Angels and Demons (PG-13)
Mike:
Scott:
Scott: Tonight we are reviewing Angels & Demons, the follow up film to The Da Vinci Code, the world wide best seller from Dan Brown. This movie finds our protagonist Robert Langdon going up against an ancient group, the Illuminati.
What did you think Mike?
Mike: I thought this movie was fine, but not nearly as exciting as I hoped it would be.
How about you?
Scott: I am a fan of this book and The Da Vinci Code book. I wasn't a fan of the movie The Da Vinci Code, but I am of this. I think they learned from their mistakes in the first movie, and really came out with a solid movie based on a book.
Mike: I am also a fan of the books, but in both cases I think the books are better than the movies. Maybe I would have different perspective if I hadn't already read the book.
Scott: But that's almost always the case. And often times the movies are not just as good as the book, they are much worse than the book.
It's actually been a few years since I read the book. I had vague memories of the storyline, but I couldn't remember it well enough to not be surprised as the movie played on.
Mike: It’s funny, every time I love a book I can't wait to see it as a movie, but I am almost always disappointed, so it seems I would learn.
Scott: Yes, you would think you would learn, but then again, we often think movies look good after seeing the trailers too.
Mike: Oh yes.
I don't think all the explanation that is necessary works as well in a movie as it does in a book.
Scott: But they decreased that a lot in this movie. In the first movie, they took 5 minute breaks all over the place to explain; this time they did it on the move.
I thought a lot of the movie took place on the move
Mike: Yes, but somehow it didn't seem as tense as I expected it to be.
The funny thing is at the beginning of the movie, all the talk of antimatter and retinal scans made me wonder if I had walked into Star Trek.
Scott: Before we lose all of the non trekkies, you should know the movie doesn't go all 'techie' for long.
Mike: No then it goes all history and religious....
Scott: The movie is about an ancient group of thinkers, the Illuminati. They had some issues with the Catholic Church a few hundred years ago and the Church forced them underground.
Now they are back and they want revenge.
Mike: The story takes place in and around the Vatican during the election of a new Pope after the death of the most recent one.
Scott: Tom Hanks returns as Langdon, but this time with better hair. He really plays Langdon well, but how often does Hanks not play a role well?
Mike: If nothing else, the hair has improved. I would watch Hanks read the phone book. Unfortunately, there were parts of this where I think that might be what he was doing!
Scott: You really like phone books!
Mike: Yes I am up to the M's.
Scott: Ewan McGregor is Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, the Head Priest in Charge after the Pope's death. He helps Langdon track down the ancient, hidden, trail to the Illuminati church.
Mike: This movie has a great cast, but I was not too impressed with the female lead.
Scott: What if she was blonde?
Mike: No dark hair is fine, but if you are going to use an actress that is an unknown to American audiences, why not someone who is Italian?
Scott: I wasn't impressed either. She was more window dressing than a participating character in the plot.
Mike: She is out of her league against Hanks, Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl.
Scott: Speaking of Commander Richter (Skarsgard), I wasn't sure until the end what side he was on. He really played the role on the line of good/bad, you just didn't know what game he was playing.
He is the head of the Swiss Guard, the official police force of the Vatican. The Vatican, btw, is a separate, independent country, from Italy.
And another aside, how beautiful is The Vatican and Rome?
Mike: Yes and if you didn't already know, it is one of the hundreds of facts you will learn during this "action" movie.
Scott: Yes, and I got a little laugh from that scene. Laughs were few and far between though. It's not a funny thriller, it's an action thriller.
Mike: Yes, but a little too serious. Kind of mutes some of the fun.
Scott: I liked the tone though, I guess you didn't.
Mike: I just felt like something was missing.
Scott: Ron Howard is back as the director and like I said earlier, I think he learned form his mistakes. Out were all of the flashbacks and historic visions, in were the classic, point and shoot hints.
Mike: Maybe they should just stop letting Akiva Goldsman adapt books or even write for the screen.
He is responsible for two of the crappiest Batman scripts ever.
Or maybe it's David Koepp the genius behind the last Indiana Jones movie.
Scott: So how do you rate this?
Mike: Overall I give this a 2.5 and a 2.5 for action/thriller.
And you?
Scott: I give this a 3.5 overall and a 3 for action thriller. I liked this a lot more than the first movie.
