about Dan Brown and Ron Howard

Rating: 6/10 (21 May 2009)

the first half of the movie was very boring. it was as if Dan Brown was showing his writing capabilities without a real story, 'look I'm Dan Brown and I can write a new story about old things that did occur!' bad directing too. as if Ron Howard was saying 'look I'm Ron Howard and I make movies'. I wanted to leave the cinema and go home, there I would be able to do far more interesting things than wasting my lifetime with watching such BEEP as 'Angels & Demons'.
luckily enough for me, the second half of the picture was superb. it was as if Brown and Howard found a perfect match. thus, the construction of the film is really good: the first half it's boring as hell and everyone wants to leave the building, but the second half makes it worth you 'lost' your money.
still, the acting performances are bad. really bad. it's the story of the second half that really made my day. but even then, there are some things that aren't explained very well in the movie. why all this clues? why this organized search? don't worry, you get the answers if you think about it, but that will only happen if you a) read the book. or b) talked about the movie during the ride home.
conclusion: hats off to Dan Brown and Ron Howard, they did a really good job working together, even though the movie itself has got it's faults.