June 5, 2009
-
The Agony and the Ecstasy: Angles & Demons Reviewed
While Ron Howard’s latest excursion into the religious surreal is, without question, a high-tension, fast-paced thriller, Angels & Demons is, nevertheless, created with human hands–and the flaws show. Though Dan Brown attempted to pass himself off as an intellectual atheist on a mission with The DaVinci Code, receiving praise and accolades from today’s so-called progressives, Angels & Demons reveals Mr. Brown as a lowly writer because Angels & Demons fits together too conveniently, ultimately leaving the audience saying, “Of course that couldn’t have happened! It’s just a movie.”
THe main contrast between Angels & Demons and DaVinci Code is that Angels & Demons is very respectful to religion in general and Catholics specifically whereas DaVinci Code is purely atheistic volley designed to destroy Christendom.
Ewan McGregor was perfectly cast as Camerlengo. Everything about McGregor’s performance, yes, even his accent is perfectly executed. You feel the little boy trying to come out of the thirty-something year old man–the taught humility fighting the powerlust while the whole time being in awe of the very power being veraciously juggled. Ayelet Zurer does a wonderful job playing second fiddle to Tom Hanks’ leading Professor Robert Langdon. Pierfrancesco Favino and Stellan Skarsgård hold their weight as supporting actors supplying exposition. Armin Mueller-Stahl adds a human element, reminiscent of a wise grandfather that knows when and how to say “no.”
Tom Hanks was paid “the highest salary ever paid to an actor” to reprise his role as professor Langdon just days before the announcement came that Johnny Depp was being signed to Pirates of the Caribbean 4 for the even higher salary of $56 million. Is Hanks worth the dough? His name might be, but it takes at least two viewings to appreciate his performance. On the initial viewing, there are too many times when you felt you were looking at an actor who was doing the best he could with the material he was handed.
For example, in order to execute a plot twist, Hanks had to pull the rabbit out of the hat with an “oh, I wonder if…” Granted, this may not all be Akiva Goldsmith’s fault. I wouldn’t be the first to call Goldsmith a hack, but having not read the book and being told the twist in the book was executed similarly, I’m not sure who’s at fault. Perhaps this is the lowest common denominator floating to the top and the blame ultimately belongs to Dan Brown.
Regardless, director Ron Howard puts together a piece of entertainment that does indeed distract the audience from “the man behind the curtain.” Howard’s biggest disservice to the story is making the guilty too innocent thus raising suspicions almost immediately when the film begins. Howard also needs to reign in his DP Salvatore Totino. There are enough spinning shots of the Large Hadron Collider in the beginning of the film to give one motion sickness watching the film on the big screen. For those self-proclaimed film buffs out there, at least one shot of the LHC is reminiscent of the shot in Apollo 13 of the spark of electricity that ultimately causes the oxygen tanks to blow up.
Speaking of reminiscent, Hans Zimmer’s Angels & Demons score pays much tribute to the DaVinci Code‘s track Chevaliers De Sangreal. Indeed, the last track of the album 503 heard in the film over the credit roll is a fuller but shorter orchestral rendition of Chevaliers De Sangreal. Joshua Bell’s absolutely sublime violin work is featured prominently on several tracks and serves the score much like a favorite easy chair at the end of a long day. The score starts energetic, then proceeds to become the aural battle of Heaven vs. Hell as fought on earth. Indeed, the track Science and Religion is selfless, altruistic sacrifice as personified with sound waves. The keen listener will note a breath of a phrase from Hannibal and the percussion through the album is a tribute to John Powell’s Bourne Ultimatum.
Whether Dan Brown got his facts straight or not, one thing is for sure: Angels & Demons will do for Art History–particularly Rome’s–what Watchmen did for turning the younger generation on to 60′s & 70′s music. The sudden interest in art, architecture and Catholic procedure and history should not come as a surprise. After all, the film’s message is “Faith is a gift we [intellectuals] have not yet received”…but we keep searching for the Truth.
Comments (26)
It sounds like you haven’t read the book. I’m curious to see it and see how it stacks up against the book. I was disappointed in DaVinci Code because it just didn’t seem you could accurately cram that much material into such a short film. It felt rushed and a lot of the little details I liked about the book got lost in the fray or left out all together. You’ve got a knack for these movie reviews in my opinion.
And I’m biased because Tom is probably my most favorite actor if I had to pick just one, and it’s hard for me to imagine that he’d suck at anything, even if he’s the only saving grace in a bad movie. I definitely need to go see this for myself. If you haven’t read the book, you should. I don’t even much care for fiction, but loved this one.
Are you publishing this review elsewhere? You need to find a venue where you can get paid or at least get some recognition for your work. Real quality here.
@DirtyAndShaken - No, I haven’t read the book. Honestly, I’m disinclined to now–I already know how the story ends.
DaVinci Code was an OK film that made a lot of money because it caused such a controversy. Angels & Demons is a great film that won’t make near as much money, but it’s a much better package. The first film had a political agenda, the more recent film doesn’t.
Tom Hanks is an actor you don’t like at first but he grows on you. And then you realize you have half of his films in your collection.
I’m cross-posting to Live Journal and am also in a joint venture with Guy Montag over at Montag’s Reviews, but other than the few (if any) pennies that I am generating here with my Google Ads, I am not getting paid. Your Pulses and Recs really do help.
I know I released this at the wrong time of day and the wrong time of the week for maximum effect (being 4 weeks into the theatrical release doesn’t help either) but that’s life. Nevertheless, I was hoping that with everyone who wanted to read my review, there would be an immediate surge of traffic. I guess the only people on Xanga Friday afternoons are those of us who are paying for the rest of the country to sit on their ass.
Your screencaps are magnificent! They really add depth to this otherwise highly flawed post. Then again, as you mentioned, it was created with human hands–and the flaws show.
…is, without question, a high-tension, fast-paced thriller,
This is only a (possibly) true statement to those who hadn’t read the book. Comparatively, the movie was too quickly paced to build up any real suspense, and only fabricated a pretense of tension.
Angels & Demons reveals Mr. Brown as a lowly writer because Angels & Demons fits together too conveniently,
Since most of the book was left out of the movie, and you didn’t read the book, this statement about Mr. Brown is something you’ve conjured completely from the film, and makes you look like a stunning ignoramus. I don’t mind you reviewing the film, but you have zero point-of-reference on the novel, or its writer. Curious you would mislead your audience into thinking you knew what you were talking about.
Perhaps this is the lowest common denominator floating to the top and the blame ultimately belongs to Dan Brown.
The only hat-trick I see is your attempt to suggest that a bad movie made from a great novel might be the author of a book you’ve never read. Now that truly is magic! Any other books you haven’t read that you’d like to critique?
Whether Dan Brown got his facts straight or not, one thing is for sure:
Since the movie you watched had very little to do with book, you might as well review Brett Leonard’s Stephen King’s The Lawnmower Man in which he used *only the title of the book* in his movie. According to imdb.com: “Early versions of the film claimed that they were related to a Stephen King work. King did write a short story called “The Lawnmower Man”, but it was completely different to the movie. King sued the film makers, and had his name removed from the film.” In the same way, you’re arrogant enough to question this author, when in fact the film only used the books plot-points to further the story. God you suck.
If you’d like to read a more well-balanced comparative between the novel and the book, I’ve written this for you: http://ehowton.livejournal.com/269067.html
Again, your screencap choices were OVER THE TOP AWESOME DUDE!
@ProfessorTom - Honestly, I’m disinclined to now–I already know how the story ends.
This is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard you say, and I’ve heard you say a lot of ignorant things. Reading a novel isn’t solely about “how it ends.” Its often the journey. Its the prose which keeps reader interested until the end, not the end itself. Perhaps you’re too immature to understand this. Besides, you don’t know how the book ends. You know how the movie ends. And the movie sir, is not the story. As a budding filmmaker, I’m genuinely surprised that you don’t know the difference.
@ehowton – I know this may shock you, but there are people who are going to see this movie who have never read the book and don’t care to. It is also true that there are people who want to read a review from someone who hasn’t read the book. Deal with it.
@ehowton - If you’d like to read a more well-balanced comparative between the novel and the book, I’ve written this for you: http://ehowton.livejournal.com/269067.html.
A one paragraph discussion does not a film review make.
@ehowton – Just because I won’t read a book that you reccomend doesn’t mean that I’m a bad filmmaker. I’ve already seen the movie and have no interest in reading the book.
But I know you’re going to harp on this point. So I’m willing to make a concession: I’ll send you some of my Dad’s medical texts for you to read and upon your review I will read Angels & Demons.
@ProfessorTom - I know this may shock you, but there are people who are going to see this movie who have never read the book and don’t care to.
I agree! Its amazing you featured it so prominently in your review.
@ProfessorTom - I’ve got a better idea! I’ll discredit them as nonsensical horseshit before I even look at them, because I watched an episode of House once. That way you and I can argue on a level playing field.
@ProfessorTom - That’s not a film review, though I find it hysterical you think it is. Its a critique of film
reviewers.
I only mention it because I point out why the movie failed as an
accurate adaptation, something you were unable to cover here. Thanks!
Hey Tomas: Looks like not much has changed between you & Eric.
Interesting thoughts on the movie. I have no interest in either the movie or the book. As it was described by another reviewer, Ron Howard took a mediocre story and attempted to create a blockbuster from it. My thoughts are, can’t create a silk purse from a sow’s ear. I like Tom Hanks in some things, preferably younger movies. Just adding his name to the roster will not make the movie, but they can try. I felt The Da Vinci code was over-rated & over-hyped. This movie is just pretty much just tagging along on the coat tails. I do find it interesting that they show such respect for the Catholic church, however (and your opinion is not the only one I’ve read on that). It seems lately that the opinions are shifting toward the Catholic church again. Wonder if that will gain momentum . . .
RTC: Yeah, we can agree that Obama is not a leader & there is much to be said on that one. Chances are good that the Dem’s will over-reach themselves during his term and things will shift again. The question remains just how much damage will be done in the meantime.
Thanks for the birthday wishes on the previous post. The proper fuss was applied to both Heidi’s & mine. Now that we’ve made it through May (with all the dates) maybe we can enjoy the rest of the summer!
Sorry to hear about the gum incident. What a pain. Not sure it’ll do much good to stir up a fuss. Might as well forget it (and keep your T-top closed in the future.)
Friends ~ Terri
@xXxButterfly_ladyxXx - I just want to re-iterate that while DaVinci Code felt like a an attack, Angels & Demons didn’t. Angels & Demons was very entertaining. I can understand not wanting to run out and see it, but if you get the chance to watch it, there’s nothing objectionable and it does not require boycotting for religious reasons.
When you say that people are turning more towards the Catholic church, I think this has less to do with Catholicism and is rather a direct result of the last election. Now that Obama is screwing everyone left and right, they are taking that HOPE and turning towards a God that they may or may not believe in. I believe a return to faith will continue as times get worse. This is human nature.
We can only hope that the tide will turn, hopefully within an election cycle, but with tactics like Laura Hall is using here in a State Rep. election, I’m sure that the Messiah will be elected to a second term. If people are still disillusioned now, do you really think they are going to wake up when the TARP, TARP II and Stimulus money starts to flow? I think not.
I hope you have a fantastic summer! I know that I will, especially if I get to enjoy some of the bounty brought about from my recent escape to a super secrete location.
As for the gum incident…let’s just say that professionals are taking care of that one.
@ehowton – You comparison to House is incongruent.
Your comments section has made me giggle. Ya’ll are bickering like a bunch of school girls : ) I guess a movie should be based on just the movie without taking into consideration the book it was adapted from. But I hate that you didn’t get to read the book first. As I said, I don’t read fiction – like maybe one or two a year at best? – but the book was a serious cliffhanger and kept me wondering how it would end. Never predicted the twists and turns.
And damn it all, what’s with this super secret location?
Hi, I just stopped by because I was being nosy. I think that’s allowed, right?
I enjoyed the review, but I’m more interested in finding out what you did about the vandels!
@DirtyAndShaken – I wished I had more time for reading, but I spend too much time consuming news. If I’m not doing that then I’m either writing or watching something. Then comes reading.
And damn it all, what’s with this super secret location?
As much as I’d like to mock Joe “Clueless” Biden, I can only say that it is a new development that I hope to utilize more often when I wish to remain incongnito. Currently it doesn’t even have an internet connection, though I’d like to remedy that soon.
@angi1972 – Being nosy is definately allowed!
So far, I have done nothing to the vandals, but another transgression will likely end with them having severe regrets in their adulthood…provided they live that long.
I think revenge is definitely in order! Who says we have to be adults and rise above it… not me!
WTF. Did you write this after drinking too much cough syrup or something? So basically, you thought this was an entertaining movie, but you didn’t like it because you’re jealous of what an awesome writer Dan Brown is and how much money he’s making, and because it didn’t imply Jesus Christ was boinking prostitutes. Is that about right? Would you have been happier if they found out the pope was gay?
Oh, and people have been going to Rome and the Vatican to look at art for about 1000 years, so that’s not like a new thing that started up because of this book or movie.
I loved Ewan McGregor in this. Even before I realized he was him.
Though I kind of resent the statement about causing the younger generation to have an interest in art, especially in Rome. Because I know many, many people who have been interested in art (and art history) since long before this movie came about. Just like how I’ve been in love with songs from the 60s and 70s and I haven’t even seen the Watchmen. (My friend is more of the music buff, though.)
Wow, you really know how to stir the pot, don’t you!? lol. It’s one way to get traffic, I suppose…
I thought the review did a great job, all-encompassing and actually giving an opinon of the movie, even if some don’t agree with it.
I’ve watched the movie (twice) and read the book, and am currently re-reading it. I have to say that I prefer the book more, though the movie didn’t do too much of a shabby job all-in-all.
Keep it up!
@heidenkind - Let me first state that I don’t think Dan Brown is an awesome writer nor am I jealous of him. I think he’s a hack that hates Christianity much like Philip Pullman.
No, I’m not upset because Angels & Demons didn’t bash Christ. I don’t know where you get that idea. I would have been upset if the movie would have bashed Christ. Again, I wouldn’t have been happier if the movie would have made the Pope gay, I would have been outraged and written a scathing review.
I know that people have been going to the Vatican for a long time, though I’m not sure about your 1000 years statistic given that most of the reason for going is only about 500 years old. What I did say is that I think this movie will renew interests in art history and may cause some of the “Yute of America” to take an interest.
I’m shocked that someone such as yourself with as much training in interpreting English literature as you have could be so far removed from what I said. It’s just…amazing.
@IfonEarth – As I told heidenkind, I think that both Watchmen and Angels & Demons might renew old interest and fuel new ones, especially to the MySpace crowd.
You must admit that you and I are the “exceptions” to the “rule”. We don’t own TVs!
@cmdr_keen - I don’t write reviews to stir the pot or fine tune them for the traffic, I call the shots as I see them.
I thought the review did a great job, all-encompassing and actually giving an opinon of the movie, even if some don’t agree with it.
Thank you for your kind words.
I’ve watched the movie (twice) and read the book, and am currently re-reading it. I have to say that I prefer the book more, though the movie didn’t do too much of a shabby job all-in-all.
I thought it was a very entertaining and well-made movie despite its flaws.
Keep it up!
You can count on me. Tuesday I will be releasing my review of Grand Torino as that is the street date for the DVD. Stay tuned!
@ProfessorTom - Well, I still live with my parents (community college kid). We own a TV, I just never watch it.
The Myspace crowd?
@ProfessorTom - I have no “training” in the English language, other than the fact that I speak it fluently. As for this review, it’s about has less qualifications to be called literature as Dan Brown’s novels do.
You stated in your review that “Though Dan Brown attempted to pass himself off as an intellectual atheist on a mission with
The DaVinci Code
, receiving praise and accolades from today’s so-called progressives,
Angels & Demons
reveals Mr. Brown as a lowly writer because
Angels & Demons
fits together too conveniently, ultimately leaving the audience saying, ‘Of course
that
couldn’t have happened! It’s just a movie’;” which implies that you liked The Da Vinci Code better because you didn’t see the holes in the plot, being too incensed by what you see as the heretical nature of the story. Well, I hate to break it to you, but The Da Vinci Code was a work of FICTION! That means that it is imaginary; just as imaginary as Angels and Demons. So your comparison & criticism of the two doesn’t really hold up. They’re both pretty much the same–but then you wouldn’t know that, never having read the books, right?
Your insistence on Dan Brown hating Christianity is hilarious to me. First of all, there is nothing even remotely heretical about Jesus producing mini-me’s, unless you think sex is evil. Now, if the book was all about how he was having an affair with John the Apostle, I would be able to see the controversy. Secondly, Brown talks about Catholicism in his books, which is hardly all of Christianity. And thirdly, even if Brown is condemning a certain group of Christians–which is a big if–it’s the extremist sections of those religions who only see things in black and white and react to any challenge to their authority with violence or hatred. And finally, Philip Pullman is one of the most popular and awarded writers of the twentieth century, but then I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you haven’t read any of his books, either.
And Old St. Peter’s, remnants of which are still visible in New St. Peter’s, was started under the reign of Constantine I in 326.