Angels & Demons

8

eagleeyevikingDec 29, 2013

The movie Angels & Demons pales in comparison to its novel but is nonetheless thrilling, exciting and more compelling than its film predecessor. 7.6/10

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Voodoo123Sep 17, 2019

Angels & Demons for me is a series low point, some very silly moments of OTT action mixed in with a convoluted plot attempting to squeeze into the standard 2 hour slot... Pacing is all over the shop and as a result the film suffers with aAngels & Demons for me is a series low point, some very silly moments of OTT action mixed in with a convoluted plot attempting to squeeze into the standard 2 hour slot... Pacing is all over the shop and as a result the film suffers with a noticeable lack of tension and purpose compared with Da vinci code.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

juliankennedy23Jun 15, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.

Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).

Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.

Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.

Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the **** erased.

While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.

Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world… no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day…? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study… (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.

On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Astor_Jul 23, 2018

I only recently watched this. I didn't have a good impression of the first Da Vinci Code movie. This film is more or less, more of the same thing. Uncover mysteries, exposing conspiracies, finding bomb...

The idea is good. But there reallyI only recently watched this. I didn't have a good impression of the first Da Vinci Code movie. This film is more or less, more of the same thing. Uncover mysteries, exposing conspiracies, finding bomb...

The idea is good. But there really isn't enough strong plot to make the idea shine. And I already predicted who the real villain is from the start, and I was right. That is disappointing. Viewers are not supposed to be able to guess correctly with ease the ending plot.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

ShadowUApr 27, 2023

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is what The Da Vinci Code could have been. It's quick and suspenseful and brief on the details, because it understands that the details here are dumb. The "puzzles" are silly, just thinking about them for 2 minutes makes it plainly obvious how silly they are. So the movie just skips over that stuff and focuses more on the suspense, with some great cinematography, which are its strong points.

The ending in particularly stood out as incredibly stupid, it made no sense at all. However, I didn't really mind that too much, I was fairly satisfied at the end because the movie was overall pretty gripping. I didn't feel like laughing at how stupid it was like I did with The Da Vinci Code, so that's a major step up.

Superb performances by all the actors. Was great to see Tom Hanks actually do something in this movie! Fantastic performances by the supporting cast, too.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

CineAutoctonoDec 21, 2015

"Angels & Demons" was a movie almost a term of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati , and their evil plans , but Tom Hanks in the adaptation of Dan Brown's book , the film has been very electrifying and terrifying , but very boring after"Angels & Demons" was a movie almost a term of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati , and their evil plans , but Tom Hanks in the adaptation of Dan Brown's book , the film has been very electrifying and terrifying , but very boring after the cosmic explosion scene until the appointment of a new pope , the Vatican is at risk of the Illuminati do .… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

FilmClubMar 27, 2016

Science and religion collide, commingle and eventually reach a state of peaceful coexistence in “Angels & Demons,” a follow-up to “The Da Vinci Code” in which director Ron Howard conspicuously gives top priority to the story’s beat-the-clockScience and religion collide, commingle and eventually reach a state of peaceful coexistence in “Angels & Demons,” a follow-up to “The Da Vinci Code” in which director Ron Howard conspicuously gives top priority to the story’s beat-the-clock thriller elements. Less turgid and aggravating than its predecessor, this cleverly produced melodrama remains hamstrung by novelist’s Dan Brown’s laborious connect-the-dots plotting and the filmmakers’ prosaic literal-mindedness in the face of ripe historical antagonisms, mystery and intrigue.

Although “Angels & Demons” was the first novel to feature Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, the film version is sensibly positioned as a sequel to “Da Vinci” in an early scene in which a Vatican emissary requests the professor’s help in spite of the existing bad blood. This sequence takes place at a Cambridge swimming pool, enabling it to exhibit Langdon (Tom Hanks) in much fitter condition than he appeared three years ago. He’s also clearly changed hairdressers, a good move.

With the last pope dead and the college of cardinals gathered in conclave to elect a new church leader, Rome enters hyper-crisis mode when four eminent cardinals are kidnapped, with the announcement that one will be killed each hour leading up to a bombing that will destroy the Vatican. The culprit, apparently, is the Illuminati, a secret society with roots in the Enlightenment that is now bent on avenging the church’s violent attacks against it more than 200 years ago.

Zipped over to Rome with less than 24 hours to piece together arcane clues as to the clerics’ whereabouts, Langdon is this time asked to put his talents in service of the Catholic Church, not to dismember it, as in “Da Vinci.” Filmmakers are currently getting lots of mileage out of how they were prevented from filming at numerous church-controlled locations in Rome, just as Catholic orgs continue to denounce the picture sight unseen — the irony being that this story takes the side of the church against those who would destroy it.

In the company of Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), who works for the CERN particle physics lab that produced the canister of antimatter that threatens to blow St. Peter’s to kingdom come, Langdon dashes from church to crypt to nave to catacomb, finding freshly killed cardinals and others about to be as he employs his unique expertise to hash out the Illuminati’s insidious plan.

Perhaps recognizing how static and talky “Da Vinci” was, Howard and lenser Salvatore Totino this time have the camera thrashing and thrusting about while keeping Langdon constantly on the move and laying Hans Zimmer’s thumping score on top. While more superficially stimulating, the adrenalized approach can’t hide the utter absurdity of a timeframe that gives the characters just an hour each time to navigate the labyrinths of the Vatican basement archives, figure out what to do next and make their way through crowds and Roman traffic to the location of the next atrocity.

Brown’s straight-line plotting, streamlined by scenarists David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman, creates some impatience and a hunger for any kind of surprise. The latter is satisfied to an extent by the climax, which, however far-fetched, is visually spectacular and dramatically both evenhanded and unexpected.

Hanks is kept in motion so much, there’s hardly time for characterization as such; it’s enough that the borderline risible aspects of his character in “Da Vinci” have been eliminated. Zurer takes a while to make an impression but a thoughtful intelligence finally breaks through to favorable effect. McGregor — like Hanks, looking better than he has in his last couple of films — is OK as the custodian of church power during the traumatic transition, and Mueller-Stahl keeps his character’s hand hidden like an ace poker player.

If, as reported, the production shot in Rome for only two weeks, it sure doesn’t show; pic is saturated with local atmosphere, evidently achieved through expert location lensing combined with wizardly sleight-of-hand in the visual effects and production design, especially in the climactic section set in St. Peter’s Square. Dark exterior scenes accurately reflect the low lighting levels of much of nocturnal Rome.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

UNARMED_JORDOct 17, 2016

whilst the improvement is definitely significant Angels and demons cannot help but go drift into a ridiculous and utterly unrealistic story however the action sequences and Tom Hanks performance definitely delivers

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

GerardistheWayNov 10, 2016

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that this is the best of the Dan Brown novel adaptations. Whether that statement should be taken positively or negatively is up to you, dear readers.

Why Tom Hanks has decided that this filmI don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that this is the best of the Dan Brown novel adaptations. Whether that statement should be taken positively or negatively is up to you, dear readers.

Why Tom Hanks has decided that this film series would be his only live-action sequels (so far) is a bit beyond me. He's a terrific actor, and without his presence the films would be completely and utterly unwatchable (especially "The Da Vinci Code", which was mostly standing around in darkened rooms explaining the movie and giving people a good nap for the price of their tickets), but I can think of a number of other much better films he's appeared in that possessed a lot more sequel-spawning potential. Ron Howard has had some good movies, even some great movies ("Apollo 13", "A Beautiful Mind"), but it's kinda hard for one's film to be considered an action thriller if most of the plot is expositional dialogue on account of the fact that your audience likely has no f**king clue what in the hell you're talking about (if its mission was to inspire curiosity, though, then it succeeded; I spent a week or two reading about both the Catholic Church and the Illuminati afterwards). It should also be noted that while "Angels and Demons" in its movie form is a sequel to "The Da Vinci Code", it is a prequel in its novel form. I guess there's nothing saying it can't happen in the rules of film adaptations, I'm just saying that you ought to warn fans of the novel if you plan on pulling a stunt like that.

The story again follows Professor Robert Langdon (Hanks), who is summoned to Rome by the Vatican following an infiltration at CERN (one of the few times the scientific facility is mentioned, in a part largely reduced from its role in the novel) that leaves a priest dead and a large sample of antimatter stolen. A fax (yes, a fax) sent to the church leads them to believe that an old enemy long thought extinct, the Illuminati, has returned for revenge for persecution they suffered several hundred years ago. The method through which they intend to obtain such revenge is kidnapping the four "preferiti", the favorite Cardinals to succeed the late Pope as head of the Catholic church, and killing one of them each hour according to the ancient scientific elements (I'm hoping I don't need to explain what they are) before using the stolen antimatter like a bomb to annihilate Vatican City and part of Rome. As far as revenge schemes go, why always the convolution? Can't they just do what normal people do, and leave angry comments on their official website? Anyways, throughout this little escapade he is assisted by a CERN scientist (Ayelet Zurer), whose basic function in the movie is looking hot and giving Langdon someone to talk to, as well as the Vatican's chamberlain (Ewan McGregor; fun fact, chamberlain is actually the English translation of "camerlengo") as he zigzags across Rome following an ancient treasure map of sorts to the bad guys' hideout (I'm honestly surprised no one found it sooner. It's in a fairly publicized place, somewhere that I have no doubt hundreds of tourists visit daily) in the hopes of stopping a mysterious assassin (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) hired to carry out the secret society's dirty work.

The movie tries to present you with several different suspects as to who could be the mastermind behind these attacks, namely the secretive and seemingly untrustworthy Commander of the Swiss Guard (Stellan Skarsgard) and the Dean of the Cardinals' College (Armin Mueller-Stahl), though anyone who's read the novel--or keeps up with celebrities--can guess from their status who's going to turn out to be the true villain here. Regardless, there might be a few things you weren't expecting as, like the case for any movie adaptation, some trimming has been done and some more major characters have been reduced to bit parts or cut out completely (one thing a lot of you fans of the novel might not like is no Max Kohler. I feel like I'm not spoiling too much by saying that). These edits make the film leaner, meaner, and better looking/working in some parts, but also takes away from some crucial backstory about several of the characters (the priest killed at the beginning isn't Vittoria's father as in the book, thus cutting out a large amount of the time spent on her), including a secret tie between the Pope and the camerlengo that more or less sets the events of the story in motion that is missing.

The performances are excellent from the main cast and competent from the supporting actors, and despite the film's implausibility bordering on complete absurdity, it is enjoyable enough to warrant the DVD purchase (it can't be more than, like, 5 bucks, depending on where you look for it). You might be better off skipping "The Da Vinci Code" and going straight to this one (I didn't see the first film until a year or two after seeing this one). 7/10… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

ZapadorOct 8, 2016

Not the worst movie I've personally come across... but close! I really felt like I was watching a 150 million dollar joke.
A lot of the acting and scenes feels really unconvincing and borderline ridiculous, a lot of the lines made me cringe.Not the worst movie I've personally come across... but close! I really felt like I was watching a 150 million dollar joke.
A lot of the acting and scenes feels really unconvincing and borderline ridiculous, a lot of the lines made me cringe. Not worth anyone's time.
I've never read the book, so no comparison.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

FilipeNetoFeb 24, 2018

Based on the homonymous novel by Dan Brown, this film takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an adventure in Rome, where he will try to save the Catholic Church, and the "Eternal City", of the threat of an antimatter bomb. Directed by RonBased on the homonymous novel by Dan Brown, this film takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an adventure in Rome, where he will try to save the Catholic Church, and the "Eternal City", of the threat of an antimatter bomb. Directed by Ron Howard, the film has a screenplay by Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp, and a cast headed by Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer.

Let's start with an important statement: I haven't read the original book yet, so I don't know how far the film is faithful to its story. All that I will write was only about the film, forgetting the book.

And I start with the skeleton of the film: its far-fetched and strange script. In fact, the whole story seems centered on a macabre plot to a certain guy can be elected pope. A conspiracy that seems hard to swallow or fully understand. It looks like that guy draws an intricate plan that, from a certain moment, depends almost entirely on luck or, at best, on good odds. And that is totally senseless. The script has several flaws and even the correlation between some artworks presented seems too forced to be credible.

The actors are good but could have had a more interesting performance. Although Tom Hanks has improved his performance as Langdon (he clearly had some minor difficulties with the role in "Da Vinci Code") and have done an excellent job, his partner, Ayelet Zurer, received a more ungrateful and undeveloped character. In fact, Vittoria Vetra always seems to be left on scene and rarely contributes decisively to the investigation, merely following Langdon. Ewan McGregor was perfectly comfortable with the role of Camerlengo, but his character ends up being the victim of the major script errors that we have mentioned. Stellan Skarsgård shone in the role of the suspicious commander of the Swiss Guard, but Pierfrancesco Favino could have done a better job if his character, Inspector Olivetti, not spend half the movie lost and without knowing how to lead the investigations. The special, visual and sound effects were excellent, especially in the final of the film. The soundtrack, by Hans Zimmer, lives up to his reputation but not brings any novelties.

Despite these errors, the film is not too bad. Good action sequences, a very healthy suspense, the beauty of the scenarios of Rome and its artworks, combined with a story that has no dead moments, help the public to swallow the film and make it quite acceptable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ErikTheCriticSep 25, 2018

Undeniably an improvement over "The Da Vinci Code". It's more fast-paced, and we have some swift and intense action.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Wavy_YeezyMay 18, 2019

I expexted this movie would be greater. This was not good at all...........

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

DawdlingPoetNov 25, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I found the plot confusing and the pace was slow to start with, although it certainly sped up after a while. I thought it was relatively intriguing and tense, even though I was a bit baffled about the context of some of whats discussed. Its true to say I haven't read the Dan Brown book its based on - I haven't the Da Vinci Code either though. Its still pretty watchable, even if the religious context of the plot leaves you a bit confused. There are some perhaps surprisingly bloody/violent scenes, more in terms of injuries shown than necessarily active violence committed in front of the screen, for most of the film. I found myself wondering what truths may be discovered, attempting to second guess what might come to light next.

I think the character of Robert Langdon suits Tom Hanks well, being a perhaps somewhat academic and yet also philosophical, thoughtful character type. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlemgo Patrick McKenna, who works at the Vatican. I thought it was interesting seeing him play such a different type of character to those of his other drama type films.

There are some instances of decent cinematography, such as when the Vatican is shown with massive crowds of people gathered outside/nearby, hoping to see the first signs of the new Pope having been agreed on. Also, I should perhaps point out that if you don't like reading subtitles then be aware as there are a number of times in which subtitles appear on screen to translate from Italian and other languages.

I found it an intriguing and somewhat entertaining watch, so its not bad. Its not a bad film, not great but good I'd say.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

mikesgold2KJan 11, 2023

Zdecydowanie lepsza niż poprzednia odsłona, lepsze zagadki oraz ogólny klimat koncentrujący się na Kościele i jego władzy. Warto obejrzeć mimo niedociągnięć

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Angels & Demons

User Reviews