Very few angels and only demonic filmmakers (Angels and Demons (DVD))

Member Name: bilbob20

Product:	Angels and Demons (DVD)
Date:	30/05/09 (73 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Its faster than the previous film, and is entertaining in places

Disadvantages: A complete mess of a film that gets it so wrong

There is only one thing to do when you make a film that is universally panned, and that's to attempt to make something better the next time. The best selling novel 'The DaVinci Code' got its adaptation onto the big screen courteousy of Ron Howard nearly three years ago. After scathing reviews, and a lukewarm cinematic response, it would seem somebody is willing to give Howard another shot at the game. So its back to author Dan Brown, a fictional writer who is competent but mediocre at best, as he brings the latest of his novels to life.

Professor Robert Langdon is called to the Vatican city when the pope dies, and his 4 potential replacements are kidnapped. With access to the archives, a dream he has been pursuing for a long time, Langdon discovers that the kidnappings could be related to a long-quietened religious organisation known as The Illuminati. As the city mourns, he is thrown across the 4 church's that make up the path of the Illuminati's presence. He must save the 4 prisoner's in order to stop an atomic bomb that has been set in the middle of the city.

With the help of an Irish priest, and a scientist responsible for creating the atoms for the bomb, Langdon must uncover the members of the Illuminati in time to stop the whole city from being wiped out. Meanwhile, a group of Cardinal's have gathered in a time honoured protocol and refuse to vacate the city, making Langdon's plight all the more desperate.

To say that Angels & Demons is a terrible film would be overstating it slightly. However, it fails on nearly every level. Director Ron Howard doesn't seem to be able to convert Brown's novels into anything worthwhile. Brown seems obsessed with the explanation of ancient symbolism, and without the guidance of the novel itself, the film falls flat on its face.

The biggest problem throughout is the contrived and overly-convenient way in which the clues are set up and then solved without any explanation, engagement, or involvement for the audience. Langdon comes to random conclusions leaving you bewildered as to how he got there. Yet, in other sequences, long exposition makes it feel that Langdon is simply in his classroom offering a tutorial about the history of the symbols.

In other baffling moments, police abandon protocol , rituals and age old Vatican laws as they place their trust in Langdon, a man they met hours before and who doesn't seem quite at one with the quest of the Vatican. There are also nods to the elements as fire and water are thrust into the crux of the story, which only serves the plot as far as to create an argument for religion versus science, and one that presents the catholic church as an old and outdated power too stubborn to modernise or change its thinking.

Continuity seems to be an issue here as well. Its never clear whether this film is a prequel or sequel, but its unimportant. In DaVinci, Langdon was claustrophobic due to a childhood accident. In this film, he has no qualms about racing down the dark restricting catacombs of the Vatican City with barely a gasp or wheeze. If it were a prequel, he would still have those issues, and if it were a sequel, well Langdon's fear wasn't really resolved in DaVinci anyway. That's the problem with this film, points are discarded so frivolously that you are left with your jaw on the ground.

There are various other flaws as well. The pace is blocky, given that one minute we are treated to solemn and lengthy exposition, and the next we are thrust into odd and out of place car chase sequences. This is placed sporadically throughout the film in a plot device that becomes repetitive and unproductive. They are also the opening to scene's of extreme violence that are there simply to shock and offend. Given that the 12A certificate allows children to attend viewings with parents, I was thrown by some of the extremely gratuitous murder sequences that played out often and without regard for good taste.

Onto the performances then. There's not a lot that Tom Hanks can do with a script that is ridiculous and tries too hard to simplify for an audience that probably cant be bothered to pick up the book. However, his performance mostly leans towards desperation, and you cant help but feel that he is wasted on this material. The fact that he is one of only a few decent performers on hand also makes his leading duties a thankless task.

His leading lady, for all that she does, is the pretty but unremarkable actress Ayelet Zurer. She looks awkward for the first half of the film, and doesn't bother to even act for the second half. Most of her screen time is with the far superior Hanks, or scene-stealing Stellan Skarsgard who is frankly underused.

The most offensive accent award of the year goes to the terrible Ewan McGregor though. The only time I ever found McGregor watchable was on Trainspotting over a decade ago. No amount of loyalty as a fellow Scot will convince me that he is anything other than an okay actor who just got lucky. Quite why they were hellbent on making him Irish, when it works so badly against him, is anybody's guess. Do they not have Scottish priests in the Vatican? He gets some powerful scenes, but its too little too late by the time you've finally accepted the accent will never get any better.

Overall, Angels and Demons is a watchable piece of dross, made better only by its own twists and turns. The tricky plot saves the film from becoming a complete bore. The presence of a genuinely frightening baddie who might be out for his own agenda, or the agenda of an ancient power gives it a tiny amount of depth. Although, the silly addition of the plot where he actually tells Langdon that he isn't killing him because he hasn't been told to after shooting up a storm at every turn is just cringe worthy.

Dan Brown has a new novel on its way, and it'll no doubt be more of the same religious claptrap offerings as the previous 4. Hopefully, on the evidence of the lacklustre Da Vinci movie, and now this moderately horrible addition, Ron Howard will decide to steer clear and actually go back to making films that are remotely enjoyable. Once Brown is firmly back on the written page, Howard is over his pretentions as a serious film maker, and Hanks has visited a hairdresser deserving of that job title, cinema will be a safe place again.

Summary: A disappointing continuation of a disappointing franchise