Robert Langdon is back and better than ever – and, by better, I mean that he finally got himself a haircut. In 2006, Ron Howard's 'The Da Vinci Code' was released amid a storm of controversy, snagged $750 million at the box-office, and suffered a crucifixion at the hands of critics worldwide. I remember the film well because it inspired me for the first time to discuss, at length, a film's merits – I was, for better or worse, Howard's most ardent defender. Howard's follow-up 'Angels and Demons' (adapted as a sequel) opened with only a polite smattering of debate, and is all the better for it. Now both films can comfortably be enjoyed for exactly what they are – entertaining pulp thrillers, replete with exotic locations, beautiful women, brutal murders, ancient conspiracies, treasure hunts, and a race against time. Owing to the source novel's more limited reputation, 'Angels and Demons' lacks the bloated self-importance, whether conscious or not, of its predecessor, and so can be enjoyed, without reservation, as a fanciful, unpretentious two-hour page-turner.
Screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have shorn the majority of Dan Brown's ludicrous plot twists – most fortunately a parachute- substitute that would have sent audience eyes rolling – but, even so, the film remains thematically inconsistent, a flaw that extends back to the source material. When Brown originally published "Angels and Demons" in 2000, he was at the cross-roads of a transition in his writing style. "Digital Fortress" and "Deception Point" were pretty straightforward conspiracy thrillers, with government organisations using ultra-modern technology to perpetrate their crimes and threaten the truth-seeking heroine. By "The Da Vinci Code (2003)," all elements of science-fiction had been discarded in favour of historical documents and religious iconography. But "Angels and Demons" finds itself stranded in the middle of this conversion, labouring extensively over fictional antimatter explosions when a simple bomb would have done just nicely. This juxtaposition of history and technology may well have been intentional, used to emphasise the conflict of science and religion, but there is nonetheless an imbalance of tone that jars violently with the viewer.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard "symbologist" Dr. Robert Langdon, and his performance is an improvement. Rather than existing purely as a cypher of ancient symbols, Langdon seems to have developed a fuller persona, though there's some awkward, sitting-on-the-fence attempts at defining his stance on religion. The supporting players – Ewan McGregor, Aylet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino – are dependable without attempting to steal the limelight, as Ian McKellen did so successfully in 'The Da Vinci Code.' Only Nikolaj Lie Kaas, as the Illuminati assassin, doesn't quite feel the part, lacking the ghostly creepiness of Paul Bettany in the equivalent role. Salvatore Totino's cinematography isn't the most handsome you'll see this year, but nevertheless captures the art and architecture of Rome and the Vatican (whether real or recreated) with stunning vibrancy. Hans Zimmer's score is energetic and emphatic at the right moments, not only underscoring events in the film but forcefully stamping their significance. All flaws aside, I can certainly see future generations enjoying 'Angels and Demons' for its preposterous sense of fun.
Screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman have shorn the majority of Dan Brown's ludicrous plot twists – most fortunately a parachute- substitute that would have sent audience eyes rolling – but, even so, the film remains thematically inconsistent, a flaw that extends back to the source material. When Brown originally published "Angels and Demons" in 2000, he was at the cross-roads of a transition in his writing style. "Digital Fortress" and "Deception Point" were pretty straightforward conspiracy thrillers, with government organisations using ultra-modern technology to perpetrate their crimes and threaten the truth-seeking heroine. By "The Da Vinci Code (2003)," all elements of science-fiction had been discarded in favour of historical documents and religious iconography. But "Angels and Demons" finds itself stranded in the middle of this conversion, labouring extensively over fictional antimatter explosions when a simple bomb would have done just nicely. This juxtaposition of history and technology may well have been intentional, used to emphasise the conflict of science and religion, but there is nonetheless an imbalance of tone that jars violently with the viewer.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard "symbologist" Dr. Robert Langdon, and his performance is an improvement. Rather than existing purely as a cypher of ancient symbols, Langdon seems to have developed a fuller persona, though there's some awkward, sitting-on-the-fence attempts at defining his stance on religion. The supporting players – Ewan McGregor, Aylet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino – are dependable without attempting to steal the limelight, as Ian McKellen did so successfully in 'The Da Vinci Code.' Only Nikolaj Lie Kaas, as the Illuminati assassin, doesn't quite feel the part, lacking the ghostly creepiness of Paul Bettany in the equivalent role. Salvatore Totino's cinematography isn't the most handsome you'll see this year, but nevertheless captures the art and architecture of Rome and the Vatican (whether real or recreated) with stunning vibrancy. Hans Zimmer's score is energetic and emphatic at the right moments, not only underscoring events in the film but forcefully stamping their significance. All flaws aside, I can certainly see future generations enjoying 'Angels and Demons' for its preposterous sense of fun.