Monotonous, overlong, and not as exciting as it should have been

Rating: 4/10 (16 May 2009)

While watching Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, I find myself inevitably comparing the film to the TV series 24. Similar to the plot of a typical season of 24, Angels and Demons finds its protagonist (portrayed in this film by Tom Hanks) attempting to solve an improbably convoluted mystery in an extremely limited amount of time, a mystery riddled with betrayals, narrow escapes, and explosions. However, while 24 for the most part succeeds in its efforts to convey a sense of suspense and entertainment as its plot-line gradually unfolds, Angels and Demons ultimately fails to convey any sort of real suspense and mystery behind its ostensibly high-octane whodunit that unravels in the streets of Rome.
Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called upon by a wary Vatican College of Cardinals to help them solve the symbology-fueled mystery behind the abduction of four leading Catholic Cardinals in lieu of the election of a new pope. Joining Landgon in his mission is CERN physicist Vittoria Vetra (Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer; think an older, blander physical clone of Anne Hathaway), who for her part is investigating both the theft of a canister of antimatter from the CERN laboratory in Switzerland as well as investigating the death of a colleague at CERN, who just happens to be a priest that the recently-deceased pope held in high regard due to his efforts to prove the existence of God using science. Aiding them in their endeavor is head of the Vatican Swiss Guard Richter (Stellan Skarsgård) and the deceased pope's Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor).
The prospect of a fast-paced race against time to uncover the plot behind the abduction of the Cardinals as well as a plot to destroy the Vatican is certainly a promising premise. Oddly enough, this movie, in which the science vs. religion, faith vs. fact debate is largely center stage, lacks a real heart and soul.
The script of the movie subtracts most of the character development found in the book in order to cram as much tedious description of the symbology and obvious exposition of the clues in the mystery as possible. Because of the film's insistence of spoon-feeding every last detail of the mystery to its audience, as well as the film's insistence of removing all sense of subtext in the film by exhaustively delineating the science vs. religion debate every chance it gets, the pacing of the film is unnecessarily slowed down, which contributes largely to the lack of any real suspense in the movie.
In movies that are as fast-paced as this film aspires to be, character development is often regarded as an afterthought by the screenwriters and understandably so. However, as was the case in The Da Vinci Code, it is such an afterthought in this movie that the actors seem more like props than characters, there merely to advance the supposed mystery from one scene to the next, with any sense of motivation or personality in the characters almost feeling completely irrelevant to the screenwriters. As a result, every character in the movie was painfully one-dimensional. Though not quite as wooden as his first bout as Robert Langdon, the considerable talents of Tom Hanks largely go to waste once again in this film; the hints of personality he attempts to inject into the role are refreshingly welcome but unfortunately few and far in between. Zurer's character does little more than follow Hanks around from scene to scene. Skarsgård's police captain grumbles a lot. McGregor's Camerlengo mopes and paces a lot.
The lack of three-dimensional characters would be forgivable if the action of the film was actually exciting and fun to watch. But it's simply not the case in this film. The film stubbornly sticks to the formula of Hanks and co. running around Rome looking at statues and monuments, talking about hidden symbols, watching someone die, then running to another part of Rome to repeat the process, interrupted periodically by McGregor making heavy-handed conversation with members of the College of Cardinals. This monotony lasts up until the film's final act, which as absurd and far-out as it is, is welcome relief from the monotony of watching Hanks run around Rome and McGregor wringing his hands inside St. Peter's Basilica.
The film runs an exhausting two-and-a-half hours, about two-thirds of that time devoted to long-winded speeches by the characters about symbolism and science vs. religion. With all due respect to Mr. Hanks (one of my favorite actors) and co., my idea of a fun summer movie is not two-plus hours of college freshman-level pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-history with the occasional car chase and murder thrown in for good measure.