One might have higher expectations even from a summer flick...

Rating: 2/10 (22 May 2009)

The critically-rejected super production with a budget equaling the one of a small African country is a typical creation of the entertainment industry called Hollywood. It's hollow, emotionally-empty, lacking in intensity, hypocrite and obviously made by people who think that if you have money for fancy FX, you have no use for a story, decent dialogue, catchy plot line, character development and good editing. Your average TV show enjoys a better focus on the above mentioned details. The plot is so alembicated that it crosses the line into nonsensical at points, the dialogue is both dull and chunky and the whole movie is nothing but a collection of action scenes cascading so quickly it doesn't so much as let the viewer the time to breathe and digest what's going on. But maybe that is just an advertising device since if you had the time to really take a look at what's happening on screen you might notice the plot holes the size of Grand Canyon, the sheer stupidity of some lines (something like "the angels are pointing that way so this is where the bad guy hid the bomb"), the downright awful acting and Ron Howard's bad bordering on stranger directing. Speaking of which, Howard might be no Tony Scott, but still one might expect more from him than to just assume a good way to make his work more dynamic is through such rapid and chaotic camera moves that after a while the viewer starts feeling dizzy at first then nauseating.
While I suppose the absurd intricacies of story can't be blamed entirely on the movie's makers, are those truly to blame for the actors' complete unwillingness to do their job and at least try to act?! For the 50 millions dollars Tom Hanks supposedly garnished for this flick, he could have at least done what all those many, many movie goers earning like 0,01 % of that sum do on an average working day: try their best. I've never been a fan of him, his two Oscars always seeming more of a fashion to me than anything else, but in both Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, he was almost ridiculous with his woody, smirking and annoying on screen presence. His part in these two movies resumes to showing up on set and cashing a check. That's all. Unfortunately for the entire (mis)cast, Angels and Demons doesn't have a Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen to save face. Ewan McGregor, by far the best actor in this motion picture, does try but only ends up giving the impression that he has decided it's really not worth it and resigns himself to playing his part with all the seriousness and the aplomb of a soap opera actor.
Now onto the feminine lead I know Ayulet Zurer has been slammed because of the producers' audacity to cast an Israeli actress for the part of an Italian. That would have been nothing indeed, if Zurer, who is, by no means, lacking in talent, wouldn't have joined the whole non acting trend of the cast. Though given the part, I doubt she could have done much more. She plays a stereotypical Hollywood movie scientist: hot but dumb, a mere recipient for the male lead's patronizing attitude. One might wonder why, for all the rambling about the sacred feminine in The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown and subsequently, those turning his novels into movies don't populate their fictional universe with more feminine characters and while at it, why they don't equip them with a brain too. I don't know about you, girls, but if I were Mrs. Brown, I'd have a few words with my husband about that! I know the score was praised as the best thing about this production. I wouldn't say. Just like anything else in this film it excels at being over the top with its dragging, pompous, Gregorian chants like sound.
Rant du flick: I know Langdon's profession is make-believe, but still shouldn't an Art historian featuring Middle Ages expert featuring bogus theories generation be knowledgeable of at least Latin and Italian as he is supposedly writing books pertaining to the history of Renaissance Italy? After all, it should only come with the job! It makes you wonder if he wasn't denied access to the Vatican Archives—which are very much opened to researchers, by the way—on grounds of professional incompetence as you need some serious academic credentials to be allowed there for none another than the trivial reason that if you don't have a clue about the language of the documents, what on Earth would be doing there? Staring at them into translating themselves? And since when do any archives on this planet—canonical or not—just give away rare documents in their possession? Especially to a man who obviously can't read them! Yes, I know it's just a movie! Why? While I cannot recommend not to go watch this movie, I have to say that leaving your brain outside the cine is a must. Then you can happily and dumbly vegetate in your seat while the heroes race around Rome stopping every now and then for a bit of gore on the way. By the way, great Rome images! There, I found something to praise about the movie, though those are hardly the merit of its makers.