Angels & Demons (B- or 3/4 stars)
Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) works hard to solve some murders & prevent a terrorist attack in 'Angels & Demons', directed by Ron Howard (who also helmed Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code). The film opens with the murder of a scientist working with 'antimatter' in a Geneva laboratory; the killer making off with a canister of said antimatter. Meanwhile, in the Vatican, the red-cloaked cardinals have just finished mourning the death of the pope & are preparing to elect his successor in their conclave. Problem: the 4 most likely candidates (the Preferitti) have been kidnapped; and a group claiming to be the Illuminati (a persecuted underground society who opposes Catholicism's static opinion of progressive science) are threatening to kill the 4 of them off for each hour leading up to midnight (starting at 8 p.m.) before unleashing the cataclysmic antimatter unto the Vatican. Nearly all of Rome would be destroyed.
Robert Langdon is recruited by the Vatican because he is an expert on the Illuminati. Teamed with Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer), one of the scientists who created the antimatter, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), & the Swiss Guard, led by Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), Langdon hopes to decipher the clues which lead to the conspiracy against the church. Some of the clues include the 4 alters of science: Earth, Air, Fire, & Water. An assassin working for the Illuminati aims to kill each of the 4 Preferitti by way of these 4 alters of science. Traveling throughout Rome, unraveling signs & clues as they go, can Langdon & Co. discover the terrifying truth behind the Illuminati and prevent further death & destruction? And just who IS the mastermind behind this elaborate plan?
Having not read either of Dan Brown's novels, I can't make ANY comparisons btwn. the books & the films. So I allow that the books are probably considerably superior. But all I can do is judge this/these films by how I felt during & after them; if they entertained me; if they make sense; if they're directed well; & if the film adaptations seem worth it. I liked a lot in 'A&D', but I'm sure that the books (while preposterous in plot) are thoroughly nuanced & fleshed-out, whereas these films are simply not. Much of 'Angels & Demons' (the movie) is absurd, cheesy, & over-the-top. But it STILL entertained me. This film hits the ground running and doesn't let up. There are plot contortions galore, red herrings, science babble, religious babble, creative deaths, melodrama, mystery, & intrigue. And it's a movie that would absolutely go off the deep end if it didn't have as able a director as Ron Howard onboard.
Here's an interesting change from The Da Vinci Code: where that film is saved (at all) by great acting, this film relies on the acting far less so. I mean, Hanks is fine; as is McGregor, Skarsgard, Mueller-Stahl, Ayelet Zurer, & Pierfrancesco Favino (who I loved in last yrs. Miracle in St. Anna). But the draws of this film are its sumptuous production design, philosophical appeal, & the non-stop bordering-on-hysterical bursts of pseudo-intellectual dialogue & chase sequences. The science/faith aspect is important (obviously), but it plays second fiddle to the high-octane beat-the-clock-chase through Rome plotline. Haha, what a movie.
As mentioned, the production design is insanely impressive (including recreations of the Vatican, statues, sculptures, etc.). The cinematography is great. The costumes are richly detailed. The musical score is stellar. And it is both brisker & shorter in length than it's monstrous predecessor, The Da Vinci Code. And yet, for all these positives, the movie does not hit a home run. I mean, the meat of the film is both involving and engaging. Really, a lot of fun. But the 1st half hour is too rushed. And the last 20 minutes (or so) is so ludicrous & so implausible that it actually made me cringe in my seat. It's never a good thing when you're more interested in the way a movie goes than how it actually ends. The last 2 min. are tied-up in a pretty little bow for us and we leave the theater thinking we've seen something special. I enjoyed myself. But in reality, a good 45 min. of the movie kinda irked me.
Robert Langdon is recruited by the Vatican because he is an expert on the Illuminati. Teamed with Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer), one of the scientists who created the antimatter, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), & the Swiss Guard, led by Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), Langdon hopes to decipher the clues which lead to the conspiracy against the church. Some of the clues include the 4 alters of science: Earth, Air, Fire, & Water. An assassin working for the Illuminati aims to kill each of the 4 Preferitti by way of these 4 alters of science. Traveling throughout Rome, unraveling signs & clues as they go, can Langdon & Co. discover the terrifying truth behind the Illuminati and prevent further death & destruction? And just who IS the mastermind behind this elaborate plan?
Having not read either of Dan Brown's novels, I can't make ANY comparisons btwn. the books & the films. So I allow that the books are probably considerably superior. But all I can do is judge this/these films by how I felt during & after them; if they entertained me; if they make sense; if they're directed well; & if the film adaptations seem worth it. I liked a lot in 'A&D', but I'm sure that the books (while preposterous in plot) are thoroughly nuanced & fleshed-out, whereas these films are simply not. Much of 'Angels & Demons' (the movie) is absurd, cheesy, & over-the-top. But it STILL entertained me. This film hits the ground running and doesn't let up. There are plot contortions galore, red herrings, science babble, religious babble, creative deaths, melodrama, mystery, & intrigue. And it's a movie that would absolutely go off the deep end if it didn't have as able a director as Ron Howard onboard.
Here's an interesting change from The Da Vinci Code: where that film is saved (at all) by great acting, this film relies on the acting far less so. I mean, Hanks is fine; as is McGregor, Skarsgard, Mueller-Stahl, Ayelet Zurer, & Pierfrancesco Favino (who I loved in last yrs. Miracle in St. Anna). But the draws of this film are its sumptuous production design, philosophical appeal, & the non-stop bordering-on-hysterical bursts of pseudo-intellectual dialogue & chase sequences. The science/faith aspect is important (obviously), but it plays second fiddle to the high-octane beat-the-clock-chase through Rome plotline. Haha, what a movie.
As mentioned, the production design is insanely impressive (including recreations of the Vatican, statues, sculptures, etc.). The cinematography is great. The costumes are richly detailed. The musical score is stellar. And it is both brisker & shorter in length than it's monstrous predecessor, The Da Vinci Code. And yet, for all these positives, the movie does not hit a home run. I mean, the meat of the film is both involving and engaging. Really, a lot of fun. But the 1st half hour is too rushed. And the last 20 minutes (or so) is so ludicrous & so implausible that it actually made me cringe in my seat. It's never a good thing when you're more interested in the way a movie goes than how it actually ends. The last 2 min. are tied-up in a pretty little bow for us and we leave the theater thinking we've seen something special. I enjoyed myself. But in reality, a good 45 min. of the movie kinda irked me.