Angels & Demons, Or: Watch Tom Hanks Look, Talk and Run

Rating: 4/10 (2 June 2009)

Angels & Demons, in relation to The Da Vinci Code, is respectively like turning in a C paper instead turning in a D paper. Better, but still not good. In terms of the sequels' improvement, the acting is decent all around, although nothing stands out. "It's a thriller" say Ron Howard. His definition of a thriller, at least how he displays it in Angels & Demons, seems to include the words boring, talky, and overlong. Good thrillers are short on words, long on action and convey plot points, locations, and identities visually. In Angels & Demons, Howard lays out a map, shows us Robert Langdon's destination, tells us how he's going to get there, and then shows us, in long sequences, what we were just told. Doing so bores the audience; why do we want to see something happen when we we've just been told the same information? There is no element of surprise or suspense. Howard also shows us Robert Langdon begging for entrance to Vatican Archives, walking into the archives, with a sign clearly marking them, and then flashes "Vatican Archives" on the screen. Almost every major location, all of which were made clear in the dialogue and/or the visuals, is told to us with little white subscript. Howard's direction in Angels & Demons is the opposite of Hitchcock's; Instead of wringing suspense from the story, he sucks it out in his attempt to explain the convoluted narrative. Angles & Demons, like most commercial 'thrillers,' is predictable. It is obvious that the crux of the story, that the Illuminati have hidden anti-matter that will explode upon colliding with matter, (at-you guessed it-midnight!), will not come to pass and everything will be all right in the end. You don't have to read the book to know that some Cardinals will die (watch the trailer) and that Vatican City will remain standing. The narrative's believability starts on thin ice and ultimately, with the final twist (the good guy is really behind everything!) falls through. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Ron Howard's film spends most of its time talking to the audience. With such a historically derivative film, much needs to be explained, but no one goes to a movie theater to be lectured at. A least there's a plot? Well, in essence, Angels & Demons is a repetitive gimmick; Robert Langdon looks at a symbol or statue, explains the complicated meaning he quickly derives from his glance, and then hurriedly whisks off to his next location. Repeat. At least Langdon got rid of his mullet.