Note to self... Never go into cinemas expecting brilliant books to turn out brilliant in film

Rating: 5/10 (16 May 2009)

Geez where to start?
As i am writing this review, I just came came from the cinema watching Angels and Demons and boy do i have a lot to say.
Now, you(as the reader) have probably read other people's reviews, and they all have the same message: huge chunks of the book were missed in the movie and boy is this message true. Now, I perfectly understand that for a 572 page book to be portrayed in film, there have to be chunks missing from the film that are in the book. However these chunks were so imminent it was almost laughable. Overall, i was disappointed by the movie, but there were a couple of good things which is why i am going to list the good and bad's of this movie.
Good:
1. Special Effects were brilliant
2. Due to not being allowed to film in ST Peter's square, i thought the set designers did a fair job of duplicating the square.
3. Armin Mueller-Stahl did an excellent job of playing Cardinal Strauss.
4. Ewen Mcgregor did an OK job of the Camerlengo.
Unfortunately those points were the only good points i could think of.
Now lets move onto the bad points,
Bad:
1. Where is one of the central characters, Maximillian Kohler (Executive Director of Cern) in the movie? Unfortunately i don't see how the screenwriters could have missed that.
2. In the book, Vittoria Vetra was the feisty yet sensual Italian women. In the movie Ayelet Zurer did an absolutely horrific job of playing Vetra, Zurer was bland, it was almost like she was forced into playing Vetra by the casting directors because of her unmissable beauty. Honestly, sorry to say this but the way the movie was going it seemed like there was no point in having Vittoria Vetra in the movie, because she had absolutely no influence on saving Vatican City, unlike in the book! Also, she had no chemistry with Robert Langdon in the movie once again unlike in the book, overall her presence was simply pointless!
3. Only 3 cardinals died, all 4 were supposed to be dead
4. Cardinal Strauss is actually Cardinal Mortati in the book, once again a lazy stroke from the screenwriters.
5. Cardinal Mortati was supposed to be pope, not Cardinal Bhaggia
5. Learnardo Vetra is given another name in the movie, and nowhere in the movie was he mentioned as the adopted father of Vittoria Vetra, in the movie Vetra describes him as, "My research partner"
6. The last symbol was supposed to be the Illuminati diamond, but instead it was keys.
7. Vittoria Vetra is not with Robert Langdon in he Vatican Archives (honestly i didn't mind about this, but yet again this is another mistake from the screenwriters)
8. The assassin isn't supposed to be like an academic with glasses, he was supposed to be creepy and of the Islam faith.
9. There were no flashbacks unlike "The Da Vinci Code"
10. Ron Howard is a bad director
11. Both screenplayers obviously didn't do their research.
12. Unfortunately Tom Hanks didn't do it for me as the symbologist: Robert Langson in Angels and Demons.
13. The acting overall, bar Ewen McGregor and Armin Mueller-Stahl was really bad.
Honestly, i could go on and on about this but i wont bore you to death.
Your also probably wondering why i gave it 5/10 since I've been so critical about it. Its because i have some sympathy for the screenwriters (despite me being critical towards them as well) for trying turn a masterpiece novel into film. Also, the special effects were good so i gave it some extra marks for that. But where it fell was the absence of important characters, poor acting and poor directing.
Overall, a word for the wise, don't go into the cinema room expecting a brilliant book turning into a brilliant film because that is never the case as proved by Angels and Demons.