Do you really need the flashlight?
Angels & Demons
Directed by Ron Howard
Columbia Pictures, 2009
By Brian Last
Tom Hanks and his mullet team up with director Ron Howard for a follow up adventure to the highly successful Da Vinci Code. When a physicist is murdered and a very dangerous item is stolen, clues are left that point to the secret society of the Illuminati.
Langdon (Hanks) is called in and leads the Vatican police on a search to uncover a terrorist plot. The pope has recently passed away and the search to select his successor is ongoing, but the four cardinals who are in the running are abducted. Langdon has to crack the mystery of who revived the Illuminati, who is behind the murder, and try to save the abducted preferitti — all before the stroke of midnight.
Adapting a book into a movie is a difficult process that inevitably involves omitting some background details beloved by fans. The Da Vinci Code film was criticized for not being true to the book and for omitting too many important details. From what I have heard and from what fans of the book have told me, Angels and Demons was adapted similarly. While I can’t compare this film to the book, it was cohesive and entertaining, but it could have been much more.
For one thing, the character of Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) was unnecessary. I know why she was there, but she didn’t offer much to solve the mystery, and when she came to serve, her expertise with the weapon was moot. I did like Ewan McGregor as the Carmalengo, but his role was too small when he should have been a main character. Stellan Skarsgard was especially strong as Commander Richter, a character whose jaded attitude towards Langdon played out interestingly. Richter‘s allegiances were never clear, adding intrigue to the character and the story.
George: We watch people reading. Jerry: We watch people READING?
Tom Hanks was solid as Robert Langdon. Langdon is a man who knows the history of everything, but ask him about his own personal beliefs and he stares at you blankly. He is a man who is clearly conflicted and Tom Hanks played it very well. There weren’t a lot of instances where Hanks had to go over the top; he really kept it quite low key. Langdon is a highly rational man, so he had to keep his head on straight, but — with the destruction of the entire Vatican at stake — Hanks could’ve played the role with a greater sense of urgency. Still, there is a reason Hanks is paid the big bucks — he has the presence required to carry a film this size.
Angels & Demons had decent action scenes but in terms of the mystery, each set-up felt contrived and convenient. At first I was really drawn in, and the potential was enormous, but as it continued, it dragged its feet and grew repetitive. They story would have required a few more curves to really keep me glued. The main climax felt a little anti-climactic; my reaction was, “that was it?” Then it lagged while coming up to the bigger ending. While it did bring up great points about science vs. religion, I really wanted more Illuminati, as that is the back bone of the movie.
All in all, Angels & Demons was exceptionally average, and I had much higher expectations going into it than were met. It was entertaining, but with more character development and more background on the Illuminati, it could have been a film of real quality.
The one thing I’ll say about the Vittoria Vetra character, at least she wasn’t nerve racking – just as the girl in The DaVinci Code. In the DaVinci Code, her screen time was practically more than Langdon’s. She was the one driving the film until the last half hour.
In this film Langdon came to the forefront which was a good thing.
I really liked this movie. I’ve also never read the book, but from what I’ve been told, the changes that they made for the movie made perfect sense, and some of them sound like they were for the better (specifically the helicopter scene). More detail on the Illuminati would have been good, but I fear that much more detail would have made the movie too long.