Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 9443464)

Ebert dug it. It's currently on RT @ 54% which is more than double the score Da Vinci got (24%), apparently the filmmaking isn't nearly as bad this time around.

Originally Posted by Patman (Post 9447635)

The script is pretty poor, and we even get somewhat of a Scooby-Doo ending (reminiscent of the one in Minority Report).

Originally Posted by TheMovieman (Post 9447697)

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 9448807)

Originally Posted by Patman (Post 9447635)

Robert Langdon is summoned by the Vatican to help investigate the return of the Illuminati (men of science who opposed the church's teaching in the past centuries) as the current pope has passed away, and the church convenes to select a new pope, all the while the Illuminati threatens to detonate an antimatter bomb at the stroke of midnight with plenty of Cardinal clue fodder for Langdon and Vittoria (a nice looking physicist played by Ayeletl Zurer) to find the bomb in time, else thousands of people who have gathered in Vatican City due to the election of a new pope will perish in a bomb blast.

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt (Post 9449315)

This was a bad (although not boring) movie. I too, thought THE DA VINCI CODE was a better film.

My biggest problem was with Hanks' character. His only job in the movie seems to be to provide the audience with exposition about what we're seeing on screen. There's virtually zero character development for Langdon in the film.

Then we get this crazy race across Rome where Hanks/Langdon is playing "beat the clock" every hour - and the audience just knows he's going to get there late every hour, except, of course, for the last hour.

The movie is paced better than DA VINCI CODE, but it's easily the lesser of the two films. It's not something I have any desire to watch again.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 9448943)

My problem is the clues were so lazy. Most of it was statues pointing to the next location. It was like the antiquities version of road signs.

Originally Posted by Terps54423 (Post 9449763)

This is where you really saw the difference in the book and movie. There was a lot of time spent in figuring out the locations in the book, not as simple as "oh, I know...I'll find the location in the Vatican's listing of assets."

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt (Post 9449315)

My biggest problem was with Hanks' character. His only job in the movie seems to be to provide the audience with exposition about what we're seeing on screen. There's virtually zero character development for Langdon in the film.

Originally Posted by Tsar Chasm (Post 9447942)

I thought this movie insulted the intelligence of the audience.
First off, the coolest part of the book was completely skipped.

Secondly

And finally,


At least the previews for the summer films were cool.

Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 9465866)

To his credit, I actually thought Ron Howard's direction was fine in this. That said, the screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman was pretty much garbage.

Originally Posted by Goldberg74 (Post 9465717)

My 10 beefs with the film...

Originally Posted by Tommy_Harn (Post 9466209)

This wasn't as bad as I feared after browsing this thread. The novel's third act was a complete joke, simply bouncing from plot twist to plot twist. If I remember correctly, in the book. I was glad to see Howard and Co. knew better than to go that route.

Originally Posted by Variety

As of May 26, Sony's "Angels" had cumed $208.9 million in foreign box office -- making it the top international grosser of 2009, zooming past "Fast and Furious" and "Monsters vs. Aliens" -- after less than two weeks in theaters.

The second frame of "Angels and Demons" managed to remain ruler of the international box office with $58.4 million at 10,610 playdates in 99 markets during the May 22-24 weekend. That handily topped the $49 million overseas opening for "Night at the Museum: The Battle of the Smithsonian" at 8,100 in 93 territories.

And most notably, the foreign gross for "Angels" is more than double the domestic total, which had hit $89.7 million as of May 26 -- making it the 10th largest domestic grosser of 2009.

With that kind of solid foreign traction and no other adult dramas competing in June, Sony's religious thriller should be able to power past $300 million by the end of its run. It's on its way to becoming part of a small and eclectic grouping of films that have taken in well over 70% of their worldwide gross outside the United States.

That's not really a big surprise, since "The Da Vinci Code" -- the Dan Brown novel-based predecessor to "Angels and Demons," which also starred Tom Hanks -- is part of that same club, with international box office accounting for more than 71%, or $540 million, of its worldwide gross of $758 million.