Angels & Demons Reviews

one oof the best movies that i have seen, Tom Hanks does his role very professionally (WELL HE IS A PRO!!) he is one of the best actors that i ahve ever known... (NOT LITERALLY) KEEP IT UP TOM HANKS

Back then, when 'The Da Vinci code' was released, everybody trashed it but I thought it was a little bit exaggerated. In my opinion, the main issue was that the book itself wasn't actually that great for starters. Furthermore, basically half of the book is about Robert Langdon explaining some historical facts or legends which is fine on paper but quite tricky to translate on the silver screen. Anyway, I went to see this sequel with an open mind (I even saw it in the theater somehow) and I was actually positively surprised. Indeed, it was definitely more focused than the first movie and I was rather captivated by the whole story, at least until the end. Of course, the whole thing was rather preposterous but there was something quite awesome about making a thriller in the Vatican, mixing some historical facts, myths and some good old blockbuster action scenes. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the end was so over the top, seriously, my mouth fell wide open. Whereas the rest of the movie was pretty strong, this ending was just really disappointing and actually did ruin the whole thing for me. Anyway, to conclude, it is definitely not a masterpiece but I still think it is a well made and entertaining thriller and I believe it is actually worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Three reasons why I gave this film a chance: stars 2nd favourite actor Tom Hanks and another favourite actor of mine: Ewan McGregor and it is a Ron Howard film and he is a good director. I really didn't like The Da Vinci Code so my expectations weren't very high at all. I thought of this pretty much the same as The Da Vinci Code apart from that the story in Angels And Demons wasn’t as complex as The Da Vinci Code.


Tom Hanks delivers another unsatisfactory performance as Professor Robert Langdon. Tom Hanks is one of my favourite actors if not my favourite but once again the Robert Langdon character didn't suit Tom at all. There are some characters that Tom has played in the past where you think to yourself "OMG! This is like real!'' but in Angels And Demons, this felt like a film that Tom was forced to be in even though the character doesn't suit him at all. Tom was the right age for the character, just not the right person. Ewan McGregor as a vicar?!?! Are you kidding?! He is Mark Renton (Trainspotting), Obi-Wan (Star Wars prequels), Edward Bloom (Big Fish) and Christian (Moulin Rouge!)!! Playing a vicar is the last thing that I was expecting Ewan to play. I didn't even find the character very interesting. I think the keyword to describe the character is "wooden" because it is dull and stupid!! Despite the fact she is quite attractive, Ayalet Zurer annoyed me in this film for the same reason as Ewan McGregor in this film: dull and stupid.


I have always been a fan of Ron Howard but I think that Angels And Demons as well as The Da Vinci Code are just big mistakes. However, there were some moments of good directing in Angels And Demons. Most of the script was stupid but some but very few ways it was quite good.


Overall, Angels And Demons is a disappointment like The Da Vinci Code but a tiny bit better, though. Hope Ron Howard or Tom Hanks don't star in anymore Dan Brown books. To be honest, I think you'll only really understand both films if you have at least read the books.

''Religion is flawed because man is flawed.''

Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.

Tom Hanks: Robert Langdon

Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code has a battle between religion and science. Controversy from it's predecessor, is sadly extinct, Angels and Demons is more of a thriller than an actual historical revelation of mythological proportions. This is a heavy dose of shadowy secret groups, and a villain interested in serving his own paradoxical ways to the Church.

So Angels & Demons begins with our protagonist being called upon by the Vatican for help, because this time, the Pope has died. The four candidates for new pope kidnapped, and bizaare anti-matter planted somewhere in the city which is going to explode. A sect know as the Illuminati has resurfaced, after hundreds of years, responsible for stealing the anti-matter and kidnapping the cardinals.
Performance wise Tom Hanks is sadly under-used, as he reprises his role as Langdon. The lack of Ian Mckellan and Audrey Tautou from Da Vinci Code, is apparent, Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo Patrick McKenna amused me, here we have a Scottish actor playing surprise...wait for it...an Irish priest. He does have a timid, nervous disposition which does provide laughs at times. Angels & Demons does offer originality in having a priest parachuting over the Vatican in a dizzying sequence of apocalyptic proportions. Stellan Skarsgård as Commander Richter is the supposed villain of the piece here, and Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra the female lead whom succeeds in being unmemorable throughout.

The feel of Angels & Demons is not one which its title might suggest. It has no physical angels or demons to tantalize us with, the title represents religion and science in conflict with each other. Religion being a traditionalist unchanging humanistic matter of faith and Science being the turbulent, change and materialistic advancement of discovery and technology. Sometimes Angels & Demons leaves an unsavory taste in ones mouth, in the sense we feel like we are on a virtual tour ride of the Vatican and it's many historical locations. Similar perhaps to Indiana Jones but lacking the fun and adventurous tendencies of the former.
One aspect I do love, is the soundtrack which offers a level of sophistication which stays with you. The proceedings are greatly boosted by the mystical, vibrant tones we are blessed with.

Plot holes appear to be rife here, with some questions or scenarios left unanswered. Who tries to suffocate Langdon in the archives? Why would anyone go through such a long winded process? Angels & Demons offers so many questions it sometimes forgets to give answers. Perhaps it wants to be too clever for its own good, perhaps it thinks it is intelligent and twists galore are present. It succeeds in being mediocre and at the end of the day people fail to care for the facts but rather for the entertainment and action. Favorably Angels & Demons offers some great chases, some horrific deaths and some glorious effects in places. Sadly there is not alot of historical revelation for shock purposes here. As for Christians, Angels & Demons is a fantastical tale of fiction, and here I agree because the story is that just of a thriller, and a fabrication of the villains whom use history for their own advantages.

Overall, Angels & Demons is an entertaining piece yet lacks the deep meaningful conclusion of it's predecessor. Dan Brown's books have made so much money from being interesting and for their conspiracies with history, yet when they are visually integrated for the big screen they sometimes lack that excitement the medium requires.
It is fun, and I admit a pleasure to watch overall, but sadly it feels like this routine Angels & Demons gives us has been done many times before.

''Our church is at war. We are under attack from an old enemy. The Illuminati. They have struck us from within and threatening us all with destruction from their new god Science.''

Enkelit ja Demonit oli, jos mahdollista, vielä Da Vinci -koodiakin surkeampi. Tom Hanks oli suurin piirtein yhtä yllätyksekäs ja ilmeikäs kuin villalapanen.

Kun kirja perustui pitkälti yksityiskohtiin ja niiden perusteella ratkaisun löytämiseen, oli elokuvaversiossa (osittain ymmärrettävästi, kylläkin) vedetty mutkia suoriksi. Kun kirjakaan ei ollut mikään elämää suurempi teos, niin ei liene ihme elokuvaversion seuraavan samaa linjaa. Jostain syystä kuitenkin odotin parempaa.

"Our church is at war. We are under attack from an old enemy. The Illuminati. They have struck us from within and threatening us all with destruction from their new god Science."

Three years after the screen adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code stormed the box office and became one of the decade's most profitable movies, the inevitable sequel Angels & Demons (also based on a novel by Brown) steps up to bat. Brown's Angels & Demons novel was written as a visceral and concise action-thriller, directly contrasting the more famous but ponderous Da Vinci Code. With the filmmakers able to infuse this Angels & Demons adaptation with suspense, thrills and a larger scale, the novel was certainly a more Hollywood-friendly property. It seems the filmmakers have also learned a number of lessons from the significantly-panned Da Vinci Code film - Angels & Demons is a tighter, more agreeable, more widely appealing and all-round superior mystery thriller with more action and less exposition. Screenwriters Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp thankfully aren't as bound to the literary word for this sequel, streamlining a lot of the narrative's notable excesses in order to produce a more digestible film. Yet there are still inherent flaws due to Brown's writing style: plot heavy and with little characterisation, the film has no real weight beyond its on-screen occurrences. The absurd nature of the prose has of course been carried over as well.

Interesting fact: since Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel was published prior to The Da Vinci Code, it is supposed to be Robert Langdon's debut adventure. Alas, Hollywood has reworked the facts and Angels & Demons has become the follow-up.

We learn at the beginning of the film that the Pope has died, and officials within the Vatican are ready to begin the process of determining his successor. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is recruited by the Vatican when an ancient secret society (known as the Illuminati) delivers an ominous threat. Determined to disrupt the post-mortem search for a new Pope, Illuminati agents kidnap the four 'preferitti' (primary hopefuls for the new Pope), and steal a canister containing antimatter which is planted in a hidden passageway under Rome. Robert Langdon is accompanied by a physicist named Vittoria (Zurer) as he busily dashes around the labyrinthine city with only a single evening to carefully decipher a series of puzzles while mangled corpses are delivered on the hour in the lead-up to the possible annihilation of Vatican City.

Howard engages in suspense mode from the very beginning as the story delivers kidnappings, poisonings, Illuminati gunplay, split-second decoding, the occasional burst of violence, and above all an energetic chase all over Vatican City as Robert and Vittoria sniff out clues amongst the religious paraphernalia. With the ticking clock being the fading battery on the antimatter bomb to ratchet up the tension, Angels & Demons is enjoyably spry, even with shovelfuls of exposition powering the story's increasing absurdity. But Howard is able to sell the premise effectively, and for the average film-goer the holes in the story will only become clear while examining the film in hindsight. Lacking the verbosity of The Da Vinci Code, Howard and company have adapted Brown's novel the way it was intended to be - as a beautiful, big-budget Hollywood action-thriller. Angels & Demons is a fairly adult-minded movie-going event, and a fulfilling one at that. It's similar to National Treasure, except more mature and without the snarky comedy. This is also a hard PG-13, with a surprising abundance of disturbing imagery and blood. Five minutes were reportedly trimmed from the theatrical cut to avoid an R rating.

Angels & Demons is visually compelling and narratively engrossing without ever being genuinely breathless. Ron Howard directs with total conviction, with Hans Zimmer's grand score extremely befitting of the breathtaking imagery. A highlight of Angels & Demons is the convincing recreation of Vatican City. The production crew were banned from filming on location and were forced to create virtually everything on soundstages, though you'd never know it (minor location filming was conducted using a fake working title, though). With luxury cars speeding through Rome's crowded streets, the movie alternates between location shooting, CGI-enhanced vistas, and intricately detailed film sets with speed and elegance, creating the illusion that the characters are actually inside the grand European city. Cinematographer Salvatore Totino generates a strong European visual aesthetic and the editing is energetic. On the whole Howard's film is nail-biting for the majority of its runtime, but it's frequently mired by its flawed script.

Unfortunately, none of the characters inhabiting Angels & Demons possess any degree of depth - they're empty ciphers who journey from A to B. The first 90 minutes of the film deliver a portion of "treadmill proceedings" - i.e. the characters are always moving but get nowhere. During this period Langdon uncovers improbable clues that lead to further clues instead of leading directly to the solution. Even if one misses a few chunks of exposition, the plot-by-numbers storyline is quite simple to follow. For the perceptive film-goer, the big "twist" ending can be easily deciphered by about an hour into the picture. And when the niceties of the overall conspiracy are finally revealed, it's pretty underwhelming - we were originally led to believe it would be more fascinating. The whole conspiracy doesn't make much sense either if you think about it. By all means, Angels & Demons is absurd as well - the conspiracy was masterminded by two evil characters devoid of clear motivations, one of which is a solitary hitman (Lie Kaas) able to pull off crimes even a big organisation wouldn't have the manpower to commit. Running at about 135 minutes, Angels & Demons becomes cumbersome, especially during the final act. Nevertheless, director Howard is a master of his craft, and the film is technically competent. It's a testament to Howard's cinematic skills that he's able to make this ludicrous story work as an engaging thriller.

The conflict of science vs. religion lies at the centre of Angels & Demons. This commentary is an essential component of the narrative, and the screenplay imparts a perspective for both minds. The film is not an exhaustive mental exercise, but the debate prevents the material from slipping into a dull routine of peril and tongue-twisting monologues.

Tom Hanks submits a solid, confident performance as the film's central protagonist, but he's unable to escape the formulaic nature of the enterprise. The supporting players are unhelpful idiots included to keep the plot stirring. Ayelet Zurer plays Vittoria Vetra; a physicist with smarts and charm. Her character is undermined by lack of development, however, and she's forgettable as a result. Ewan McGregor's portrayal of Camerlengo Patrick McKenna is bursting with charisma. Again, it's an underwritten part, but McGregor continually commands the frame. Stellan Skarsgård is suitably menacing and effective as the head of the Vatican security apparatus, while Armin Mueller-Stahl exudes authority in a key supporting role. As the mysterious assassin, Nikolaj Lei Kaas does a decent job.

This sequel to 2006's The Da Vinci Code offers a heightened sense of danger and another self-assured performance courtesy of Tom Hanks. Angels & Demons is a well-paced and serviceable action-thriller dressed in religious mumbo jumbo. Due to its absurd nature, the film relies on continuous forward momentum to ensure an audience hasn't much time to ponder it too deeply. Aiming to engross more than provoke discussion, the film is admittedly entertaining as it throttles towards a predictable conclusion. Since this is one of the highest grossing films of 2009 (in excess of $450 million worldwide), it's likely that another Robert Langdon adventure will materialise.

6.7/10

Great movie. As good as the first part, The DaVinci Code. Tom Hanks is a great actor and this role suits him perfectly. The movie has everything: mystery, drama, action. Is as good as it can get. I loved it.

I was thoroughly disappointed with the Da Vinci Code that I wasn't sure if I wanted to see Angels & Demons. But see it I did and I actually had a good time.

The writers have made a wise move in setting Angels & Demons soon after the events of The Da Vinci Code. Here, Robert Langdon's expertise as a symbologist is needed to solve a series of murders and prevent a terrorist plot on the Vatican City. The changes made from book to screen make for a tighter, faster-paced movie except for Langdon's tendency to over-explain things which makes it drag at times.
I felt the first five minutes of the film could have done with just a touch of exposition because I was bit confused. However, once Langdon reaches Rome and race against the clock begins, I was riveted to the screen.

Rome is marvelous backdrop for the movie - the history and the natural beauty - were all wonderful. There was a sense of majesty in a lot of the shots that I liked.

Performance-wise, Tom Hanks was fine as Robert Langdon - maybe it's the new haircut. Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra while doing okay, didn't have much to sink her teeth into. But she made a good a foil for Tom Hanks whenever the two shared the screen. Stellan Skarsgård did a good job with the limited role he had while Ewan McGregor was outstanding as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna though at times his accent seemed to slip to his natural Scots.

Angels & Demons is a vast improvement over The Da Vinci Code but still suffers from expository tendencies which drags it down from time to time.