Back in 2006, I wrote the following about a certain film that was generating a lot of controversy and thus free publicity buzz based on its religious subject matter: "Despite its obvious fictional trappings, the novel and now, by default, the movie adaptation, has some worked up into a lather. To which all I can say -- and to quote the ads from horror films back in the '60s and '70s -- 'Keep repeating to yourself -- it's only a movie. It's only a movie...'"
That film, of course, was director Ron Howard's adaptation of the mega popular "The Da Vinci Code," and partly thanks to the efforts of the Vatican (although it wasn't their intention -- or was it? -- dear conspiracy-minded readers out there) as well as millions of fans who read Dan Brown's original novel, the film went on to gross somewhere in the neighborhood of $760 million worldwide.
Realizing neither the Church nor Christianity were affected by the flick, yet apparently not wanting to help the movie adaptation of "Angels & Demons" -- the prequel to "Da Vince Code" in literary form but moved into the status of a sequel here -- the Vatican has deemed that while they don't agree with the movie, it's basically harmless.
That's unlike the 2006 effort that threatened to bore everyone to death via a number of factors, including but not limited to preposterousness, mediocre to bad acting, too much exposition and explanation, laborious pacing, taking itself too seriously and, most notably, one truly awful haircut for lead Tom Hanks.
Like those long and unruly locks, this adaptation of Brown's 2000 novel of the same name has had some of its excesses trimmed away, resulting in a more stylish and satisfying production. While some of the same problems that bedeviled the predecessor are still around, Howard, returning scribe Akiva Goldsman and new addition David Koepp do their best to keep them from dragging the picture down into the same degree of non-engaging monotony and dullness that made the original a decidedly less than critic-lauded offering.
Clearly less potentially controversial for Catholics and Christians than last time around (although there's still past and present wrongdoings by the Church, along with cover-ups, secrets, interference and such), the film is more nimble and thus a more entertaining if similarly ludicrous at times dramatic thriller. Case in point, and I might be wrong in general, but this might be the first non science fiction film where antimatter plays a pivotal role in moving the plot forward.
In short, some of the highly volatile stuff has been stolen and four cardinals abducted just as they and others of the College of Cardinals were meeting in a papal conclave to select the next Pope. Accordingly, skeptical researcher Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called in to decipher nebulous clues pointing to the Illuminati (scientists and free thinkers forced underground into a hidden but radical organization bent on eventual science bests religion revenge).
He and his new female sidekick -- Ayelet Zurer replacing Audrey Tautou, although not as the same character but again sans any sort of romance or sexual chemistry between them -- then race against time to solve the clues and try to save the cardinals and Vatican City before the latter goes boom.
Throw in a number of characters that on the surface appear to be good -- Ewan McGregor as a caring and concerned priest, Pierfrancesco Favino as a member of the Vatican Police -- and bad -- Stellan Skarsgard as the commander of the Swiss Guard and Armin Mueller-Stahl as a cardinal who might just be using his staunch traditionalism as a means of getting that coveted top seat in the Church -- and you pretty much have the plot.
Howard and company, however, don't always make it convincing. Beyond the varying degrees of preposterousness (including the killer being able to pull off all that he does, especially apparently flying solo save for the usual wired paycheck), the race against the clock to succeed isn't nearly as gripping as it should be, although the plotting and momentum occasionally have their moments.
There's also still far too much exposition and describing of what occurs, be that in terms of the various religious aspects and info about the Illuminati, or just explaining even the most mundane and obvious of occurrences (such as every time the overhead lights go out -- in an earlier established effort to ferret out the assassin's location -- someone has to remind the other characters what's just happened).
Then there's the fact that the apparently implied bad guys all clearly can't be in on the wrong side of the controversy, as that would be too obvious. The ending -- I should amend that to "the first one" -- will either have viewers thinking the religious symbolism is cool or of the eye-rolling, gag-inducing variety, while the follow-up is more straightforward but has that "and this is what really happened" vibe that steals some of its impact.
Performances are generally better across the board than in the first film, but character development -- as oft occurs in thrillers -- pretty much takes a backseat to plot mechanics and such. Accordingly, what we're left with isn't anywhere near great but clearly is more entertaining and satisfying than its predecessor. "Angels & Demons" rates as a 5.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
