning out the lights), this film does the exact same thing in cinematic fashion. When looked back upon, the pieces may not fit together or even seem downright ludicrous, but it was one heck of a ride!

Pull the other one

[neil-476 · 5/10 · 21 May 2009]

I usually try not to spoiler: in this case I shall do so wholeheartedly. Don't read on if it bothers you.

First I must comment on The Da Vinci Code phenomenon. Angels And Demons,(the movie) is a vague sequel (albeit the book precedes the Da Vinci book). While Da Vinci was hardly deathless prose, it told an interesting, unusual story at breakneck pace in an easy-to-follow manner. It was pacey and entertaining. It sold shedloads, and deservedly so. The movie adaptation was faithful, but lost the novel's immediacy: it still had broad appeal and did well at the box office, hence this sequel.

So to Angels And Demons (where I haven't read the book). In the run up to the Cardinals' voting in Conclave for a new Pope, four of them are kidnapped. Despite reservations about Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, hardly pro-Catholicism in Da Vinci) the Vatican consults him. He figures out that this is the work of the Illuminati, a secret group dating back to the Renaissance, who seek revenge for the Vatican wiping out many of them in the 16th century for their pro-science, anti-Catholic views. Together with a lady scientist whose research generated an antimatter bomb stolen by the Illuminati, intended to wipe the Vatican off the map, Langdon engages in a clue-laden race against time, looking for the missing cardinals and the bomb. He is helped by Ewan MacGregor's Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Camerlengo is acting Pope until the Conclave comes up with a new one - a functional rather than authoritarian position) and hindered by Stellan Skarsgard's head of Vatican police. Armin Mueller-Stahl is a Cardinal who may have his own agenda. There is further jeopardy from the fact that the Illuminati have probably infiltrated the Vatican at the highest level.

So far, so not-very-spoilery. Much action, racing around, convoluted clues etc., key factors which made Da Vinci so successful, albeit with a noticeably less credible plot. We even have have a couple of likely suspects - Starsgard's unhelpful police chief and Mueller-Stahl's cagey Cardinal.

Now for the rest of the plot. Three Cardinals are killed, but the fourth is saved. The bomb is recovered. However, there is insufficient time for it to be defused. McKenna takes it up in a news helicopter, and bails out. The bomb detonates, the shock wave causes relatively little damage, but McKenna's gesture in saving the Vatican and thousands of lives means he is certain to be voted in as Pope by popular acclaim. Of course, he turns out to be the villain, having murdered the old Pope and arranged the whole thing. Thank you, Robert Langdon, the end.

This pleased me in one respect - while the film still had you believing that the Illuminati existed, I wondered why they would leave a series of clues pointing to where the bomb was? Of course, as it was all McKenna's masterplan, he wanted the bomb found.

But then I started thinking about this masterplan. Let me list the parts of it (McKenna never does the standard explanatory monologue, you're left to figure it out yourself):

1. Steal antimatter;

2. Make antimatter bomb;

3. Poison Pope;

4. Recruit professional killer to kidnap and kill Cardinals;

5. Create trail based on incredibly complex clues from poem in priceless 16th century book in Vatican archive):

6. Rely on Langdon solving clues in time;

7. Make car bomb to blow up professional killer;

8. Rely on helicopter being nearby once bomb is recovered;

9. Rely on there being sufficient time to get helicopter, fly it high enough to avoid total destruction (despite nobody having the slightest idea exactly what effects of antimatter bomb might be), bail out, get to ground safely;

10. Rely on hero factor being sufficient to result in being elected as Pope.

The rationale (I think) was that, as Pope, he could prevent the Catholic Church living happily with science.

As a plan, I thought that this was risibly implausible. I happily suspend disbelief and willingly did so while the hunt was on, but the revelation of who the baddie was (and, therefore, what his plan must have been) was, to be frank, utterly idiotic - so idiotic, in fact, that it devalued the rest of the film.

There was some other stuff which made me scoff with derision:

McKenna is branded on the chest: a large glowing brand, maybe 20 cm square, is applied forcefully to his chest for upwards of 5 seconds, following which it is dropped to the floor where is sets the carpet smouldering. Yet this doesn't seem to phase him in the slightest - he races through tunnels and flies helicopters with nary a whimper (he does hold it as if it's a bit tender later on, though).

Earlier in the film McKenna tells a story about his military service which ends with him explaining that's where he learned to fly helicopters. It would have been a good deal less clumsy if he had simply whipped out a sign and hung it round his neck reading "I'm going to be flying a helicopter later in this movie."

Langdon rewinds the security video stored on the police chief's computer. The computer makes the noise of an audio tape being rewound across the replay heads!

My favourite bit was when the girl scientist tears a page out of a priceless 16th century book (the page which carries the all-important clues to finding the Cardinals and the bomb, in the form of a poem in English printed in watermarks in the paper!), not because it was an inherently good bit, but because I was immensely tickled at the gasp of horror coming from a lady in the audience.

This film was mistitled. It should have been called "Angels, Demons, And Complete And Utter B*ll*cks."

Vatican Murder Mystery

[MaxBorg89 · 6/10 · 19 May 2009]

Let's get one thing straight: The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, as written by Dan Brown, are both books that are best described as "airplane literature", i.e. stuff that one can read cover-to-cover while on a plane, train or something without assuming said tome is going to leave anything meaningful once the reading is over. The film version of The Da Vinci Code, while certainly not the best summer blockbuster of 2006 (Mission:Impossible III, X- Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns were much smarter and more memorable), was an enjoyable piece of work because director Ron Howard, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman and star Tom Hanks got it right: the story is deliberately provocative (in a bad way) and slightly pretentious, but as a slick, well-executed thriller it works quite reasonably. The trio (with the addition of David Koepp in the writer's chair following the WGA strike) returns with Angels & Demons, and the results are, sadly, less thrilling than expected.

Once again, Europe and religion are involved: the story unfolds in Rome and the Vatican, with two brief detours in Geneva and Massachussetts. The story is the following: someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, aka Eric Bana's wife in Munich), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected. Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 p.m., after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican (yes, it's silly as hell, but who cares so far?). Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favors science over religion, are behind the whole thing, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.

Setting aside possible chronology issues (the book is a prequel, whereas the movie is a sequel, reflecting the fact that most people discovered Angels & Demons after reading The Da Vinci Code first), the film sticks to the previous entry's blueprint: running from one location to another, clues hidden in works of art, Langdon explaining things, potentially controversial revelations (although the novel's main twist has been removed). It should work, right? And yet Angels & Demons struggles when it comes to delivering thrills and excitement, even if the key set-pieces - one involving the Vatican archives, the other a helicopter - are admittedly spectacular. The main reason the film is less efficient as a thriller lies in the excess of exposition: too much is revealed too quickly, courtesy of some very long conversations between Langdon and, alternatively, Victoria, a Roman police officer (Pierfrancesco Favino) and two unhelpful Swiss guards (who are played, funnily enough, by Scandinavian actors).

The cast is another problem: Hanks is never boring (and he's cut his hair since last time, meaning he looks less laughable), and the support he gets from Favino, Stellan Skarsgard (whose part was extended compared to the book) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (always a good choice, no matter the film) is pretty solid, but Zurer is so bland she even makes Audrey Tautou's much derided final scene in The Da Vinci Code look good: not only is her chemistry with Hanks close to zero, she also has the ungrateful job of sounding convincing when she delivers lines in Italian (the character, of course, was born in Italy; the actress, on the other hand, is from Israel, and it shows). McGregor also has some difficulty conveying the apparent solemnity of his part, but at least they changed the Camerlengo from Italian to Irish to avoid accent problems. And, quite frankly, replacing Paul Bettany's Silas with a textbook hit-man doesn't help much either.

Any good bits, then? Well, the locations - all studio-built, given the Vatican's policy of never allowing any filming on its territory - are a superb piece of eye-candy, and amidst the clumsy exposition there are a few intriguing (but largely inaccurate, apparently) anecdotes regarding a bunch of famous people that should appeal to art aficionados. That's pretty much all Angels & Demons has to offer: it isn't exactly not entertaining (the aforementioned set-pieces and some witticisms coming from Hanks make sure real boredom never ensues), but the beautiful production design can't hide some pretty serious storytelling issues (since when does someone who analyzes ancient texts for a living need help with Latin inscriptions?). Then again, no one ever expected the film to change their views on the religion vs. science debate, right?

True to his word, Ron Howard has definitely topped Da Vinci Code

[mexicospidergreen · 7/10 · 16 May 2009]

Can Robert Langdon save the Catholic Church and prevent Vatican City from destruction? The race is on as Ron Howard's multi-million dollar blockbuster sequel finally hits the big screen. We last saw Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) 3 years ago, when he uncovered the truth behind a secret society. Now, he's called on once again. This time the stakes are higher, the case is deadlier and the mystery is unlike anything he's witnessed. Here, he's called to Rome to study a mysterious death of one of the 4 cardinals. Little does he know that he's tangled up in a war between the Catholic Church and a Secret Society known as the Illuminati (the enemy to the Catholic Church.) He soon learns that a member of Illuminati has kidnapped 3 other cardinals, threatening to kill one an hour and seizing to destroy Vatican City when the conclave begins. There on he goes on the hunt with a brilliant Scientist (Ayelet Zurer) followed by mysterious twists, turns and deaths headed their way. The only question is can they stop the attack in time? Ron Howard's Angels and Demons is better than his first outing (Da Vinci Code) in every single way possible. It's better in terms of quality, story, and entertainment. The suspense started very early (unlike the slow moving Da Vinci Code) and has enough action and great shots of the Vatican to keep you in your seat for at least 2 hours. Think of it as National Treasure meets 24 in Rome. Despite its potential, it also does has some flaws. It's still preachy, preposterous, and somewhat predictable. Did I mention it also felt like it went on for longer than it needed to be? If you're an open minded person, and often use "That can never happen" then you then you may want to take this one off your alley. For those who want mindless and heart pounding entertainment, this is a neatly crafted action thriller, with twists and turns headed every direction. Be sure to take a chill pill after this film is done because it was really that suspenseful. The supporting cast including the very underrated Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgård all had deserving roles, and it was neat to see Ewan back on the screen (he's been gone far too long.) Bottom line, though it can't compare with the book, it's still terrific entertainment, and if you liked Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard has a big surprise for you.

Religion Is Flawed Because Man Is Flawed

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 10 November 2009]

After the death of the Pope, the conclave has gathered in a locked room to choose his successor among four cardinals named "preferitti"; however the quartet is abducted in a revenge of the Illuminati, a secret brotherhood that was supposed extinct. The symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and the scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), who had her powerful and dangerous prototype of antimatter research stolen, are invited by the Vatican police to help them in their investigation. They are received by the receptive Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) and by the reluctant Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgård) and are informed that the Illuminati have promised to kill each cardinal every hour from 8:00 PM and then explode the Vatican City with the antimatter. Robert and Vittoria have a few hours to unravel the clues and discover where the lethal weapon might be hidden.

The novel and bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" of Dan Brown was one of the most intriguing books that I have read. I was curious about the adaptation to the cinema of that complex and detailed story, and I found it only reasonable and the movie frustrated my expectations. I have not read "Angels & Demons", and I liked very much this film. The story has many plot points in wonderful locations; the acting is excellent and holds the attention until the last sequence. My daughter read the novel and told me that the adaptation is also frustrating. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Anjos e Demônios" ("Angels and Demons")

Congratulations to Ron Howard!

[yris2002 · 7/10 · 13 June 2009]

No doubt Ron Howard is the great hero of this movie and has proved to be a truly professional and skilled director: he has perfectly understood the nature of Dan Brown's novel and the aim of the production, thus being the result a well-focused, well made and well performed product that will certainly be a top box-office movie.

Dan Brown wrote this impressive thriller, made of action, suspense, paradoxical and surprising twists, with the aim of selling. Ron Howard spares no effort and succeeds in rendering the same thrilling and engaging story, based on a well consolidated narrative outline, where we find the trustworthy hero, Robert Langdon, capable of unraveling every mysterious sign and leading us to a shocking finale. Everything, of course, sounds too excessive, there is a crescendo of excess, at the limit of ridiculous, but what is worth underlining is the typical capability of Hollywood great productions to take their job very seriously, and to make a good product out of nothing, being both them and the viewer conscious of the real nature of what is being displayed. What counts is that the final result is an aesthetically good and entertaining movie: and it is, indeed.

Evidently, the movie, like the book, represents no threat to the unbreakable solidness of the Roman Catholic Church, and even less to the faith of real faithful people. The fears and reluctance of clerical authorities when the movie was distributed, sounded a little excessive, too (and indeed, in the end even L'Osservatore Romano gave it a favourable review). It is not even a thought-provoking movie, at least it offers no new or interesting perspective: the ancient, and let's admit, quite old-fashioned (but probably not so out of fashion) dichotomy between science and religion, is just a pretext on which to build a strong and till the end entertaining story, still able to attract millions of viewers all over the world: all the remaining nonsense is forgivable.

The whole cast prove good performances, Tom Hanks is a certainty from the beginning, being however in my opinion Ewan Macgregor (the Camerlengo) the most interesting character, and the one with whom Langdon has the only interesting exchange on faith, but all actors (even "our" Pierfrancesco Favino) contribute to the enthralling atmosphere of the story.

More angelic than demonic

[simonparker1990 · 8/10 · 15 May 2009]

The Da Vinci Code movie was received with a mixture of enthusiasm and disappointment when it first arrived. The fans of the book couldn't wait for it, the Catholic church were going mad about it being released, and the average person was being shepherded to see a movie that they just wanted to know what all the media attention was about. I'll be the first to put my hands up and admit I was looking forward to it. I loved the book and wanted to see a great adaptation. I admit I enjoyed the movie, though a lot really didn't, but I will admit its slow moving, a bit tedious and way, way too faithful to the book. However I had read Dan Brown's other Langdon novel before Da Vinci Code, and I always found Angels and Demons the far superior story. And so here is the inevitable adaptation, and much like the books I prefer Angels and Demons. Demons is a fast paced, beautifully shot and brilliantly acted piece of popcorn entertainment. Yes it has its flaws, the story is still a bit all over the place, and various changes from the novel are not very welcome in my eyes. But for the most part this is a piece of superior entertainment, and after the disaster of Wolverine it is nice to see a sequel with a bit of thought behind it.

So onto the acting. First off is Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. First things first, the hair has been improved, I know that was a huge distraction for a lot of people in its predecessor. Hanks is pretty good here, I'm not going to lie and say he's incredible, as sadly Langdon isn't the greatest character ever. His motivations are vague at best. Still for the material he is given he makes the most of it. Ewan McGregor gets a great role in this movie, he was always the character that intrigued me most in the novel and McGregor does him justice. I won't spoil about him, but you understand after the halfway mark why such a famous actor was cast in the seemingly unimportant role. Ayelet Zurer does a great job as Vittoria Vetra, but the lack of screen time she gets in comparison to how much she is in the book really did frustrate me. Stellan Skarsgård is a bit wasted and I'm not too sure why he signed on for it all. Armin Mueller-Stahl is my personal favourite, have never really encountered the actor before, but his performance definitely is a highlight.

The key to Angels and Demons superiority is in the pacing. Da Vinci Code had very sluggish moments and too many endings for its own good. Here the movie is set over a night, and it works all the better for it. The plot zips along, and all the talky dialogue is usually done while driving or running to the next location to prevent a murder. The murders themselves are shot superbly, although the Air murder is nowhere near as gory as depicted in the novel. The Fire and Water murders are superb though. I liked the execution of the twist for the most part, and I don't think it was as blatantly obvious as I feared, considering it completely threw me when I read the book. The helicopter bit from the novel however is still ludicrous, and the whole antimatter scenario is a OTT for its own good. But these are the flaws of the novel, and at least the ridiculous divine intervention garbage has been scrapped.

Overall Angels and Demons is a fun thrill ride for the summer. Its a superior movie to Da Vinci Code, and I just hope The Lost Symbol (the upcoming Dan Brown novel) is good enough to warrant Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to sign on for yet another one.

A Pretty Good Action Film

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 1 January 2010]

As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.

10 Reasons Why This Film Took a Belly Flop in the Tiber River

[lavatch · 1/10 · 12 June 2009]

It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.

(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors.

(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.

(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.

(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.

(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.

(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.

(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.

(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.

(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain.

(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.

In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.

fake

[Vincentiu · 8 April 2013]

only surprise - presence of Tom Hanks. after Da Vinci Code, a new Dan Brown experience is , totally, to much. same fake story. and hard work of actors to save it. because, not only anti-Christian thesis, silly conspiracies, unrealistic adventures, Vatican as hornets nest, predictable end are problems but the desire to exploit a trend. result - a film only for fans of Brown. out of artistic virtues, elementary logic, it is only slice of fashion. is it enough ? I do not know. maybe, masterpiece for future generations,today, for me, it remains only a fake movie, without any quality ( except good intentions of few actors )

Way better than Da Vinci!!

[manghi · 9/10 · 14 May 2009]

First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done.

Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together.

The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.

i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment

Brilliant suspense thriller with some spectacular photography...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 19 May 2009]

Personally, I enjoyed ANGELS AND DEMONS much more than the DA VINCI CODE. It moves at a quick pace, never becomes boring despite the bits of exposition needed to explain the plot, and is accompanied by another good Hans Zimmer score that accentuates the suspense at every turn.

The plot is much more straightforward and easier to follow than the previous Dan Brown story, although the clues seem a bit hard to swallow for the average man. In this, we trust the screenwriter that a man such as TOM HANKS plays would be able to pick up on all these facets of the church to know what he's doing and where he must turn next.

The assassin played by NIKOLAJ LIE KAAS does a superb job of keeping the sinister aspect of the Illuminati plot chilling enough to keep you glued to your seat. He's highly believable in a pivotal role even though his motivations are never quite clear. EWAN McGREGOR does a fine job as Camerlengo and his participation in the film's final twist is handled with style by director Ron Howard and his screenwriter.

AYELET ZURER is much better at portraying Tom Hanks' assistant in solving the mystery than the woman in the previous film, her accent not as thick as the French actress which was a huge drawback in THE DA VINCI CODE. Others in the cast do commendable work, but it's the whole look and style of the production that fascinates from beginning to end.

The photography is outstanding in its recreation of the Vatican artwork, the night scenes through the streets are done with great flair, and the story builds in intensity toward a very smashing climax.

It's a lot less offensive in dealing with the Catholic Church than the previous work was, using the Illuminati only to provide a chilling current tale of corruption and deception. It works beautifully.

One of the best action thrillers of the year, highly entertaining and full of gripping suspense.

Why God why

[iofred · 4/10 · 15 May 2009]

Why did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie.

Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent

All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid)

Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations

More streamline but still not as clever as the book

[Simon_Says_Movies · 7/10 · 26 May 2009]

It is the mark of a truly talented director to smoothly flow between Oscar nominated dramas and big budget summer blockbusters, as is it to take the criticisms of a previous franchise instalment and buff and polish the sequel into a superior, smoother film. That is precisely what director Ron Howard does with the second Dan Brown adaptation Angels & Demons, cleverly folding what would be bloated subplots and somewhat ridiculous chapters into a more streamline narrative; mostly loyal but cleverly translated.

Howard re-unites with Tom Hanks, who again stars as symbologist Robert Langdon. A prequel to the mega-hit The Da Vinci code on paper but interpreted as a sequel on film Angels & Demons progresses more quickly, talks less, features some solid supporting performances and has a spectacular final, effects-driven climax. Alas, even with most of the right moves and even more genuine intention Howard's film is simply not as good as the book, neither in cleverness or pacing. In the novel, Langdon's revelations are able to be drawn out and incorporate far more clues and twists and turns. Moreover, the much loved science vs. religion dispute is far better utilized as are the dark history of Rome and the origins and intentions of the secret society of the Illuminati which is the true spine of the story.

Scooped up by the Vatican late one evening and jetted off to The Vatican, Robert Langdon again finds himself in danger adjacent to history, religion and ancient lore. Following the death of The Pope, and the subsequent induction of the next, an old threat rears its head once again. The ancient society of The Illuminati has come for revenge after centuries of suppression and secret annihilation at the hands of the church. Marring the ancient tradition of papal election is the kidnapping of the four preferiti (the cardinals most favoured to success the late Pope) and a bomb threat which could boast a devastating end to Vatican City. Langdon follows the ancient clues of the Illuminati along with a lovely scientist (Ayelet Zurer) who created the bomb which now threatens them all, Inspector Olivetti (Pierfrancesco Favino) and Camerlengo McKenna (an excellent Ewan McGregor) the Pope's temporary successor and adopted son. Time runs out as Langdon and his team race to recover the four Cardinals held by a deadly Illuminati assassin (who if I may say is completely badass) and ultimately the bomb.

Aside from the understandable nuances lost in the adaptation, a number of climatic elements were dropped that I found somewhat disappointing. I will not reveal them here, but if you are a fan you will pick them out easily. Thankfully though this will serve as no detriment to those not experienced with the Dan Brown's works and should still unfold as a satisfying finale. Technically, Angels & Demons is impeccable as are the shots of Rome and The Vatican. Howard's choice to assemble an international cast and not concern himself with cramming countless A list stars into the production is admirable and ultimately an asset. Hanks is adequate but is overshadowed by McGregor but helps the cast round out nicely in the end. This will not likely be the last we will see of Robert Langdon and here is hoping Howard et al can one-up themselves again and cap off an entertaining, if uneven, mystery trilogy.

Read all my reviews at: http://www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com