It could have been worse

Rating: 6/10 (22 March 2010)

Well at least they didn't make a complete mess of it like last time. Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman previously combined for the film adaptation of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. The film was a total dud. A thrilling, exciting novel was transformed into a dull, plodding movie. Howard and Goldsman, with a second screenwriter in David Koepp along for the ride this time, try again with their adaptation of Brown's Angels & Demons. This time the film is not a total dud but it's certainly not all you would hope for it to be either. Once again it is clear that the book is better than the movie. A lot better.
Tom Hanks, with a much better haircut this time, returns to the role of Robert Langdon and Hanks certainly seems more comfortable here than he did in his first Langdon adventure. Hanks as Langdon works fine, it's everything around the film's star which is hit or miss. Where the last film got bogged down with a lot of talk and historical information this film has a much better pace to it. Less talk, more action. So that's good. But in all the breakneck action, with Langdon scurrying to and fro across Rome, a lot of the original story from the novel has been lost. That's not so good. If everything from the novel had been included here we'd probably be looking at a movie that's five hours long. But some of the cuts which were made have cut a lot of the heart out of the story. There's really not much in the way of story left. It's just a frantic race against time and while there is certainly some excitement to be had you never find yourself nearly as invested in the story or the characters as you did when reading the novel. There were personal connections in the novel which added layers of emotion to the story. Here that emotion has been stripped away and what we're left with is just another action thriller. And the novel was so much more than that.
The Da Vinci Code film had very little to recommend it, that's not the case here. Angels & Demons is passable entertainment. Hanks is much better this time around and he's supported well by some fine actors. Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo and Stellan Skarsgård as the head of the Swiss Guard stand out as being particularly memorable even as their characters have undergone some radical transformations from what Dan Brown put down on the page. Ayelet Zurer is fine with what she is given to do in the role of Vittoria Vetra. You just wish they would have given her more. In the novel Vittoria was a critically important character with a hugely significant role in the plot. Here it seems she's just along for the ride and that's a shame. The look of the film is undeniably impressive, as Rome beautifully comes alive. Even the parts of Rome which were brought to life on a California back lot. It's an exciting film, we're given very little time to catch our breath as we race to what promises to be an explosive conclusion. There again you'll probably feel the book's ending works a lot better than the movie's does. But by that point you're resigned to the fact that Ron Howard's movie just wasn't going to measure up to Dan Brown's book. Someone who never read the novel could really enjoy this film for what it is. Those who read the novel can't help but be a touch disappointed, knowing what this film could have been. But this film is certainly better than The Da Vinci Code was. So that's something I guess. Better luck with The Lost Symbol, Ron.