Starring Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, and Armin Mueller-Stahl
Written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Ron Howard
Written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Ron Howard
So I recently watched The Da Vinci Code and didn't think it was anything special. I said that Angels and Demons wouldn't have to do much to be better than it.
Unfortunately, Angels and Demons isn't able surpass its predecessor (but it wasn't any worse either).
Tom Hanks is "symbologist" Robert Langdon again in this apparent sequel (although I've been told that the book is a prequel), but there would be no need to see the original flick in order to understand this one. Langdon is called upon by the Catholic Church which is facing a scary predicament. The pope has died and the Church's Cardinals have convened to select the new leader of the Church. However, a rogue Catholic group has kidnapped the four Cardinals who were to be the most probable successors of the papacy and plans on murdering them. Adding "tension" to the mix is the fact that this rogue group has stolen some anti-matter particle that will blow up the Vatican at midnight. Langdon's working against the clock in order to save the cardinals...will he succeed? Will we care?
The major problem with the first movie -- that the story was incredibly convoluted and slow-moving -- is not really the problem here. The flick moves quite quickly and isn't bogged down by backstory like the original. The movie takes on a "race against the clock"-type tension, which, although ridiculous at times, is able to provide much more excitement than The Da Vinci Code. However, the movie still is prone (like the first one) to over-analyze and over-talk everything. Every single detail needs to be explained (because we, as an audience, are too stupid to get things) and the expository nature of the dialogue bogs down the narrative.
In terms of acting, everyone's okay, but no one does anything special. Hanks is helped with moderately better dialogue in his one (the first flick had him spout some ridiculous lines...not that this one doesn't either), but he's still a very bland leading guy. His leading lady (Zurer) is certainly attractive, but she goes missing during the middle hour and is nothing more than a person for Langdon to bounce ideas off of. Secondary actors are all fine, but, once again, not given a whole lot to do.
Despite the better story, Howard's direction is weak. Everything is very heavy-handed, and, like I said above, overly (and unnecessarily) explained. The film's final hour is laughable...the "big reveal" at the end is obvious from the get-go (I'm not sure that's Howard's fault, though, as I'm sure the screenwriters were trying to stay true to the original source).
So, overall, while the movie is more exciting than the original, the poor direction and ridiculous ending are enough to make this movie simply be on equal footing to the original film.
Unfortunately, Angels and Demons isn't able surpass its predecessor (but it wasn't any worse either).
Tom Hanks is "symbologist" Robert Langdon again in this apparent sequel (although I've been told that the book is a prequel), but there would be no need to see the original flick in order to understand this one. Langdon is called upon by the Catholic Church which is facing a scary predicament. The pope has died and the Church's Cardinals have convened to select the new leader of the Church. However, a rogue Catholic group has kidnapped the four Cardinals who were to be the most probable successors of the papacy and plans on murdering them. Adding "tension" to the mix is the fact that this rogue group has stolen some anti-matter particle that will blow up the Vatican at midnight. Langdon's working against the clock in order to save the cardinals...will he succeed? Will we care?
The major problem with the first movie -- that the story was incredibly convoluted and slow-moving -- is not really the problem here. The flick moves quite quickly and isn't bogged down by backstory like the original. The movie takes on a "race against the clock"-type tension, which, although ridiculous at times, is able to provide much more excitement than The Da Vinci Code. However, the movie still is prone (like the first one) to over-analyze and over-talk everything. Every single detail needs to be explained (because we, as an audience, are too stupid to get things) and the expository nature of the dialogue bogs down the narrative.
In terms of acting, everyone's okay, but no one does anything special. Hanks is helped with moderately better dialogue in his one (the first flick had him spout some ridiculous lines...not that this one doesn't either), but he's still a very bland leading guy. His leading lady (Zurer) is certainly attractive, but she goes missing during the middle hour and is nothing more than a person for Langdon to bounce ideas off of. Secondary actors are all fine, but, once again, not given a whole lot to do.
Despite the better story, Howard's direction is weak. Everything is very heavy-handed, and, like I said above, overly (and unnecessarily) explained. The film's final hour is laughable...the "big reveal" at the end is obvious from the get-go (I'm not sure that's Howard's fault, though, as I'm sure the screenwriters were trying to stay true to the original source).
So, overall, while the movie is more exciting than the original, the poor direction and ridiculous ending are enough to make this movie simply be on equal footing to the original film.
The RyMickey Rating: D+
Interesting...sort of...there really was no point to changing that around. They totally could've left those two lines out and no one would've known any better.
ReplyDelete...you and I are in the same boat on this one based on your review and your rating...