Angels And Demons...A Sequel That Feels Like A Sequel
Written: Sep 16 '09 (Updated Sep 16 '09)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Bang For The Buck |
 |
|
|
Pros: Decent scenery, some suspense, polished look.
Cons: Terrible script, not believable, weak acting.
The Bottom Line: This film feels contrived and not plausible. The acting was mediocre. An inferior film from a superb film maker. Avoid this one.
|
|
|
| coldsteel7's Full Review: Angels & Demons |
I though The Da Vinci Code was moderately palatable. Nothing spectacular. Which is why I was surprised to see a sequel. The film made lots of money but just was not that good. Why someone chose to make a sequel is beyond my understanding. Angels & Demons was a waste of time. Of course, I watched it during an international flight...so I had nothing better to do.
Angels & Demonsis bad on many levels. Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, who has been summoned to the Vatican to help solve the kidnapping of several Cardinals following the untimely death of the Pope. In a contrived and completely unbelievable turn of events, Langdon finds himself at the middle of a conspiracy within the Church. Langdon has a somewhat apostate view of church affairs so an intended irony exists in his effort to save the Institution while attempting to save the lives of thousands of residents and visitors to the Holy See (and surrounding area). The plot manages to squeeze and stretch reality with an impossible time line that often seems laughable. While solving Da Vinci Code-like riddles, Langdon manages to unravel the location where each Cardinal will be assassinated while trying to get ahead of the killer and solve the broader mystery. Langdon does not realize that he is a pawn who has been brought in to further the conspiracy.
This is where the plot really loses me. The plot relies heavily on Langdons ability to solve the mystery within an incredibly tight time line. There is also a scene where Langdon could easily have lost his life, in which case the broader plot could not have evolved properly and the entire elaborate set-up would have been for naught. There were other inconsistencies in the plot that just seemed to incredible...like managing to get a helicopter on stand-by in the courtyard of the Vatican within minutes. Even a carefully orchestrated plot would fail to execute a time line so quickly and precisely...depending on such minute details as another individuals ability to string together riddles and solve them...just one minute one way or the other changes the outcome. Not likely.
The characters in Angels & Demons are woefully bad. The characters are flat and predictable. The stereotypes would probably create outrage in communities other than the Christian (Catholic) Church. I was shocked at how blatantly religious considerations were disregarded with complete impunity. I am not Catholic and was not offended by the film personally. But I could easily see how someone could find the material offensive. Not simply because of the conspiracy and behind the scenes politics demonstrated in the film, but by the treatment of several of the characters, who are one-dimensional caricatures. It seemed like some liberty may have also been taken with historical facts.
The acting was a reflection of the writing (which included stale dialogue that was uninspiring and over used). The cast were ineffective at interjecting anything into the film that could make it any better. Hanks was rather boring. His character was repulsive to me, and I do not think that was intended. Ewan McGregor was okay, but not very convincing as the Camerlengo. Ayelet Zurer was undoubtedly cast for her looks...her character was bad and she did nothing to improve it. Stellan Skarsgard held the post of Commander for the Swiss Guard...I do not think it possible to create a more stereotypical one dimensional character than the one he played. I cannot really blame him for his character, other than for agreeing to take the part. The cast, in my opinion, did not have much to work with. However, they did not bring much to the table to improve the situation, either.
Were there some good moments in the film? Without a doubt. There were some decent chase scenes and some phenomenal scenery. Ron Howard did a good job of building suspense at times, and I enjoyed the way things fit together. If the story were something remotely plausible, the film might have come together well. The cinematography was excellent. The film had the polished high-budget look that I expect from Ron Howard. But Opie could have done a better job with the script. My apologies to David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman...but the screenplay just did not work for me.
Angels & Demons was rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America. There were some intense action scenes and a bit of gore resulting from violence. The branding and laceration of human torsos probably earned this film that rating. The major themes of the film did not seem to be over the top. The imagery was not spectacular, beyond the seldom seen gore. The rating is appropriate for this film.
I would be angry if I had paid money to see this film. But then again, I saw the first one and knew better than to waste my money. When I saw it was free on the airplane, I figured I had nothing better to do...I was a captive audience. I felt captive. The film just was not very well conceived. It felt like a film rushed out to capitalize on the money made from The Da Vinci Code. The plot felt contrived and I felt used as a viewer. I am embarrassed for Ron Howard for putting out such an inferior film. I would give this movie two stars out of a possible five.
Recommended:
No
Worst Part of this Film: Plot
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.