Despite its flaws and alternatives from the book, it delivers

Rating: 8/10 (18 June 2009)

Probably like the millions of people worldwide, I read Dan Brown's novel "Angels and Demons" after reading and seeing "The Da Vinci Code." Both novels are excellent and Ron Howard's adaptation off of "The Da Vinci code" is probably among the best I have seen. Impressed by "The Da Vinci's Code" success, I expected an equally as a great film for its prequel.
"Angels and Demons" is accurate to the novel, but not nearly as I hoped. The book would have made for a three-hour film and I am glad that the filmmakers were able to fit it into a 2 hour and 18 minute film, which flies by. Nevertheless, because it is a movie, it leaves some important twists and subplots out as well as a significant character from the book and an alternate beginning and ending. I don't mind the additions, they were okay, but in my opinion, they did not fit the story as well as the book.
For one, not giving too much away, the assassin, who's going on the rampage against the Catholic Church, played by Nikolaj Lie Kaas is a far different villain than in the book. Yes, he's a cold-blooded killer, but he lacks the venom to make a believable villain. I did not despise him like Paul Bettany's wonderful work as Silas in "The Da Vinci". The villain's comeuppance in the movie is also feeble compared to the novel, which in the book is quite intense.
The other performances in the film, however, are great. Tom Hanks dazzles as Professor Langdon, Ayelet Zurer is both gorgeous and stunning as Victoria, and Stellan Skarsgard, as usual, plays a real hard ass as Commander Richter. But the real genius that drives the movie is Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo. I have a feeling that he won't receive an Oscar nomination, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. It's also nice that Armin Mueller-Stahl is in another film. He's up there in age, but he delivers his lines fluently and brilliantly, as he does in every film I have seen him in.
Salvortine Totino's cinematography is beautiful and Hans Zimmer's score is awesome. I will point out that the score has a little bit of "The Da Vinci Code" rendition, but it nonetheless delivers. The other visual works such as: costumes, set design, and visual effects are also lavish.
But like many people on the IMDb board, there is the question on its PG-13 rating. Having read the book, it would have made a solid R. Yet, the movie does not cut out much in terms of violence from the novel. I'm not a squeamish person, but much of the violent content in this film was surprisingly shocking and gruesome. I wonder if the MPAA has become lazy when it comes to the rating system. Then again, "Angels and Demons" has hardly any swearing and nudity, which often makes an immediate R versus just containing violence. I don't know, but in my opinion, it deserved the R rating, and I've seen movies that are rated R for violence and they are nowhere near the leagues of this film. Despite its flaw and alternatives from the book, it delivers. My rating: *** out of ****