Get me a symbologist!

Rating: 4/10 (1 January 2010)

My God this film is stupid, I mean on the edges of braindead. It is plot holes which you could drive a bus through. Tom Hanks and Ron Howard should really known better to return to this series.
The plot of this film goes like this. The Pope has just died and the Catholic Church need to elect a new leader. But here's the problem: a old enemy has emerged, the Illuminati. They have kidnapped the four preferitis (the leading candidates for the papacy) and have stolen a case of anti-matter. They plan to kill a Cardinal every hour till midnight, and bomb the Vactican in an explosion of light. The Catholic Church are determined to continue the election despite threat, and call in help from Havard symbolist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer). They work with the head of the Vatican police led by Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgård), and a liberal priest Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), who wants to open up the church. It becomes a race against time to save the cardinals and prevent Vatican City with thousands of innocent people in St. Peter's Square getting blown up.
Angels & Demons is much better then the Da Vinci Code, but having a STD would be better then the Da Vinci Code. Angels & Demons was Dan Brown's first Robert Langdon book, but since the Da Vinci Code was a massive success it became a film first. Therefore Angels & Demons became a sequel to the monster success of the first film. What the main problem with Angels & Demons is the source material. I have read the Da Vinci Code, and I can safety say its one of the worst novels I have ever read. I don't mind the fact the novel was critical of the Catholic Church (normally I enjoy being critical of organised religion), and the book had a good premise, that Jesus had married and had children and his bloodline survives in the modern age. But Dan Brown is a poor writer, there is no characterisation, Robert Langdon is too smart (but only reveals his knowledge at certain points). Brown likes to show how much research he had done given the reader too much information we don't care about, and he still gets the facts wrong. Brown became a writer because he thought he could write a better novel then The Doomsday Conspiracy, and I properly could write better novel then Dan Brown. Whilst the story of the Da Vinci Code might have worked for some people in a book, it definitely didn't work in a film. It was long, drawn out and boring. At least with Angels & Demons the film is shorter, more action packed, and there is more a threat/race against time for the audience to get excited about. But there are still a lot of problems. As mentioned their are plot holes. The biggest being there is a powerful bomb hidden under Rome, and I'm sure the Italian police and military would evaluate the city and use their intelligence services to find the bomb and the Cardinals. The other is why would the Illuminati go through all this effort if they was a trail of evidence behind them. It makes no sense. Why not mix it up a bit. Al-Qaida or the IRA wouldn't operate like that. The twist at the end was also not need and Dan Brown does the same thing in The Da Vinci Code: that trick gets old if not done well. There are also stupid scenes like last action scenes which are so silly. There also the unrealistic element in the film of the police showing up to sense of a dead Cardinal a minute too late. The acts a travelogue for Rome, much like the Da Vinci Code was for Paris and London. I bet Rome's Tourism Board are happy.
Acting wise no one stands out for good reason, but that's because of the lack of material to work with. The only I could say who comes out with any merit is Pierfrancesco Favino who plays a senior police officer. Ayelet Zurer disappears off the screen because of the lack of depth she has. And I'm sure everyone knows about Ewan McGregor's poor attempt of an Irish accent: it would have been easier to cast an Irish actor like Michael Fassbender.
Ron Howard is a great example of a hit-and-miss director. He can do really good films like Frost/Nixon, Cinderella Man and A Beautiful Mind, but also weak films like the Da Vinci Code, Far and Away and How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He tries his best, but he is not an action director, he is a good drama director. His action scenes were lackluster. As well Howard also doesn't have a lot to work with behind the camera, and struggles to begin real drama or tension to the film.
I think the bare bones of the story, an old threat to the church returns could have worked as a really good thriller or horror film, but not as a action film. It could have been handled with a lot more intelligence with better writing, but of course Dan Brown can't write.
It's not worth watching.