Same grade as "DaVinci Code," but different strengths and weaknesses

Rating: 7/10 (22 May 2009)

It has long been known that the prequel to the literary sensation "The DaVinci Code" would be rewritten as a sequel to the 2006 film. Other than a few token lines of dialogue referencing the first film, it really doesn't matter (not that there are many people who haven't read the book OR seen the movie). While the two films are very similar in style and plot, the films have different strengths and weaknesses.
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is the renowned Harvard symbologist who prevented the destruction of the Holy Grail in the previous film. After the previous events, Langdon is obviously not high on the Vatican's list of well-liked individuals. Nevertheless, he's the only one who can help them when four cardinals who are favored for the papacy have been kidnapped, and a bomb is hidden somewhere in Vatican city that could completely destroy the city. Making matters even more desperate is the fact that because the Vatican is nominating a new pope, all the cardinals are there.
This is not an actor's movie. The film moves too fast for anyone to really "act." Still, none of the actor's blow it. Tom Hanks essays the same character that he did in the first film, and the other major players, Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgard, and Armin Mueller-Stahl do what is required of them. The newcomers, Ayelet Zurer, Thure Lindhart, Pierfrancesco Favino, Nikolaj Lie Klass, and David Pasquesi do the same. No one here is going to be up for any awards, but that's not the point. This is all story and nothing else.
Ron Howard must be a director that reads reviews of his movies. Unlike "The DaVinci Code," which, upon first viewing, failed to generate the momentum that the novel had, "Angels and Demons" does something that the first film didn't: generate legitimate tension. That's not saying that "The DaVinci Code" film was boring, it's just that this one contains moments of actual suspense (even if you have read the novel beforehand, like me).
That is actually part of the problem. The film moves so fast, it's hard to generate any feeling for the characters, and Robert Langdon isn't really the one who's in any danger (well, sort of. Up until the end, the film concentrates on solving the most immediate of crises on the way to the big one).
"Angels and Demons" is also plagued by some technical problems. The lighting in the film is terrible. It's so dark that we can't appreciate all the majesty of the inside of the churches. Is there no legitimate light in all of Vatican City, or does everyone there just like to do everything in the dark? I don't think it's the latter. On second thought, why don't we just say that the film's cinematography as a whole is terrible, because when indoors, the camera does not make use of the large space. And even though the art is a huge part of the film, we never really get a good look at the artwork.
I'm at a loss to explain why the critical reception of the film was so vicious. It's by no means perfect, but "bad" is certainly not a word I'd use to describe Ron Howard's new film. Even "mediocre" is too cruel. Do I recommend it? Sure, but the film moves so fast that I'd suggest reading the book first.