wni 203199:

Angels and Demons (2009): I have read both Angels and Demons and The Davinci Code by Dan Brown. I enjoyed reading Angels and Demons more. As a fan of both Ron Howard (Apollo 13) and Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan) my expectations were high for this film. Unfortunately, the editing may have hurt this movie adaptation. The sequence of events was so compressed and rushed onto the screen that it was like drinking from a fire hose. Even armed with some familiarity with the book, it was as if on a tour of Rome in Ferrari. I kept asking myself where are we going now and why? Half the time, I did not know. The subject matter, location and themes were all fascinating. This made the flood of difficult to process details all the more frustrating. It is still an interesting movie, though I strongly suggest reading the novel just before watching the film. The theme concerning the need to bridge the world of science and religion is well done. 3.5 reluctant stars. (5/16/09)

gil 588096:

Like its predecessor, author Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels & Demons" is based on religious fiction, but has its share of religious critics as well. Symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) has been called in by the Vatican to help solve the mystery of who has kidnapped four cardinals before they're murdered. I've read the book and visited all of the locations in Rome shown in the film. By having done both, my enjoyment of the film may have been enhanced. Although most scenes are dark and foreboding, with plenty of violent behavior, loud music, car chases, and melodrama, The Vatican City and icons of Rome were wonderful to "visit" again. This is a fast paced story that may not quite live up to "The Da Vinci Code" in terms of a whodunit, but I found it quite entertaining. 05-19-09

couchdog53:

The Da Vinci Code was entertaining and I enjoyed it as a decent action adventure flick. But this sequel (or prequel?) took me completely by surprise. I'm not sure what I was expecting but it wasn't the sophisticated high budget schlock this turned out to be. I don't know what Ron Howard was thinking but I guess the guy is a genius and now he is laughing all the way to the bank. Luckily I was able to not take it seriously otherwise I might have hated it, but it turned out to be a fun flick I could laugh at. I'm talking about a chuckle a minute with a plot so ridiculous it made National Treasure look intelligent. So bad it had more cheesy plot twists than you could shake a stick at. Ayelet Zurer is talented upcoming actress and not hard on the eyes, but she's no Audrey Tatou. However I do admit she looks more like a physicist than Audrey ever could have. There are so many things wrong with this movie and I would love to pick it apart but I don't want to give away any spoilers. Let me just say the anti-matter takes the cake when it comes to ridiculousness. All the stupid details kept my attention and made this so bad that is was good enough to say I liked it. I'm not going to recommend it but I won't say it should be avoided either. I can't predict anyone's reaction. Judging from the other reviews I seem to be the only one who thought it was funny. (5/18/09)

DfwForeignBuff:

Angels & Demons (2009) Tom Hanks returns as Dan Browns symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, (which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code.) Essentially this movie is the sequel to Browns book the Davidic Code. I read that book and saw that movie and I have read this new book and now watched that movie. About the Plot: Despite his notorious relationship with the Church, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is once again called upon to decipher the clues to a catastrophic conspiracy. The Pope has died, and before conclave can begin to determine his successor, the four preferitti (primary hopefuls for the papacy) are kidnapped. An ominous threat of their hourly demise, along with the complete annihilation of Vatican City, is issued as an elaborate revenge scheme for a persecuted group known as the Illuminati. With their meager time limit steadily counting down, Langdon, accompanied by beautiful physicist Vittoria Vetra, must travel throughout Rome to unravel the carefully hidden signs that will lead them to a terrifying adversary, a harrowing discovery, and the shocking truth. As a general rule I have like all Ron Howard movies. I like this movie also. This movie is not as controversial as Da Vinci Code as it does not dwell on its many controversies of faith. Production wise I think Howard did an incredible job recreating Rome in the back lot of a Hollywood studio. The movie was less than exciting. I still enjoyed it but something was lost in translation from book to screen. Its kind of a cat and mouse game/ crossword puzzle and I was bewildered by a lot of it. I still like the movie overall but the book is so much more concrete as to what is actually going on in the plot. The film is still an acceptable suspense/thriller. Great music and cinematography. Character Roles are acceptable played by Hanks McGregor and Skarsgard. Its not an awful movie but not a 4 or 5 star movie either--- it is still cleverly produced. 3 stars

raghus:

The good points of the movie are that it is fast-paced and that some of the scenes are shot really well. Everything else is a bit incredulous. It's almost like watching Nicholas Cage in National Treasure. Tom Hanks' character, Prof. Robert Langdon finds the flimsiest of reasons to follow a clue - and invariably succeeds! His single adversary is so impossibly capable: breaks into CERN, steals anti-matter, kidnaps cardinals from the Sistine Chapel, executes them publicly, elaborately rigs up explosives etc. that it's impossible to take the premise of the movie seriously. That said, it's sort of watchable. Exactly once. (Dec 9, 2009)

BlueVoid:

I hadn't read the book, so I approached 'Angels and Demons' with an open mind. It certainly isn't a perfect film, but overall it was an enjoyable action adventure. A sort of, slightly more intellectual, 'National Treasure'. A lot of the plot is fascinating, owing of course to the source material, but it did seem that some of it was dumbed down, and parts were over sensationalized, to fit the mold of a summer blockbuster. Ron Howard was very careful to tip toe around the potential controversy the film's subject could ignite and tried to stay as neutral as possible on religion. The entire premise can basically be broken down to the long standing debate of science versus religion, so the film certainly had the opportunity to spark some anger. The pandering to stay politically correct wasn't much of a detriment, but the fact that it was so obvious didn't do much to forward the plot either. The best part of the film is just taking in the beautiful locations which the film was shot in Rome. 'Angels and Demons' may not be a memorable movie, but it was entertaining, interesting and if nothing else, a nice bit of eye candy.

1d56bcdd85:

Bringing Dan Brown's novel to the silverscreen is a tremendous task. It is simply impossible to stay true to the book. There are so many nuances that cannot be clearly explained and it is more beneficial to skip them all together as not to confuse the viewers. If you could settle with the fact that it is not like the book, then you may enjoy this movie. It is an entertaining thriller, though you may not follow all the dialogs and get all the details straight. I do enjoy Tom Hanks, but I am more of a fan of Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Stellan Skarsgard. I thought they did quite well.

ykf 483620:

The good news is that this is a lot better than the Da Vinci Code... the bad news is that isn't saying much. Angels and Demons continues the saga of Robert Langdon who is a brilliant scholar of the cryptic and the weird. In this adventure, he is called upon by the catholic church to help stop a terrorist attack by a group claiming to be the Illuminati. For a thriller, I liked this one pretty much. The actors are all solid and the story (while very goofy and unbelievably) is good brain candy. I should emphasize the candy part of that equation. A lot of the characters in this film act more for the sake of melodrama than anything remotely resembling real emotion. Clearly, there are parts here made simply to be obstinate and give our hero Hanks some guff. The head of the security detail (Skarsgard) seems to exist only to contradict Hanks. And I don't think this film is exactly unpredictable. But it's all in good fun. And that's exactly what I walked away from this one feeling. And what could be better than that from a popcorn muncher? I recommend this to action fans and people who dig blockbusters.

simplygreg:

Can you take a mediocre book about a divine scavenger hunt punctuated by lectures about catholic minutia and make it interesting? No. Bad movie? Forgivable. Boring bad movie? That's a sin.

spettit:

I enjoyed this story much more than The Davinci Code. It more or less presented itself as a work based on fiction and dips into SciFi just a bit. The story moved fast, with some cool shots of Rome and the Vatican. However, I didn't like the last ten minutes, which seemed a contrived and forced Deus ex machina plot twist, via a soldier's based faith.

lastliberal:

Despite the fact that it was nominated for a Teen Choice Award, it is a movie worth watching. The mixture of myth and pseudo-history, and criticism of Catholic Church mistakes makes for a fascinating story while they chase the terrorists through Rome. Finding the first Cardinal was particularly gruesome. Hanks runs hither and yon trying to find the remaining three cardinals before they are killed and a bomb is set off in the Vatican. What do you bet he is successful in finding the bomb? We can have the Vatican blow up, can we? Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, and Stellan Skarsgård all played their parts well and made this film interesting. I just hope Hanks makes another one. He is perfect as Robert Langdon.

RedSun21:

A nice adaptation of the Dan Brown book. While the film is set up as a sequel to The DaVinci Code, in the books, Angels and Demons is actually the first, and is a much better story. While the search for clues is fun to watch, I just did not feel the pressure of having to figure them out before the next bad thing happens. The clue solving almost seems to easy, which is a problem with trying to squeeze the book in to the time constraints of the film. Overall though, it is still fun to watch Hanks run around Rome figuring out the clues, each leading to bigger and bigger shocks.

CM 1045948:

They did such a good job with the Da Vinci Code, I exepected the same. I was sadly wrong. They changed it so much from the book I was truly upset by it. Perhaps next time I won't read the book first. If I hadn't, I am sure I would have found the movie more enjoyable. As long as you dont' compare the two while watching it, the movie isn't too bad.

AtTheBeach:

"Angels and Demons" is a movie that combines religion, mystery, and suspense that will keep most viewers interested and entertained if not enthralled. Tom Hanks always puts on a good performance and this film is no exception. He plays an agnostic surrounded by men of faith in the Church hierarchy. He is also a Harvard professor and the most knowledgeable about religious symbols, when they appeared and why they are important to the story. He is the star of the movie and keeps the action rolling along. Ewan McGregor plays a convincing role of a Carmelengo, a personal aide to the Pope. He is leading the Church until a new Pope is elected as the Pope has just died. There are two plot lines to keep the viewer intrigued. The Cardinals are electing a new Pope and Tom Hanks and an assortment of others are searching for a bomb with a short time limit. The history of Church events, the role of the men who influenced these events and who contributed works of art to the Church, and the mystery behind the Illuminati, a mysterious sect of scientific minded men, makes the movie unique and well worth watching. The weakest point of the movie is the plot twist at the end. It seems manufactured and out of character as we have come to know them throughout the movie. The sudden turnabout seems out of place and detracts from the story. Overall, "Angels & Demons" is fun to watch, entertaining and even educational in showing how some of the actual history influenced the current Catholic Church.

DrDash:

While I was disappointed in the Da Vinci Code movie I was not with Angels and Demons. Still not as good or detailed as the books but a much better attempt. It was a good movie to watch and especially worth it if you have not read the book. Like the book there is hardly a dull moment.

yli 1334261:

Angels and Demons is one of my favorite books, so I was really excited to see the movie. I did enjoy it to an extent, but like previous reviews have stated, it is a little different from the book. While the acting was good and the theme was interesting, if you read the book you will be let down.

Wyled Heart:

A blend of Cages National Treasure with Schwarzeneggers End of Days, only on Valium. Seriously, I gave it an hour, but it just never quite took off. It was too... homogenous, I guess would be the word - if it were a meal, it would be one in which each and every dish tastes exactly the same. Its just the same tone - no ups, no downs, no comic relief or dramatic distraction... The eyeball scene near the beginning was pretty cool, and I even got into the antimatter production somewhat. There really wasnt any meaningful chemistry between any of the actors. Its like each and every element of the movie was just mulling about waiting for all the other elements to hurry up and do something to make it interesting - resulting in none of the elements doing anything really worth noticing. Kind of like the way sometimes accident victims end up dying because everyone at the scene assumes someone else will call 911, so nobody does. This movie flounders about like a dying carp, just waiting for somebody, ANYbody to come along and help it swim again. And nothing does. A lot of technical effort went into the making of this, a lot of skill - but the story is simply not interesting, and all the skill and tense mood music in the world cant make up for that. Id normally say that if they took out the less interesting scenes, they might have a movie worth watching - the problem is that theyre ALL less interesting scenes. Take away the dull scenes, and there would be nothing left. Except maybe the title sequence. That was kind of interesting. :-/

bluesdawg:

Exposition can survive in the written word but it kills momentum in a movie. That's what happened here. There was every opportunity for suspense with a story involving kidnapped hostages, a super bomb, a cryptic message, and a race against time, but too much explaining had to be done for the benefit of the viewer. Between all the complex procedural stuff of the Vatican and the scientific hoopla over the existence of "anti matter" the actors are stuck spelling out the reasons and explanations for practically every new scene. It's so bogged own that it's almost comical. Started reminding me of the Beatles movie "Help!" which is a parody of spy thrillers and the characters spend ridiculous amounts of time in exposition to hilarious effect. A&D is just barely saved by Tom Hank's earnest performance and all the great scenery and effects. I'm going with 3 stars, but I think I'm gonna watch "Help!" again, it's a much better flick.

Precious Punchie:

I've never read the book Angels & Demons, but maybe that was a good thing. Afer reading the other reviews, given by people who had read the book, it seems going into this movie without knowledge of the storyline was a good thing. I enjoyed the movie very much. It kept me on the edge of my seat and never slowed down or got dull. The twists keep you guessing and leave you surprised at the end. I absolutely loved it!

TR 1798327:

What a snooze fest. Ron Howard should not be allowed to direct suspense/thriller type movies. I have Devil Girl and Jennifers Body for a double feature this weekend.

Robertjm:

Really great film! For all those that wanted to shun this because its written by the "evil" Dan Brown, you really shouldn't. This film takes place prior to the DV Code and has nothing anyone should consider anti-Christian in it. Where DV Code was a slow boiler, this one is a fictional who-done-it that keeps us on a hectic pace because it takes place in four hours.I did guess the ending with about 20 minutes to go...or so I thought as they threw a big left hand curve at me that I didn't see coming. Tom Hanks is building a character that should be remembered for many years in Dr. Robert Langdon. Frankly its probably one of his best character works.

isaac32767:

There's a not a lot to say about this sort of movie. I just want to add an important warning: if you're wandering through a catacomb and stumble over an antimatter bomb, do *not* rush it to the nearest helicopter. An air burst is actually much worse.

dlu 1054448:

Completely predictable yarn. With cool fireworks at the end. There are no puzzles, no shocking revelations, nothing for the audience to guess or solve.

Stubbendeck:

A well produced, well acted thriller that was once again extremely overreacted to. Like "The DaVinci Code", "Angels and Demons" was made into something that it just isn't, anti-Catholic. It does criticize the Church, but only in an attempt to better undestand it's history and what truths may lie behind it. In a lot of ways, it's actually very respectful of the church. Constructive criticism is not blasphemy. Hanks carries the fast paced story as we run from one clue to the next. One element of the story is a bit too telegraphed, but overall it's solid storytelling on a grand scale.