Angels and Demons
Directed by Ron Howard
D
I’ve never read any of Dan Brown’s massively popular Robert Langdon novels, so you must forgive me for asking: Are these books as ridiculously fucking stupid as the films they’ve inspired?
I guess you can call Angels and Demons a step up from 2006’s unspeakably turgid adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, if only because it’s a good deal more frantic and unhinged than that burnished, lethargic yak-fest. This batshit boondoggle begins with a time bomb full of anti-matter (yes, kids, “anti-matter”) stashed somewhere in Vatican City, and only gets more preposterous. Late-game developments in this picture provoked peals of laughter the likes of which I’ve seldom heard at comedies. I daresay it’s Ron Howard’s funniest film since Splash! But not on purpose.
Howard seems like an affable enough guy whose work is usually distinguished by a friendly sort of competence, but for some reason he keeps approaching Brown’s gimcrack plotting and Wikipedia storytelling with the solemnity of a funeral march. It must take serious strain to make an actor as playful and mischievous as Tom Hanks so dull. But here Hanks goes again, reprising his role as surly symbologist Langdon with his charisma tamped down flatter than his unfortunate hairstyle.
As in Da Vinci, Hanks’ main task is to wander around pointing at statues and mumbling obscure art history footnotes while everybody else on-screen marvels at his intellectual prowess. This time, the Illuminati have seemingly returned to wreak vengeance on the Catholic Church, so we must witness a host of grisly murders and races against time, all of which take place before gaudy CGI backdrops. (A similar thought occurred during Wolverine: Doesn’t anybody bother to build sets anymore? What happened to just filming actors occupying a recognizable physical space? Must everything be done inside a computer? Most of these chintzy Vatican interiors look more like the planet Naboo from those damn Star Wars prequels.)
Howard cranks up the Gregorian chants, keeping the lighting dim and the mood glum. But the material’s inherent silliness throws the ponderous self-seriousness of its presentation into sharp comic relief. Are we supposed to buy that Hanks might just happen to inadvertently stumble upon a convenient videotape of the villain explaining his plan at exactly the right moment? Do people really read this crap?
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENT
Related Content
Six Movies Attacked by Catholic League Demon William A. Donohue
By Matt PriggePriest (1994): Historically it was the Vatican that handslapped blasphemous or “amoral” movies. Those films then turned a mighty profit. Now most of the tut- tutting comes from Catholic League president and hysterical, attention-whore spokesperson William A. Donohue, who took the League from touchy but soft-spoken to all-out alarmist. Among his first film-related attacks was on this British drama concerning a closeted gay Catholic priest whose soul-searching Donohue ludicrously equated with “anti-Catholicism.” Dogma (1999): Donohue’s siege on Kevin Smith’s brash but yet unmistakably respectful Catholic satire was so fierce, Miramax delayed its release a full year, then sold it to Lions Gate. Smith claims that after the assault, Donohue asked him out for a beer. El Crimen del Padre Amaro (2001): Thanks,...
MORE
Article:
Six Songs More Famous Than the Movies From Which They Originate
Article:
Will Smith Reprises His Role as Agent J in the Unasked-For Three-quel to "Men in Black"
Article:
A Boy Hopes to Reunite His Family in "I Wish"
Article:
"Polisse" Follows the Impassioned Members of a Child Protection Unit in Paris
Article:
"Battleship" is a Cobbled Together Junkyard of Stolen Scenes
Article:
"The Dictator" is Sacha Baron Cohen’s Least Fleshed-Out Role
Article:
An Eternal Bachelor Goes on Dates With Elderly Ladies in "Bernie"
Article:
A Girl Goes on a Series of Dates to Scientifically Prove Her Fiance's Sincerity in "Losing Control"
1. Cacti said... on May 13, 2009 at 12:56AM
“I liked this review a lot and after writing this, I'm going to go read all your other reviews.
You not only review, but you critique, something done so rarely these days.”
2. Anonymous said... on May 13, 2009 at 05:12AM
“I was planning to see this movie, and being the perverse creature that I am, your review has made A&D a definite must-see.
That's probably not the reaction you'd be hoping for, but at least I have an idea of what I'm in for.”
3. Anonymous said... on May 13, 2009 at 09:02AM
“Not to question your right to dislike a movie, just a couple notes of things you claim as outrageous and preposterous. Anti-matter (yes, anti-matter kids) is an actual substance. It is actually stored at the actual Cern institute. It's stored very similarly to the way portrayed in the book (I haven't seen the movie yet, so I won't vow for that). Also, the reason the "chintzy Vatican interiors" weren't filmed in front of an actual space rather than CGI backdrops is because the Vatican refused they be filmed in the actual space. Whenever possible, Howard did film in the actual places represented in the book. Again, these aren't going to change whether or not you liked the movie and I'm in no way defending the quality of the movie as I haven't seen it yet. Just make sure you have your facts secure before you deride them.”
4. Sam said... on May 13, 2009 at 09:19AM
“I find all Ron Howard movies dull. He gets the big budgets and casts the big stars then turns them into snooze fests. I could go on but I'm drowsy just thinking about his filmography. Dan Brown writes like he's explaining the directions on the back of a shampoo bottle > squeeze small amount into hand, massage into scalp, lather, rinse, repeat.”
5. Anonymous said... on May 13, 2009 at 10:46AM
“No, the books aren't as stupid as the movies. They are stupider. Brown is a dreadful writer.
”
6. Seanburns_doyourhomework said... on May 13, 2009 at 09:04PM
“Ummm...I was involved with this movie, and the set building was extensive. The tiles were copied from the Vatican one by one.
I'd suggest finding a clue.”
7. Anonymous said... on May 14, 2009 at 03:18AM
“Haven't seen the movie but I have read the book, and 'Wikipedia storytelling' is the most apropos description of Dan Brown's writing I've encountered so far. The book is entertaining in a wacky way but trying to imbue the outlandish events and historical truthiness with the heft of realism is a mistake, artistically speaking. Financially, I'm sure it will work out.”
8. Anonymous said... on May 17, 2009 at 05:29PM
“Well, I saw it. As I said I would in comment #2, and I have to say that your review prepared me well. A preposterous movie with what amounts to a James Bond style evil genius in priest robes. With my expectations lowered appropriately it was a relatively painless way of passing two hours - although being in the vicinity of Robert Langdon is clearly hazardous to one's health.
Potential Plot Spoiler - you have been advised...
The one moment that really impressed me was the sight of a badly banged up Ewan MacGregor confronting the cardinals. Couldn't help thinking of a defiant Lucifer realising that he wasn't going to take over Heaven.”