HuffPost Review -- Angels & Demons (2009)

Angels & Demons
2009
138 minutes
Rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Angels & Demons is one of the more cheerfully dumb thrillers I've seen in a good long while. Every moment is more preposterous than the next, and after a brief period, the absurdity becomes oddly comforting. It's a lovely looking film, with authentic looking locations and a fair number of character actors who are obviously trying to replenish their Roth IRAs. It's not a good movie, but its one of the best kind of bad movies - a trashy pulp fiction that wholly embraces its own shoddiness.

A token amount of plot - Following the theft of a groundbreaking piece of anti-matter, and the kidnapping of the top four contenders in line to succeed the newly dead Pope, the Vatican calls in renowned 'Harvard Symbologist' Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, with less hair, less gut, and more humor this time around). Although the church didn't care much for his last insertion into church politics (they too found it self-serious, too long, and dreadfully boring), they need his help none the less. Now Langdon and Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) have only five hours to decipher the locations of the missing Cardinals as well as the location of the anti-matter, which has been made into a bomb that will wipe out Vatican City at the stroke of midnight.

While this fast-moving film is technically 'better' than The Da Vinci Code, that's basically like stating that a firing squad is more merciful than hanging. Both use pseudo religious legend to pretty up glorified Hardy Boys mystery stories. What makes this sequel an improvement is that director Ron Howard is (slightly) less afraid to acknowledge the silliness of the original novel. Unlike The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons did not have to be treated like a sacred text, with all the reverence accorded to such beloved works of literature. The inclusion of the infamous 'Illuminati' society is a welcome touch. They are always terrific go-to guys for mysterious skulduggery, mainly because 'Illuminati' is a really cool name for a super secret organization of evildoing. Who wouldn't want to say that they belong to an organization called the Illuminati?

Much of the running time still involves Langdon glancing at a random painting or symbol and deducing incredibly complicated schemes. Think of that early scene in the 1966 Batman movie where Batman and Robin deduce who's behind the big scheme ("It happened at sea... sea? C for Catwoman!") and you have an idea of what this entire movie's investigative process is like. Over and over again, Langdon turns coal into diamonds, allowing the heroes to race to the very spot where the next Cardinal is set to be murdered. Everyone else basically sits back and reacts, although Ayelet Zurer has much more to do than Audrey Tautou did in The Da Vinci Code. Refreshingly, at no point does Hanks pull a helpless Zurer along as they race to or from danger.

Stellan Skarsgard does little more than scowl and occasionally impede progress (no wonder he recently exclaimed that the author of the original books, Dan Brown, is a pretty terrible writer). Nikolaj Lie Kaas makes a pretty compelling antagonist until he is forced to deliver a trite monologue in a speaking voice that isn't nearly as cool as it should be (parents be warned, this is a far more violent and gruesome picture than The Da Vinci Code, and it's probably the least justified PG-13 since Vantage Point). Ewan McGregor has some nice moments as an empathetic priest torn between duty and apparent morality, although his climactic actions form the most unintentionally hilarious moment since Sam Elliot and Nicolas Cage drag-raced at the end of Ghost Rider.

Although Angels & Demons is a more cinematic story than the first picture, it is not enough of an improvement to merit continuing the series. The film is still about twenty minutes too long and still takes itself just a little too seriously. While there is less reverence this time around, Ron Howard and company still seem afraid to completely embrace the tawdry and trashy dime-store nature of Dan Brown's adventure novels. In the end, Angels & Demons is 'so dumb the con of man', which is better than The Da Vinci Code, which was 'so dull the con of man'.

Grade: 2.5/4

Comments

[VINSTERDUDE]

i havent read the books,. but i enjoyed the movie,..i have no problem with the nice mix of fact and fiction - i learned things i did not know,..it is not a perfect movie,. (how many are there?) perfect to who?
my gf and i were entertained,..and thas what we paid for...

the reviews are widely mixed,..thats fine.and how it should be,...

[LDKRN1]

I saw this Saturday night. At the time, I was somewhat dazzled by the scenery, but the more I think about it, the more I hate it (and I liked The DaVinci Code). It was just absurd in the extreme. Don't waste your time

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

I don't know all the Berini sculptures, but does anyone know if the angel and demon image is a bogus sculpture for the book, or a real sculpture, it doesn't look like it's historically correct. but then the west wind bas relief looked phony, so go know?

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

The piece of the book missing I objected to, was the final brand wasn't the two keys, it was all 4 element words done as a symetrical diamond. Except for the word Illuminati they didn't really focus all the brands were symetrical. Also in the book the title Angels and Demons is symetrically written.

[Melissa Hapke - Huffpost Blogger]

My spouse and I saw it Friday afternoon. Our reviews were mixed. I liked it, especially the music. She was looking for the book.

We were the exact opposite when we saw da Vinci. Don't know how many people stayed for the closing credits, but ILM did not do the special effects. I was surprised when I saw that.

I think A & D moved along a little better than da Vinci, but I was disappointed that they didn't tie Vittoria's "research partner" as her father nor the pope as Camerlengo McKenna's father.

However, I was very happy that they had Robert wearing his Mickey Mouse watch!!

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

That watch was a wonderful little detail. Especially as (if I recall) Langdon looks down on the ground to find a major clue as he's looking down at said Mickey Mouse watch. Thus, by proxy, Mickey Mouse saved the proverbial day.

[Melissa Hapke - Huffpost Blogger]

I think the Mickey watch was introduced in A & D by Brown. It was Robert's reminder to always stay young at heart.

I don't have the novel handy, but I'm pretty sure of it. As someone who collects Mickey watches, I was glad to see it.

Actually, it's not the first time Mickey has saved the world ;).

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

History Channel had a good special called Angels and Demons decoded ,Saturday evening

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, I will try to find and record said special. My wife loves the historical background/factual debunking of films she's seen.

[littleolwinemakerme]

I just saw A's & D's with my wife & daughter, we all had a great time. So sorry you had to sit through the completely different movie than what we saw. Maybe not having to buy a ticket jades your thinking. We were much more disapointed with the concession prices. Do you get comped for those too?

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I actually saw the film with my wife at a Friday late matinee. So yes I paid for my ticket. Due to the wife/kid thing, I only go to press screenings that I really want to attend, or to appease a studio PR person for a favor later down the road . IE - I couldn't care less about seeing Terminator: Salvation a whole two days early, but I didn't turn it down because my wife has insisted that I get into the early Harry Potter 6 screenings so she can oogle Alan Rickman accordingly. Otherwise I just try to catch the new stuff on opening weekend or request screeners for films from smaller companies.

Although my popcorn and soda were free via an AMC Moviewatcher coupon (the popcorn was a little bland, although I didn't wait for the fresh batch to pop out like I normally do). And, fair question, the studios usually do not comp refreshments at press/critics screenings. Although the Arclight in Hollywood usually provides a complimentary small popcorn/soda for special screenings they set up.

[Agentlady007]

Always a charming man. I just came back from the movie Angels and Demons. What a movie! It was great. The music was powerful, and it was pretty fast for a 2 and a half hour movie. A cool twist, and very interesting to watch. Go see it!

[javaz]

I liked it.
But then, I'm not an intellectual film critic.
I watch movies for entertainment and generally ignore "mistakes" or more correctly, don't look for errors in logic or whatever.
Most films that critics praise, I abhor, and most films that critics abhor, I usually end up enjoying.

As for Dan Brown, yeah, he's crying all the way to the bank.
Obviously, I'm not alone in enjoying his books!

[traveler501]

come on...this movie is an excellent rendition of a book with a limited audience. the audience it is intended for should love it. it is not a "bad movie", nor is it high art...does it have to be? this review is a lot fairer than, say, Claudia Puig's in the Times...but nonetheless, why are movies measured against some absolute scale? they should be measured for what they are. I remember Smokey and the Bandit (yeah, I'm that old)...it was panned, it was terrible, Burt Reynolds can't act blah blah blah....it was entertainment for a whole lot of people for a long time. For many years it was a top rental at video stores. some of my favorite movies supposedly sucked. How about Hudson Hawk? or Dogma? or Animal House? All critically murdered. Let's murder the critics instead, or maybe...make them do cameos in entertaining but campy movies *grin*

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Dogma and Animal House both got pretty good reviews when they were released, if I recall (Animal House got a four-star rave from Roger Ebert, in which he basically called in the funniest movie in ten years). As for Hudson Hawk, I have no ill will against that one either. It's not a misjudged masterpiece, but it's an imaginative bit of fluff none the less.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

I'll be buying the DVD too. It's amazing the sets and sculptures which had to be reproduced due to the vatican insisting they couldn't film on their locations. It still appears some was filmed in areas the Vatican didn't know they filmed in.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

I loved both the book and film. Ewan McGreggor's performance was a little disappointing, I wouldn't have cast him. The actor playing the head cardinal of the Conclave and the actress playing the scientist were both GREAT.

[mac33z]

I haven’t seen Angels & Demons, but it’s getting hammered already on the Internet.
The Da Vinci Code stunk. It was ridiculous; Paul Bettany’s performance alone tanked that film.
I saw Tom H. and Ron on the Lizard King last night, and they were chatting it up big time. Larry K couldn’t say enough about it, and was being overly enthusiastic. At one point Tom H admitted that the movie was kind of out there, but it was worth a look see. Whatever.
Ron H & Tom H are good guys, but the chat and premise of the movie are screwed.
Saw Ewan McGregor on Graig F last nite, and those two were laughing their asses off regarding the fact the Ewan plays a priest. Yikes!
I’ve always found Ron’s movies kind of “Opie’d” out anyway, and even Tom can’t keep a straight face on Larry K.
The author, Dan Brown, is even getting bombed online as well. Lot’s of articles saying his books are” Fractured Fairytales” at best.
Maybe they should change the title to “Angels & Goobers,“ at least they’d be closer to the core theme.

[Rockwell]

The book was so bad you couldn't suspend disbelief with an industrial crane.

I'd like to see the movie but that would only encourage Dan Brown to keep writing and that would be a bad thing.

[dagdavid]

Ron Howard is incapable of making a film that does not fit into a stereotypically moronic Hollywood formula and Tom Hanks is incapable of starring in one