New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Having pragmatically avoided Brown's CERN cheesiness, the film dives right into Vatican City, as Langdon has been sent there to investigate the kidnapping of a group of cardinals who have been voted most likely to become the next pope. Why Langdon? Evidently there's symbology here that deals with the secret society known as the Illuminati, which Langdon's written a book about.

Tom Hanks return to the role of Robert Langdon. Hanks looks less ridiculous here than he did as Langdon in the previous film,, but he isn't given a whole lot to do in the center of the film and very little of that distinctive Hanks-y personality shows through. This is important - he's the film's main character and he's given little to do. The source material has given the screenwriters very little to work with in the way of interesting characters and the actors muddle along as best as possible. Some actors do a better job of conjuring clever moments than others: Ewan McGregor has a very appealing moment's oration near the end of the film in the role of a Camerlengo and venerable German actor Armin Mueller-Stahl makes a few memorable impressions as a cardinal, but this really isn't a dramatic film in spite of its potential. An attractive, mysterious Israeli actress plays an attractive, mysterious Italian scientist, but like so much of the rest of the film, she looks good without being allowed to have much impact. Of particular note with respect to the eye candy factor is the architecture. An 18th century Italian palace stand in for the interior of the Vatican, a 17th century Italian library stands in for the Vatican Library and a soundstage stood in for St. Peter's Basilica. The attention to detail on the St. Peter's set was phenomenal. Production designer Allan Cameron gives a remarkable feel for the immensity of the place. But aside from looking very regal, it isn't given much to do here either.

For all its difficulties, the film really excels at amplifying Brown's pacing. From the opening credits on, the film is hell bent on getting from point A to Point B and all the little points in between in just over two hours. All of Brown's pointless little factoids vaporize in a rush of events that is only slightly slower than the traditional summer action film. This has as much to do with the scoring as it does any other aspect of production - Hans Zimmer's score seems to be pushing things forward even in moments that would otherwise seem poignant and reflective. It may not have that much of an impact by the time it reaches the closing credits, but the Angels & Demons makes getting there reasonably fun.

The Verdict

In spite of its apparent desire to be something deeper, at its heart, the Angels & Demons story is an suspense thriller with just enough substance to keep it from seeming entirely pointless. Dan Brown's novel spends far too much time trying to justify itself intellectually to keep the kind of pace necessary for a really effective suspense thriller. While the film is similarly bogged-down in intellectual pretensions, the movie spends a lot less time talking and a lot more time moving. As a result, the film is far more effective at delivering on the kind of action and suspense that makes the story palatable. The screenwriters even improved on Brown's ponderous dialogue, making it sharper and more natural - so even the tedious exposition that Brown trudges his characters through speeds by pretty quickly. It may not be a great film, but it knows what it's doing a lot better than the book.

Continued:       1       2       3