Faster paced than Da Vinci Code, but not better

Rating: 6/10 (17 May 2009)

Angels and Demons puts our main character, Robert Langdon, back to work solving historical puzzles and following clues in Rome and Vatican City. But as much as Hanks plays the part well enough and Howard directed quite nicely, I didn't feel that this film was as good as the Da Vinci Code.
The Plot itself is plausible enough, pitting the Illuminati against the Catholic Church, with Langdon being called in for help. Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer portrayed their respective characters admirably, as does the supporting cast.
I would say that the pacing of this movie is my main fault with it. The movie itself is roughly over 2 hours, the time frame the movie is set in is basically double that. And with certain plot points forcing Langdon to race all over Rome, you weren't given many times in the movie where historical events were discussed in a way to more fully explain the present-day findings and happenings in the film. In "Code" it may have been set in a time-span of one night, but we had down times in mansions, planes, museums, churches and such explaining things. This allowed for the audience to digest that information, but in Angels and Demons these down times didn't exist.
As for other departments I would say that the sound and visual effects were well done, but not spectacular. This isn't Star Trek, so no need for being over-the-top there. One department that I thought was lacking was in music. I thought Zimmer did a great job in "Code" but he didn't really match himself here. Then again, most of the music of his I enjoyed in "Code" were during the down times which are lacking in this film.
Sequels, or in this case, prequels don't usually tend to do as well as the originals, and I know Ron Howard and Tom Hanks planned on making this film better than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't think they pulled it off. It's not a bad film, but I would've liked to seen more history and less running from place to place.