|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I finished reading the book last night and treated myself to the film today.
I want that 140 minutes back. Horrible, horrible, horrible. My 10 beefs with the film... Spoiler:
... all in all, I'm glad that: 1. I read the book before seeing the movie. 2. That I bought a great movie in The DaVinci Code and got a free ticket to see a stupid movie in Angels & Demons. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I guess I can sum up all my thoughts about the film in this analogy:
Ron Howard took all of the pages in the book, lined them up and then skipped a rock along them... whatever pages the rock hit, he used. When skipping a rock, the first few skips are very far apart... thus the exclusion of a good portion of the beginning of the book... and the last skips are close together... meaning a few of the later details are missed. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
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.
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
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.
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I really need to stop seeing films that Akiva Goldsman had a hand in the screenplay because he is a bad writer. I don't know what happened to Koepp, though.
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
Akiva Goldsman is pretty terrible, however his work on FRINGE has been surprisingly good and he produced Deep Blue Sea, I Am Legend & Constantine - three guilty pleasures, so he's not ALL bad ;)
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I saw it this weekend and it was boring. I am going to start the book tonight. They just seem to run and then stop and talk for 20 minutes explaining everything.
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
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,
Spoiler:
A&D was entertaining enough, but surely nothing to write home about. It was about what I expected after seeing the film adaptation of the DaVinci Code. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
Finally saw it yesterday. Never have I squirmed around in my chair so much out of boredom. Mainly I saw it because David Koepp is one of my favorite Hollywood screenwriters, and I had heard how the book was far superior to The DaVinci Code.
I'd give it a 5/10. All the acting was great, especially Ewan. And the direction was fantastic, but sooooo talky. It became so repetitive by the end of the movie. I never felt any suspense, and I guessed every twist long before they occurred. So overall the reason I went to see the movie(the writing) is the reason I didn't like the movie. I'll put the blame on Akiva Goldsman since everyone else seems to be, haha. I actually thought as a film, The DaVinci Code was better at 6/10. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I agree that there was too much key material that was left out from the book, but given the runtime of well over 2 hours, I know some things had to be cut. I found it hard to stay awake for the whole movie.
Originally Posted by Goldberg74
(Post 9465717)
My 10 beefs with the film... Spoiler:
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,
Spoiler:
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
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. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I liked it better than The Da Vinci Code, but still thought it was a bit mediocre.
The pacing was better. Some of the omissions from the book were good, others not so much. **1/2 out of five. |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
I finally saw this last night at the dollar theater (ok, well its now the $2 theater :p) and was let down. I disliked the changes from the book and the omission of the Kohler character, not to mention the removal of Vittoria's father being the victim at the start of the book and her overall role in the entire movie. DaVinci Code was definitely the better movie, as it seemed to set up the suspense and tense moments far better then this one, which is strange since in the books I felt Angels & Demons was far better in that regard.
|
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
10 years late, but finally watched this. No clue it was this old (or DVC was even older). Pretty sure I had 0 expectations so was pretty pleased. I did not read the book, so I didn’t have a reference. I was suspect of the priest even after the helicopter sequence. At first I thought it was tragic since his ‘sacrifice’ was in line with his story about the Italian military. Except after he survived, there was plot dangling since Howard had telegraphed the key Langdon picked up. Also, was he trying to cover up killing the Pope, or was the Pope legitimately poisoned by somebody else? I also think it would have been interesting if the mercenary (?) had stayed alive. Mysterious but honorable (to a degree) person gets away to encounter another day. I may watch the third film at some point, but not rushing too. Apparently the 4th that was leftover from ~2007 is being turned into a prequel tv series. :shrug: |
Re: Angels & Demons (pre-Da Vinci Code)
A&D is my favorite, mostly because he captured the feel of running around in Rome, and shows all the great places in the city. The story as usual is silly, but the actors elevate it to something pseudo-serious. And Inferno is a sillier mess, just like the book. The book is the first in the series that feels like you’re reading a screenplay, rather than a fleshed out novel. Which sucks because Florence is my favorite city in the world. And I’m not excited for the series, especially since The Lost Symbol plays out like the movie National Treasure. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.