Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Aside from a few well made set pieces, I found this to be an incredibly slight film. I actually enjoyed the Da Vinci Code more. Even though the stakes were higher in this film, it felt like less urgent. And the symbols in this one felt so meaningless. In fact, aside from a few specific clues, they probably could have had any halfway educated person do what Langdon was doing.

In all, I felt it was a step down from Da Vinci Code, and I hope Star Trek is able to hold on to the number one spot at the box office this week.

Edit: I will say the plot is handled better than the plot synopsis of the book that I just read on Wikipedia.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

caught a midnight screening last night. really boring movie. there were a few interesting action scenes, but otherwise i'd say give it a rental at best.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Love the book, but this suffers from the same pitfalls DaVinci Code movie did...these somehow are exciting and thrilling books, but when put to film, become boring as fuck. A few moments here and there but overall very plodding, dull action and pretty witless script... not to mention the last act feels really hokey, which the book had a bit of, but not nearly as much. If you liked the first one, you'll like this. If you hated the first, this is more of the same...too bad because both books are pretty fun reads.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Yeah. This movie fuckin sucks. It makes the DaVnci Code look like the Godfater.
Not only is it boring it manages to lose some of the action sequences of the book which really kinda dumbfounds me. I admit I was hoping there would be many changes from the book but the changes they made were pretty much all for the worst. Except for Hanks also going in the Helicopter at the end. That was about the only good change.
I just cant believe so much talent was wasted making this. Just abysmal this one. I hope it fails. Even the score which was the best part of Davinci Code , isnt very good in this one.
1.75 out of 5 Stars.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Nothing bad to say about Tom Hanks hair in this movie?

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

It's down to 38% at RT.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Didn't read the book, so I can't compare. But the film was o.k. Yeah, just as "talky" as the first. And yes, it felt twice as long. But I wasn't bored. At best I can say don't pay more than a matinee price or wait to rent. Hanks and Howard elevate this above crap like the "National Treasure" films. Nice cinematography and great score. So I'd give this a 7/10.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Caught this today and agree that it's better than Da Vinci (not saying much). I like what Howard did with the source material and what he decided to change. Overall, I felt it was quite entertaining.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I found this somewhat long film to be short on characterization, and exhausting on clue-driven plot points. 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.

I found the pacing of the film weird given the time constraints of the film's plot, plus Langdon and Vittoria's reactions to dastardly doings by the bad guy was shockingly subdued, like it was old hat for such an academic and applied physicist. Let's just say they sure did roll with the punches with aplomb, much to my disbelief. The script is pretty poor, and we even get somewhat of a Scooby-Doo ending (reminiscent of the one in Minority Report).

I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Generally I agree. I'd probably give this a C+ only for Tom Hanks, but this was a film that after it was over just thought, "Who cares?", plus I will probably forget all about it by the time Terminator: Salvation comes next week (if not sooner).

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

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.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I kept thinking of scooby-doo as well. I was bored with the whole thing. Never read the book or saw the other film. Anyway, it kept the wife entertained this afternoon and I didn't have to see Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past which was her other choice!

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

This only got a 4/10 from the local reviewer so I didn't hold out much hope. I give it pretty fair marks. Not a great movie but not as bad as many are finding it. But then I liked National Treasure. The clue driven plot intrigues me. For me it was a C+ or B-

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

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.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Antimatter bomb :lol:

Yeah, there's no way that I'm seeing this.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

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.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I agree, there was more development in Davinci. Just a quick blurb about him being an atheisitic author. In Davinci he was the pursued so it makes sense he the pursuer in this one.

I'll at least rent it when it comes out.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

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."

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

This movie was just annoying. I haven't read the books and never saw Da Vinci but the "Find the clues!" plot structure only works when the individual checkpoints are actually interesting, in this case they were not. That said, I thought McGregor did a pretty decent job in his role and most other roles were played well.

Everything was overexplained (stuff that frankly didn't need to be said) and it often felt like a really basic humanities lesson -- but you know, they tried to spice it up. Voyage of the Mimi: Vatican City. Oh and the explanations offered near the end of the movie were just idiotic.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

Actually, I thought that was the best sequence in the film.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

There's zero character development in the books.

Robert Langdon is basically a Mary Sue. He's a brilliant, handsome, athletic academic who spends his down time solving globe-spanning mysteries and bedding hot European women.

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I couldn't stand the overuse of the music score - ugh... !!!

Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
 

I was throughly disappointed with this film, with just having re-read the book this past week...I can't believe they didn't have Kohler or Vittoria's father in the movie either. Also the first scene in the book is awesome and they totally didn't show anything from that. I feel like the movie started about 300 pages into the book too. Just plain awful.