Rehashed novel fails on many levels

Rating: 4/10 (19 May 2009)

I think it would be fair to say that the impressive cast was attracted by the equally impressive pay-packets they were undoubtedly offered as well as the chance to partake in a movie that will deliver at the Box Office.
I am not somebody who likes to constantly compare literature to filmic adaptations as they are stand alone art of different mediums and as such deserve to be judged on individual merit. However, it is impossible to read 'Angels and Demons' and not be frustrated by the alterations that have taken place in adapting the novel for film.
After reading the novel I believed that the film would be significantly more successful the the Da Vinci adaptation for the primary reason that the novel is not as focused on theological details that were lost in the adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. The pace of the novel is also more suited to adaptation and the setting of Rome had the potential for incredible cinematography.
Before I define why this film is worthy of a 4/10 rating I will say that the film was well paced (as it should have been), Tom Hanks was likable as Langdon (despite initial casting concerns) and the powers that be graciously decided to omit Langdon's farcical helicopter dive towards the end of the novel (why on god's earth did Dan Brown include this pathetic episode in an otherwise decent book). That being said, the film, as an adaptation fails on so many levels.
If you have not read the book I would argue that you will not leave the cinema demanding a refund, but those who have read the book will be hugely disappointed by an opportunity missed to create a really decent Dan Brown adaptation.
Tonally the film was vacant,but deep down with Hanks and Howard involved, fine craftsmen as they may be, it was never going to the dark and sinister thriller it should have been.
I was however, deeply frustrated by the unwillingness of the director/producers to opt for a riskier but longer run time that would allow the novel to be more honestly adapted. The Langdon/Vetra love interest was rightly omitted - I don't think anyone would say it had any impact whatsoever in the novel, but unbelievably they chose to omit 99% of all the background information that made the characters interesting and motivated - Vetra's relationship with her adopted father paralleling the relationship between Camerlengo and the diseased pope.
The conflict between science and religion was addressed in the loosest terms and sadly the CERN narrative was completely ignored, leading to a not so clever twist and bland storyline. Where was Kohler, one of the most interesting characters in the book? Why did they decide to rewrite the assassin of 'Hassassin' character. His physical presence, fanatical stance and twisted morality was an ominous presence in the book and yet the powers that be decided that he would be better written as a 'bit character' from 24 - a 'gun for hire' - SERIOUSLY WTF!!!!!!! They also decide to rewrite the character of Olivetti in a bid to relieve the film of any interesting, conflicted characters that might offer any element of tension. I actually left the theatre angry at the fact that supposedly 'professional people' allowed the film to be made in this way.
Maybe worst of all is the dialogue. If I another Dan Brown adaptation hits our screens with the characters explaining their thought processes to the person standing next to them, I may be forced to punch the screenwriter. People DON'T talk like that!
With background, non existent, character diluted and a pretty shady script, 'Angels and Demons' will be just another box-office hit with no substance. Sadly, it could have been so much more. This had the potential to be the best of all the Dan Brown adaptations and I am sad to say it is an opportunity missed. The 7/10 rating will probably remain, but, it will not be on merit! If the Vatican interests you watch Godfather Part 3 as Angels and Demons is certainly one you can afford to miss.