Directed by:
Ron HowardCinematography:
Salvatore TotinoComposer:
Hans ZimmerCast:
Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Carmen Argenziano, Thure Lindhardt (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
In Ron Howard's thrilling follow-up to The Da Vinci Code, expert symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) follows ancient clues on a heart-racing hunt through Rome to find the four Cardinals kidnapped by the deadly secret society, the Illuminati. With the Cardinals' lives on the line, and the Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor) desperate for help, Langdon embarks on a nonstop, action-packed race through sealed crypts, dangerous catacombs, and the most secretive vault on Earth! (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (7)
Reviews (12)
It's just like the books - Angels and Demons is better than The Da Vinci Code. Thanks to Howard, who made the whole film a frantic race against time, thanks to Zimmer, whose music was almost visible given how distinctive it was, thanks to the interesting Vatican plot, thanks to the likeable Hanks... Yeah, four stars is adequate.
()
Robert is searching for life, discreetly flirting, and making enemies wherever he can. Again. But this time, he struggles with a few things regarding The Code. Most notably, he loudly screams a few clichés of the genre. The main characters play for life-saving minutes, but nevertheless, around every corner, there is an explanation for random symbolic curiosities. And most importantly, the syndrome of the second installment arrives in its strongest form. Once again, a damaged body, an attractive and randomly found partner, and once again, a reveal that slightly undermines the impact of previous twists. However, I still have to give it a better score of 70%, whether it's because with another actor, Langdon would become just a pawn, which Tom Hanks brilliantly prevents, or because Ewan McGregor celebrates a phenomenal comeback. But mainly because I would not have guessed those two hours to be even halfway through, as everything swiftly zooms by, the plot never pauses for a moment, and the box of the archaeological-adventure film is filled to the maximum.
()
Brown’s books are undemanding and intellectually shallow, but bloody good page-turners, ideal to relax in summer by the sea. With the films it’s worse because they drag quite a bit, are too talkative and the lack of logic that the books can hide between the lines (or have at least plenty of space to explain in some way) floats to the surface, making it almost impossible to ignore. Angels and Demons suffers from the same problems as The Da Vinci Code, though perhaps it’s more tense. The result, however, is still a not very interesting thriller that might surprise a few people with a couple of rather brutal scenes, but that will bore most due to its chaste asexuality and correctness. 6/10
()
After the first hour, Angels & Demons becomes repetitive and the audience loses interest in the detective storyline, no matter how dynamic it may be. More ideas wouldn’t be unwelcome. The impressive climax, however, salvages a lot. And the work with the actors (and their hairstyles) is definitely better than in The Da Vinci Code. What fascinates me the most about this “saga” is that for all its straight-facedness, first-class filmmaking team, solid actors and controversial topics, it is unable to be anything but a simple-minded blockbuster for the masses. The masses that are unaware that 50% of their experience is provided by a guy named Hans Zimmer.
()
It’s the opposite of the book: the filmmakers replaced the excellent exposition with a lifeless tour of Roman monuments in the company of the haughty pawn Tom Hanks, whilst the ridiculous finale in Brown's book was a replaced by a rather solid and visually interesting climax. Undoubtedly positive is the performance of Ewan McGregor, and negative the fact that the mysterious and thrilling pursuit of symbols lacked decent acting and directing, and was without a hint of invention and emotion. Langdon simply has a big problem in books and movies in that he still doesn't know if he's more of an action hero or an academic windbag. In literature, this can be somewhat tolerated, but in film it leaves a very bad impression. I round up the score given the last few final minutes. However, I consider Tom Hanks' involvement to be a historical mistake. In the next film, the poor gay will not even fall through the eyepiece of the Pantheon. There’s no way he swam those 50 laps in the morning. Well, maybe with a motor up his ass.
()
Ads