Angels & Demons

nice 🙂💕

Angels & Demons_360P

waaaaaaaat

very soon

I can see why the Vatican didn't have any objections to this film. The reason is because it was so badly adapted and poorly put together that they knew it would get bad reviews on its own. The church didn't need to interfere in this one. I guess Dan Brown really needed the money. Otherwise I can't see how anyone would allow their work to be bastardized this badly. In the closing credits, it says something to the effect of "based on the adaption of." What it should have said was "based on the very loose, poor adaptation and the location is the only thing we have in common of." The movie was so dissimilar to the novel in storyline and characters that I wondered if I was in the wrong theater. Clearly the directors took massive amounts of liberty in shooting the film. I fully recognize that you cannot adapt a Dan Brown novel 100% into a 2 hour movie (like Santa delivering all of the presents in one night) but the liberties they took went too far and strayed very far from the book. Ewan Mcgregor who is a fine actor was not the right person for the role of Carmalengo. Vittoria Vetra was not fully developed and a very critical element was left out of the movie. I think what annoyed me the most about the movie is the four preferiti plot line. In the attempt to be politically correct and story-wise expedient, they fail tremendously to deliver on this story-line. If I didn't read the novel ahead of time, I probably would have been kinder in my score but since I did, I really tried to like the movie and was excited for its release. It was just disappointing. The only liberty which I approved of was changing the assassin from being a Muslim to a non-Muslim. There seems to be too many movies where Muslims are evil and this change does not affect the movie at all. I generally judge a movie based on whether I would pay full price, matinée price, Netflix/video rental or don't bother at all. Angels and Demons is a Netflix/video rental at best because the movie disappointed on so many accounts.

... this watered down version of researched material is nothing more that a quick money grab by Hollywood. Storyline was thin, acting average, and direction ho hum. The hype of this film was very low key, because I think the producers realized there was nothing to hype up. The pace of the film is a one trick pony, and the entire premise on the murders follow old pagan rituals that the "researched" Illuminati would never use, as they follow sun activity not Elemental ritual. Take from here, borrow from there. Nothing is sacred. This movie is just a studio version of those guys you see on the New York streets with the three cards on a table and you have to pick the Ace. They show you the card, BEND the card so you can follow it, but when you point out the bent card, it's no longer the ace. A whole bunch of razzle dazzle, but not true honor of the reality that is actually out there.

Angels and Demons is not too bad, it comes in a form of entertainment. It is more intense than Da Vinci Code. I remembered that I had to pry my eyes open during the middle part of Da Vinci Code. It is long, not much suspense and consists of babbling about. Yawn. But Angels & Demons, the sequel, is more intense, has more suspense and action. Tom Hanks gets not only to exercise his brain but also his legs. The adventure requires him to move from one place to another. The story: Tom Hanks plays symbologist Robert Langdon. He has to solve a murder and at the same time, prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican. This time, he has Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to help him solve the mystery. The mystery plot and intense peril scenes kept me on the seat. Hans Zimmer's beautiful score makes the movie more epic. The adventure is an intense ride but not as intense as I thought. The sets are amazing too. Overall: Fans of the book will flock the cinemas to catch this. Fans of the previous movie, Da Vinci Code, should also catch this. Those who like thrillers, this one may suit. This is supposed to be a fictional thriller which is not to be taken seriously.

Why did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie. Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid) Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations

The implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, "You are going to be blown up". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly.

Angels and Demons is a very long, very boring wild goose chase. It is peppered with theological mumbo jumbo and conspiracy theory fluff. This stuff should be fun like the Indiana Jones films, but here it's stuffy and uptight. Blame not just director Ron Howard for his ponderous serving, so generic you can almost smell the packaging the film comes out of, but the writers of this mess too (David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman). While watching, you realize that the film has very little actual dialogue. The characters talk to one another, but it is all in the form of meaningless trivia. "The Illuminati were", "So Raphael's second painting was", "You mean what Bernini really meant with that sculpture is" and so on. It does nothing except provide endless layers of exposition. This is the film being clever with history, art, religion and everything in between. It wants to serve a big helping of unknown 'facts' that will tease audience members brain cells, but has more of the opposite effect. The film lingers with moments of extreme sensationalism. The Pope has died, a voting is underway, but the secret Illuminati strike with a bomb threat (anti-matter stolen from the LHC project) in Vatican City. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called upon for his expert knowledge of this cult group and to try and help unravel the mystery. Hans Zimmer's score has all of the expected papal choral chants to wake you up in time for the next stagey murder scene, but everything in between just doesn't sustain. There is something so bland, so sedate, so mechanical about the film and its exploits that I was reminded how helpful, even necessary the presence of Ian McKellen's role was in helping to drive the thrill of conspiracy theories in the much better The Da Vinci Code, preventing it from being as pedantic as this film. The summer movie season used to mean simplistic movie fun, but now it means movie world ridiculousness and this is what Angels and Demons promises and delivers, in huge amounts. Hanks, with the second incredulous attempt as the Professor, has started to remind me of one of those behind the counter managers at McDonald's who likes to get his hands dirty from time to time, annoying us with his everyman attitude. His character might have gotten a new (and better) hair stylist, but I couldn't buy him as an academic, much less a religious skeptic, a point this film tries to make more than once. If this film and its principle character are strangely self aware of their religious stand, it is possibly as a response to the hue and cry made by the general public when its prequel Da Vinci Code (actually the sequel in chronological form) was released, but here it is stagey and unchecked. Not helping with believability is the fact that every garbed Cardinal or Priest is shown as a creep in hiding, and when you first see husky voiced, red robed Armin Mueller-Stahl, you can't help but roll your eyes.