Angels & Demons

Dir: Ron Howard

2009

**

Ron Howard's 2006 adaption of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was overblown, so in his 2009 follow up adaptation of Brown's Angels & Demons he addresses this criticism by making it even more over the top. The Da Vinci Code was suped-up for the big screen, I can see why Howard did it but it was totally unnecessary and everyone said so. Brown's Angels & Demons was actually the first book of his Robert Langdon series but it was never as popular, Howard decided to rewrite the story so that it worked as a direct sequel to The Da Vinci Code so he could develop the main character with more fluidity and so he could connect the series a little better. He also commented that it was the second novel that was the best seller and most people read it before the first novel anyway which is true and fair enough. Many aspects of the story is changed but most people argue that the changes were for the better, however, the constant action sequences have become a bone of contention and Angels & Demons saw less puzzle-solving, more pointless action and some unexpected (and awful) religious fantasy. In this sense the adaptation really doesn't work but at least the returning Tom Hanks is given a proper haircut. Yet again, it's the story's silliness that makes and breaks the film, give me a film exploring the Illuminati, Vatican conspiracies and a science vs. Religion smack-down any day but I lost a bit of interest when the Roman Catholic Church starts helping our hero and the Large Hadron Collider is clearly suggested as being something negative. Its handling of real science is as ridiculous as their handling of organised religion, the silliness only captives for a limited amount of time before it all becomes rather tiresome and then slightly irritating. The subject matter should be full of intrigue and suspense but the reality is that the whole thing falls flat and is as boring as it possibly could be. Adding a fantastical element to the mix makes it a lot less believable and nonsensical. The only thing I really liked about the first film was the history and architecture, there is hardly any of that in the second film and it is a lot poorer for it. Again, it tries to be more James Bond than it should be and less Indiana Jones that it so desperately wants to be, or at least a intellectual version of, which it fails miserably in achieving. Tom Hanks is the only actor to reprise his role from the first film, which is no surprise given the order of the books but there is something rather James Bond about the new female partner/romantic interest and new villain. The cast is strong as it is brave (ha, they got paid handsomely I'm sure) and includes Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino and Nikolaj Lie Kaas. Ron Howard's direction is much the same if not a little better, and while I don't like the fantastical element of the new film, he is rather good at it. Overall it is forgettable and probably best forgotten.