Angels & Demons

After the first hour, Angels & Demons becomes repetitive and the audience loses interest in the detective storyline, no matter how dynamic it may be. More ideas wouldn’t be unwelcome. The impressive climax, however, salvages a lot. And the work with the actors (and their hairstyles) is definitely better than in The Da Vinci Code. What fascinates me the most about this “saga” is that for all its straight-facedness, first-class filmmaking team, solid actors and controversial topics, it is unable to be anything but a simple-minded blockbuster for the masses. The masses that are unaware that 50% of their experience is provided by a guy named Hans Zimmer. (2009-05-13)

It's just like the books - Angels and Demons is better than The Da Vinci Code. Thanks to Howard, who made the whole film a frantic race against time, thanks to Zimmer, whose music was almost visible given how distinctive it was, thanks to the interesting Vatican plot, thanks to the likeable Hanks... Yeah, four stars is adequate. (2009-05-22)

Surprisingly better and more compact than the first part. Ron Howard finally understood that a cute Audrey Tautou and dodgy action scenes won't improve the story better and started relying on other things. For example, an agile script that piles one puzzle on top of another with fairly entertaining and dynamic sequences, and a fantastic (again) Hans Zimmer, who delivers uncompromising bite to the entire piece. He might have composed the same thing for the eighteenth time, but it still sounds beautiful. It sounds unbelievable, even in those few miniature action passages, Howard surprisingly toughened up. It's still a wimpy, predictable, and conflict-free Hollywood shitshow, but at least this was bearable. (2009-10-04)

Howard's kiss-ass apology to the Vatican after The DaVinci Code. In the first half it's still a pretty solid conspiracy routine, in the second half it becomes a gala performance of artlessly silly scenes, whose total zaniness is further enhanced by the fatality of Zimmer's music. Soundtrack rating: 4/5 (2009-06-19)

It’s the opposite of the book: the filmmakers replaced the excellent exposition with a lifeless tour of Roman monuments in the company of the haughty pawn Tom Hanks, whilst the ridiculous finale in Brown's book was a replaced by a rather solid and visually interesting climax. Undoubtedly positive is the performance of Ewan McGregor, and negative the fact that the mysterious and thrilling pursuit of symbols lacked decent acting and directing, and was without a hint of invention and emotion. Langdon simply has a big problem in books and movies in that he still doesn't know if he's more of an action hero or an academic windbag. In literature, this can be somewhat tolerated, but in film it leaves a very bad impression. I round up the score given the last few final minutes. However, I consider Tom Hanks' involvement to be a historical mistake. In the next film, the poor gay will not even fall through the eyepiece of the Pantheon. There’s no way he swam those 50 laps in the morning. Well, maybe with a motor up his ass. (2009-10-04)