Movie Review: 'angels & Demons'

[Sir Christopher]

Movie Review: 'Angels & Demons' better than 'Da Vinci Code' but that's not saying much

Friday, May 15, 2009 // http://www.seattlepi.com/movies/406255_angels15q.html

By LAREMY LEGEL

FILM.COM

The main problem with Angels & Demons involves pacing. The entire film is set up as an Encyclopedia Brown-style foray into Catholicism. Every five minutes a mystery is presented, one that the audience has no hope of solving, and then Tom Hanks whisks us off to the next location ... but only after he's deciphered the obscure symbol or tome thrust in front of him. Then it happens again. And again. But if the audience has no involvement (as the majority of us aren't Catholic scholars) and we're not really learning anything, where does the enjoyment come in? The characters? Angels & Demons doesn't bother to build them. The spectacle of the thing? Well sure, but bright lights and shiny objects only go so far. Man can't live on frenetic pacing and the likability of Tom Hanks alone. We need movie sustenance, something we "haters" call "plot." I miss plot. I wish plot would make a comeback.

Tom Hanks is again Robert Langdon, though this isn't a sequel. Technically, from the source material's perspective, it's a prequel, but neither story really ties into the other in any meaningful way, so I suppose it's more Tapioca pudding than anything. You could accurately say that The Da Vinci Code captures the public's imagination in a way that Angels & Demons did not -- though the older book (Angels & Demons, produced three years prior) is the better book. Hanks is swimming along, hanging out at Harvard, when an emissary from the Vatican approaches him. They've got a mystery that needs solving, and no one other than Mr. Langdon will do. There's also an interesting subplot involving anti-matter and Hadron Colliders, but I'm not going to get into it because the little fun that can be mined from this film comes from not knowing what's coming next. I'll leave that to you, at least.

I will say that I enjoyed Ewan McGregor's performance, but then again I have a soft spot for him. McGregor plays the Pope's right hand man, or Camerlengo, a guy who isn't really in power but is still definitely very much in the mix as the film rolls on. I'll also cede that the ending of Angels & Demons is interesting. (точно кончается некой очередной гадостью) Everything looks great, too; Ron Howard clearly had a budget to work with (which is no surprise, given how well The Da Vinci Code fared).

In the end, a film like Angels & Demons is judged by how well it handles the details, and for me there were too many things that seemed off. The film has a momentum to it, but it's an artificial one, supported by facts and ideas the audience can't possibly follow. People act implausibly throughout, and it's just to get you to the next scene, with no real logic to the equation. I suppose I liked it better than The Da Vinci code, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement. This one is strictly a "check your brain at the door" type of affair.

Grade: C

Мдааа...

Edited May 16, 2009 by Sir Christopher