Angels and Demons Review

There are many things which can cause me to dislike a film. "Angels and Demons" merely happens to hit on one of my pet peves, a film that does not live up to it's full potential.

"Angels and Demons" Tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks)a symbologist who gets called in by the Vatican after some strange happenings. There is some evidence that the Illuminati a long gone Anti-Catholic group appears to be reemerging and seeking revenge in violent ways. How violent you ask, I'm taking killing Priests in messed up ways and threatening to blow up all of Vatican City with antimatter. Yea, that kind of Violent. Like the Da Vinci Code Robert Langdon must use his superior brain power to follow a set of clues through lots of churches in order to save the day.

We have talented actors like Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor. We have frickin Ron Howard who has directed some really good films like "A Beautiful Mind", "Apollo 13", and most recently "Frost/Nixon." We even have all the ingredients for an interesting story. The Vatican, conspiracy theories, really twisted murders, and a race against the clock.

"Angels and Demons" has so much going for it, yet none of it comes together in the right way to make a good movie. Is it the worst movie I have ever seen, no, not even close. But all the same it's just an ok movie, when it could be a fantastic movie.

I blame the writers. Yes I know it's based on a book by Dan Brown, and like any snob I have a certain amount of contempt for such an over rated author. However I have to say that the book (I have read roughly half of it) is far better organized then the movie.

I don't know what Ron Howard was thinking, but the opening could have been sequenced a lot better. It starts out with the death of the Pope and a discussion of the traditions surrounding such an event, then it cuts to bad things happening in a Lab somewhere, then it cuts to Tom Hanks in a speedo. It doesn't give you time to care about any of the characters, and it is somewhat confusing as it is not immediately apparent what the Vatican has to do with something being stolen from a Lab. Say what you will about Dan Brown but the man knows how to create a fast paced and enjoyable novel. The movie would have been a lot better if it had began the movie like the book where Tom Hank's character Robert Langdon is brought in to investigate a murder and theft at a Lab, and then moves on to the Vatican. Or if they had been really smart they would started with Langdon giving a lecture at Harvard about the traditions surrounding the death of a Pope, then have him called to investigate stuff.

Another weird change is the order of the movies. The book Angels and Demons predates The Da Vinci Code, however the order of the movies is revered. This causes a major plot conflict. You see if Robert Langdon does all the controversial Da Vinci Code stuff (aka saying that Jesus had kids with Mary Magdalene) before hand why does the Vatican go to him for help. It would have made more sense had they simply made the movie a prequel, as opposed to giving a lame explanation that the Vatican is so desperate for help that they don't care he has put in a lot of work to undermine their religion.

Ok so we will ignore those strange and easily avoided choices and get down to some of the more offensive things about this movie. For one thing Tom Hanks is a great actor, honestly one of the best of his generation and he is not put to good use in this movie. Robert Langdon is a rather flat character, perhaps we are supposed to love him because of his never ending knowledge of trivia. They attempt to give him some depth by having him be an agnostic in a very religious setting, but in the end they don't give Tom Hanks a hell of a lot to work with. The same goes for his side kick, who stands as little more then arm candy throughout the film. The only person who really gets a character in this is Ewan McGreggor, he does a good job but it's not enough to carry the film.

Everything starts out kinda slow, but then 3/4 though the movie everything turns into a pretty cool fast paced action flick. Yet there are some problems. One of the few things I liked about the "The Da Vinci Code" was the way clues would pop out out at you or be all glowey and highlighted. No clues popped out at you but none had to, instead of following some clues that with some thought could be figured out by the audience clues were limited to obscure facts about Vatican city, or statues pointing at stuff. It didn't have the lovely "Blues Clues" for grown up's edge that "The Da Vinci Code" had.

While some of of the clues that the movie followed around the city were rather obscure, the big one was fricking obvious. I mean seriously they put the antimatter in the most obvious place you could possibly put it, and some idiot would have thought to check there before things got all dramatic.

Another problem that I had was the ending. Here Ron Howard made a particularly bad choice in following the book. The movie could have addressed some really deep philosophical stuff like science vs religion, or what constitutes a miracle, or what is faith, or any number of things more important then the finite ending it gave. Instead it goes for a cheap twist at the end, which really did not add to the movie in any way.

Again the movie isn't terrible but it had the potential to be so much better then what it was. It tries to be an intellectual thriller but fails, if you go in expecting a decent action film you will find it. If you go in expecting to find a movie where you have to think to solve things before the characters can, you won't find it unless you know a lot about the art and churches in Vatican City.

It's entertaining, has fantastic production values, and a soundtrack by the always great Hans Zimmer. I'm serious Hans Zimmer saves so many scenes because he managed to write a score that would make anything seem interesting and exciting. If you take just about any song used in "Angels and Demons" and set it against a clip of an old lady drinking tea, you would think that something sinister or interesting was about to happen.

Bottom line: It's ok, it will entertain you, but it's something that you probably don't want to rush out and spend $10 to see.