Angels & Demons

So... regardless of people's opinions about Dan Brown and his books, you have to admit that they are at least partially popular because of the controversy in the ideas surrounding his last two books, "Angels & Demons" and "The DaVinci Code". Aside from the controversy, he definitely tries to fill his books with suspense and mystery.

The same could be true for the movie based on the book, "Angels & Demons." Obliquely set as a sequel to the DaVinci Code, rather than a prequel as the books were, the movie definitely delivers the suspense and mystery aspects. There were some definite departures in the movie from the book that those having read the book recently may notice. However, the movie had a sense of the original story and gave it fairly well.

The cast was rather well chosen and acted with a few exceptions. For those that haven't seen Ewin MacGregor since Star Wars episode 3 came out (such as myself), it was interesting witnessing the passion he conveyed in his speeches, particularly to the conclave. I think MacGregor was really the focal point of the movie, rather than Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. There were two issues I had with Tom Hanks and his character. Maybe I'm just spoiled with actors like Johnny Depp who completely fall into an entirely new persona with each film. In this movie, and to some degree the DaVinci Code, Tom Hanks doesn't really do that. He is pretty much himself acting out direction. He also didn't do nearly as much "heroics" as Robert Langdon did in the book. It kind of makes his part in the movie semi-superfluous. The only things he really does in the movie is "find the clues" and rescue the cardinal from drowning.

A cast member that wasn't played up as much in this film as in the book was Vittoria Vetra. In the book she is with Robert Langdon the majority of the time and they talk a lot more about the symbols, who these sculptors, artists, and scientists were and what the Illuminati was up to. Without these in the movie, you really aren't able to interact with the ideas as much as even in DaVinci Code. There is a brief mention and off we go to find the next clue. It disappointed me both in this and in the use of her character, as I think there was a lot more that could have been done with her character. Instead, we only saw brief glimpses of someone I personally wanted to know more about.

The supporting cast was chosen well. I liked the characters of the Inspector Olivetti, Cardinal Strauss, Chartrand, Claudio Vincenzi, Commmander Richter and Cardinal Baggia. They added a lot to the movie in their space on the screen and played their parts well.

As a movie, it had a lot of great suspense and action parts. In making an action/adventure movie, they did well and it is fun to watch... well, most of the time if you are slightly squeamish. However, I'm not entirely sure they did justice to the main material of the book. Perhaps they wanted to downplay parts of it to make sure that the Catholic church did not come out in a bad light (I heard the church called A&D harmless, so they succeeded in that). It seems like they explained only the parts to help you understand what was going on and threw out the rest.

If you have not read the book, Angels & Demons will probably be a satisfying movie for you, and you will perhaps be surprised by the ending. For those having read it, you may find yourself wanting to read it again after watching the movie, to fill in the places that were glossed over.

At the end, they come back to the main issue at hand in Angels & Demons- how effective is religion? I love the moment this comes up in Cardinal Strauss' conversation with Landon when he says, "Religion IS flawed. But that is because men are flawed. All men, even myself." As they allude earlier in the film, it is not the Catholic church that is necessarily important, but a person's belief in God. The framework by which we come to understand him may be flawed because of man's flaw, but that doesn't negate God's importance. For me, this was the best part of the movie.

Angels & Demons - ***1/2