« The first review of "The Road" | Main | "Outrage" director on NPR, censorship and outing politicians »

Review: "Angels and Demons"

Poster 

You don't need to have sat through The Da Vinci Code to follow the plot of Angels and Demons: In terms of pure story, the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But as was the case with Da Vinci, you might want to bring some reading material and a flashlight to the theater - you know, to help pass the time.

Angels and Demons isn't as talky and enervating as The Da Vinci Code. Despite the first movie's phenomenal box-office gross, director Ron Howard still heeded the advice of people who complained that it was too long, too slow and convoluted and that Tom Hanks' poofy hairstyle made him look ridiculous.

Photo_08_hires 

The new film, which is technically a prequel to Da Vinci but could also pass for a two-hour episode of 24, rarely stands still long enough for anyone to deliver a monologue. Even Jack Bauer would have trouble keeping up with symbologist Robert Langdon as he races around Rome, trying to foil the centuries-old sect known as the Illuminati which plans to blow up the Vatican with a bomb made of anti-matter.

Why are the pro-science Illuminati so pissed off? Because they were driven underground in the 17th century by the Catholic Church and want a little payback. (Unpaid debts never go away; they just fester and collect interest.) Why have they chosen this particular moment to strike back? Because the pope has just croaked, and the church is in the process of electing his replacement.

Photo_02_hires 

Even worse, someone within the Vatican appears to be conspiring with the Illuminati. But who is it? The imperious captain (Stellan Skarsgard) of the Swiss Guard? The naive young priest (Ewan McGregor) who was the pope's disciple? The power-hungry cardinal (Armin Mueller-Stahl) who always insists that rules be followed?

Screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman dole out more red herrings than a fishmonger would, while Hanks and his requisite female sidekick (an Italian scientist played by the lovely Ayelet Zurer) pore over ancient texts and run from one old statute to another trying to decipher a complex series of clues.

Howard keeps the pace furious, Hanks makes like James Bond, and composer Hans Zimmer whips the demonic-sounding choral score into a deafening frenzy that tricks you into believing the movie is somewhat exciting. You also get a gigantic explosion - surely one of the biggest ever to grace a film - an occasional stray eyeball, enough gore to skirt the edges of that PG-13 rating and lots of shots of priests in blood-red cloaks gathered in ominous groups, looking as if they had just wandered off the set of the masked orgy scene from Eyes Wide Shut.

Photo_07_hires 

The result is dizzying enough to make you think you're entertained, although the moment you stop to think about Angels and Demons for even a second, the movie becomes ridiculous and preposterous enough to be laughed off the screen. A better approach might be to follow the cue of Hanks, who sticks to the don't-ask-questions-and- do-as-you're-told school of acting, and just go with the ride. So what if the outcome is so lame that it isn't even worthy of a decent controversy, the way The Da Vinci Code was? This is a summer movie, you know? The fall will be here soon enough.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b26169e20115708468fc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Review: "Angels and Demons" :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

can't fight this feeling anymore

As I read this review, it occurs to me: Even if you had liked the movie, I'm not sure I would have been able to bring myself to pay to see it...

Tom Jeffs

I went to see Angels and Demons intending to laugh at it. After what the critics have been saying, I had all my jokes ready. I wanted to hate it.

I recieved a strange surprise. Angels and Demons is NOTHING like what the commercials portray. It is not offensive. It is not controvercial. It has no real insults against Catholicism at all.

A little about Galileo shows up near the start (of course.) A little about stem cell research. But that is all. These comments are quickly forgotten.

What emerges it a testament to the Catholic spirit. When Langdon fights to save a drowning Cardinal, it is truly touching. The speech of the Cardinals is dignified and rational. When Ewan McGregor speaks to the Cardinals about science, he is speaking basically the Church view anyway. Balance. Rational views before a rational God. This is the medieval view. It has certainly been lost on popular culture today.

And the film, I was shocked to see, actually held me with its plotting and its story.

The ending was a celebration of everthing Catholic. The pope. The belief in God. The dilapidated grandure of the Vatican. It was uplifting and spiritual in a powerfully Catholic way. It actually brought a tear to my eye, and I am not just saying that. Unusual and profound.

How to explain this, I do not know. This ending is not in the book. The beautiful, gentle sentiment is not in the book. The Angels and Demons film is not what Dan Brown apparently intended. It is something else. Something Catholic. Perhaps this is why the critics hated it. It is not what they expected at all. It certainly took me by surprise.

And Langdon (Hanks) actually seems to show a hint of faith in God at the end. You see it in his face. A completely unexpected move. Yet totally appropriate, given what has come before. A fascinating reversal indeed.

I get the impression that Ron Howard did not intend to make the film this way. It happened in spite of him. There is genuine grace in this movie. A true atmosphere, that only appears in things illuminated by God. And I am shocked beyond words to find this is a profoundly moving, affecting movie in virtually every way.

I am not giving it high marks because I understand the intention behind the film was to offend. To be controversial and to insult. The book certainly does. The commercials do. But the film does not.

I would not buy it. But I would rent it. Give my money to the video stores and not to Dan Brown. He does not deserve it. But I will remember this movie. A reputedly anti-Catholic film that turned out to be anything but. It was one of the most humbling days of my life, seeing this. And I am glad that I did.

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise