Angels & Demons
Posted by Gary Sundt on June 28, 2009
Tom Hanks and two police officers look shocked about something in Angels & Demons.
As Posted on Jackcentral.com on May 16, 2009
by Gary Sundt
I’m a little ashamed with myself. For the first time (and hopefully the last) in my history as movie critic, I have to preface my review by stating a disappointing and disheartening truth: I fell asleep during Angels & Demons.
I know what you’re thinking. Why am I writing a review for a movie I fell asleep in? What right do I have to even print such a critique? Well, to be fair, I was only out for about 15 minutes, and it was somewhere between the 20 – 35 minute mark. I have read the book, so I know what I missed, and it wasn’t anything especially riveting as far as the story goes. No dead people turned up while I was gone.
The point where I tapped out was the scene where Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), the uber-guru of all things Catholic and cryptic, is called upon by the church to help solve a groovy mystery. The major change from the best-selling source material by Dan Brown is that Angels & Demons is now a sequel, rather than a prequel, to 2006’s The Da Vinci Code. Fixing this is a matter of brief dialogue references, and then the adventure begins. Langdon is off to Rome to unravel the mystery of the Illuminati, an ominous group that threatens the Vatican while they are busy choosing a new pope.
The Illuminati’s beef with the Catholic Church is the unending debate of science v. religion. The reality of this dispute is remarkably complex, but Angels & Demons doesn’t really scratch the surface on that topic. Those who saw The Da Vinci Code will recall just how plotted and talky the film became with its religious goobledy-goop, and director Ron Howard wisely went with the action-thriller route this time around. For a thriller about church politics and existential quandaries, Angels & Demons is about as complex as a Happy Meal.
As such, detailing the ins and outs (and, in turn, the many inanities) of the plot beyond what I have already described seems somewhat pointless to me. Several fine actors show up here (among them Stellan Skarsard, Ewan McGregor, and the always morose-looking Armin Mueller-Stahl), but there just isn’t much for me to say that warrants detailing their characters. There are only brief breaks to actually discuss the topics at hand, and the rest of the time is running, shouting, gun shots, explosions and that hardcore church choir score that fits the source material just right. If anything, Angels & Demons is never boring.
However, that does not mean the film isn’t dull. The experience of watching Angels & Demons can be likened to viewing the film’s closing credits. Overbearing music is playing – you know, the kind that goes “na-na-na-naaaaaaa-NA-NA-NA-NAAAAAAAA!!!!” — but nothing on the screen seems to matter in the way of storytelling. Sure, the film itself has it’s fair share of whiz-bang visual effects, and Hanks runs from scene to scene shouting in that way Robert Langdon is apparently supposed to shout, but all the loud noises and nifty visuals can’t make up for the film’s sheer lack of a pulse.
To my memory, I have only fallen asleep in one other movie in the theater. That film was Transformers. Here are two movies with very distinctly different storylines that belong in very different genres, but I think they are strikingly similar. They both feature world-shattering events with tons of special effects, bombastic music and loud crashing and exploding noises. The other thing they have in common is a numbness of story, where something has been built up so much that its foundation falls out from under itself.
What is disappointing about Angels & Demons is that it was based on a wonderful novel and is directed by the Academy Award winning Howard, whereas Transformers was based on a popular toy and directed by Michael Bay. Neither film is especially boring, but they both lack soul and a pulse, which makes them a bit of a chore to sit through at times. I expect this from Transformers, but Angels & Demons should have been a better movie.
2.5 stars
