Genre: Action, Conspiracy Thriller
Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Armin Mueller-Stahl
Running Time: 138 minutes (plus trailers)
To say that Angels & Demons is a better film than The Da Vinci Code doesn’t mean much. That film was boring, overwritten and, well, boring. Angels & Demons is all of those things, but to a much lesser degree. Like The Da Vinci Code, it is based on the hit novel by controversial author Dan Brown. Director Ron Howard returns to the filmic franchise, as does Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist with a penchant for biblical conspiracies. When the Illuminati, an ancient organisation dedicated to scientific truth kidnaps four papal candidates in the wake of the Popes death, Langdon is brought in to aid in their rescue. Unfortunately, he only has a day, as the Illuminati have also stolen a canister of anti-matter, which on the stroke of midnight (how poetic, am I right?) will cause a massive explosion that will destroy all of Vatican city.
Wow…when I type it out like that, I’m reminded of just how stupid this story is.
The film's biggest problem lies with its script (and perhaps the source novel itself (I haven’t read it – Da Vinci Code was overrated)). Obviously, the plot is preposterous; you don’t need to be told that, so I’m not going to waste my time. The dialogue is very uncreative, and the first hour of the film if filled with far too many scenes of Hanks staring contemplatively at church architraves. In an attempt to combat the scripts banality and make the movie seem more exciting, Howard utilizes a constantly moving camera and a bombastic soundtrack by Hans Zimmer. Now the music isn’t that bad, but it’s so freaking loud! (there's a soundbite in the trailer, below). It's impossible to count the number of scenes that feature cars racing through the narrow streets (which in this film constitutes an action sequence), camera zooming after them, all set to the blasting and invasive choral score. All the minor characters are completely one note; Stellan Skarsgård plays the uncooperative head of Vatican security whose sole purpose is to get in Langdon’s way, making antagonist comments at every turn. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays a cardinal with papal ambitions; the symbol of religious corruption and the “old order”. And Ayelet Zurer plays Victoria, the quasi-love interest who does nothing other than serve as a cipher for the audience, a patient listener for Langdon to explain his theories to.
As for Tom Hanks, the man does absolutely nothing in this role. While I can’t say he’s bad, he is nowhere near being good either – it’s a cheque oriented performance if ever I saw one. Moreover, the character he plays is absolutely useless. Langdon has almost no effect on the films outcome, and is constantly arriving a few minutes too late to save the kidnapped priests from their various grizzly deaths. He habitually stumbles upon clues rather than actually solving any; just happening to notice the shape of a statue or the way light hits a page. He postulates, theorizes, grimaces, puts his hands on his hips and paces around the room, spouting historical jargon that the audience has no chance of understanding – after all, I don’t know where Saint Higgledy-piggledy is buried...and I suspect you don’t either. Nor can I recite the names of 16th century Italian architects on demand. The audience has no chance of solving any of the puzzles (the things that make a mystery film interesting); instead we just get told what is going on in endless scenes of exposition that quickly become mundane. Not that you won’t be able to figure out some things. On the contrary, the final twist – in which the real villain is revealed – is so blatantly obvious that it becomes not a question of whether you figure it out, but how many minutes into the film you get before you do.
There are some positives. Ewan McGregor did a very good job as the only level headed member of the Vatican (or is he, hint, hint), and I actually quite liked Nikolaj Lie Kaas (good luck pronouncing that) as the Illuminati hitman (or is he, hint, hint) – although it was kind of a non-performance. Still, he was a badass, capping priest’s left and right. There is also plenty of action and tension in the second half of the film that certainly helped redeem it (I think I said the same thing about Wolverine – this is a better movie than that at least.) Some of the action sequences were very cool, especially the shootout in a burning church (although Langdon’s actions in that scene were counter-productive to say the least). Finally, like almost all of Howard’s films, the cinematography is excellent; he can add Angels & Demons to his long list of films that look great but don’t deserve Academy Awards.
I think the key to Angels & Demons lies with your expectations. If you liked the book, or if you liked the previous film, then odds are you’ll like this…because it’s basically the same thing, only with a bit more action. Likewise, if you go in expecting to hate it, then you absolutely will. And if you go in like me, thinking it’ll be alright, then the same rule applies. It’s not smart, it’s not particularly exciting and I don’t think it’s worth paying $14 for. But if you think it looks like your kind of movie then it probably is.
Angels & Demons is in cinemas now
Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Armin Mueller-Stahl
Running Time: 138 minutes (plus trailers)
To say that Angels & Demons is a better film than The Da Vinci Code doesn’t mean much. That film was boring, overwritten and, well, boring. Angels & Demons is all of those things, but to a much lesser degree. Like The Da Vinci Code, it is based on the hit novel by controversial author Dan Brown. Director Ron Howard returns to the filmic franchise, as does Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist with a penchant for biblical conspiracies. When the Illuminati, an ancient organisation dedicated to scientific truth kidnaps four papal candidates in the wake of the Popes death, Langdon is brought in to aid in their rescue. Unfortunately, he only has a day, as the Illuminati have also stolen a canister of anti-matter, which on the stroke of midnight (how poetic, am I right?) will cause a massive explosion that will destroy all of Vatican city.Wow…when I type it out like that, I’m reminded of just how stupid this story is.
The film's biggest problem lies with its script (and perhaps the source novel itself (I haven’t read it – Da Vinci Code was overrated)). Obviously, the plot is preposterous; you don’t need to be told that, so I’m not going to waste my time. The dialogue is very uncreative, and the first hour of the film if filled with far too many scenes of Hanks staring contemplatively at church architraves. In an attempt to combat the scripts banality and make the movie seem more exciting, Howard utilizes a constantly moving camera and a bombastic soundtrack by Hans Zimmer. Now the music isn’t that bad, but it’s so freaking loud! (there's a soundbite in the trailer, below). It's impossible to count the number of scenes that feature cars racing through the narrow streets (which in this film constitutes an action sequence), camera zooming after them, all set to the blasting and invasive choral score. All the minor characters are completely one note; Stellan Skarsgård plays the uncooperative head of Vatican security whose sole purpose is to get in Langdon’s way, making antagonist comments at every turn. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays a cardinal with papal ambitions; the symbol of religious corruption and the “old order”. And Ayelet Zurer plays Victoria, the quasi-love interest who does nothing other than serve as a cipher for the audience, a patient listener for Langdon to explain his theories to.
As for Tom Hanks, the man does absolutely nothing in this role. While I can’t say he’s bad, he is nowhere near being good either – it’s a cheque oriented performance if ever I saw one. Moreover, the character he plays is absolutely useless. Langdon has almost no effect on the films outcome, and is constantly arriving a few minutes too late to save the kidnapped priests from their various grizzly deaths. He habitually stumbles upon clues rather than actually solving any; just happening to notice the shape of a statue or the way light hits a page. He postulates, theorizes, grimaces, puts his hands on his hips and paces around the room, spouting historical jargon that the audience has no chance of understanding – after all, I don’t know where Saint Higgledy-piggledy is buried...and I suspect you don’t either. Nor can I recite the names of 16th century Italian architects on demand. The audience has no chance of solving any of the puzzles (the things that make a mystery film interesting); instead we just get told what is going on in endless scenes of exposition that quickly become mundane. Not that you won’t be able to figure out some things. On the contrary, the final twist – in which the real villain is revealed – is so blatantly obvious that it becomes not a question of whether you figure it out, but how many minutes into the film you get before you do.
There are some positives. Ewan McGregor did a very good job as the only level headed member of the Vatican (or is he, hint, hint), and I actually quite liked Nikolaj Lie Kaas (good luck pronouncing that) as the Illuminati hitman (or is he, hint, hint) – although it was kind of a non-performance. Still, he was a badass, capping priest’s left and right. There is also plenty of action and tension in the second half of the film that certainly helped redeem it (I think I said the same thing about Wolverine – this is a better movie than that at least.) Some of the action sequences were very cool, especially the shootout in a burning church (although Langdon’s actions in that scene were counter-productive to say the least). Finally, like almost all of Howard’s films, the cinematography is excellent; he can add Angels & Demons to his long list of films that look great but don’t deserve Academy Awards.
I think the key to Angels & Demons lies with your expectations. If you liked the book, or if you liked the previous film, then odds are you’ll like this…because it’s basically the same thing, only with a bit more action. Likewise, if you go in expecting to hate it, then you absolutely will. And if you go in like me, thinking it’ll be alright, then the same rule applies. It’s not smart, it’s not particularly exciting and I don’t think it’s worth paying $14 for. But if you think it looks like your kind of movie then it probably is.Angels & Demons is in cinemas now
