Yo, I climbed that ledge in Assassin's Creed.

The science here is (mostly) fiction. For the Church's sake I hope the religion aspects are too. Tom Hanks' hair is still the stand out performance in the two Dan Brown movies, slightly more restrained here than in The Da Vinci Code. Science vs. Religion with unilluminated results.

The backdrops of Rome are very stunning but this doesn't forgive its moments of boring chatter and forced story telling. Larger than life and layered with a few too many farfetched concepts i just couldn't get on board this talk-heavy run around Rome... the but at least Tom Hank's hair cut was a little less offensive.

The reading of this book is very frustrating. It reads like holiday airport trash. A quick read with cheap thrills. Therefore this was prime fodder for Hollywood.

In the hands of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks the credibility of this film is raised, with the help of some great CGI too.

Mcgregor isn't great as the Irish priest and one can't help but wonder why an Irish person wasn't cast anyway. It's a shame because I normally like him.

This is a film full of puzzles that make themselves out to be cleverer than they are and designed to try and pull us in. Many I spoke with just felt bogged down by Vatican terminology.

However, if you want a thriller with a likeable lead and get taken on a journey without thinking then this is the movie for you. Just don't take it too seriously.

They're right, you know - some books just should not be made into movies. Why? Because in a case like this, a boring, self-indulgent book makes for a boring, self-indulgent movie.

I had thought they would learn from the mistakes of the first film, but it would seem there's nothing they can do to overcome weak source material. Once again, this movie is two hours of blatant exposition speeches, strung together with unlikely puzzle-solving by Robert Langdon (who conveniently knows more about Vatican history than anyone at the Vatican), and sprinkled with short forced "action" segments to try to keep the audience awake.

Ewan McGregor was the best thing about this film, but he's too good for this. Likewise, I can't blame Tom Hanks (or Ron Howard) for wanting a franchise of their own for steady work and paychecks, but they deserve better than this bore of a series.

Bom filme!

A worthy follow-up to the blockbuster 'The Da Vinci Code', this time after people started to find faults with the first film, this was always going to have a bumpy ride with fans of the book.

Tom Hanks is enlisted once more as Professor Robert Langdon to help solve a deadly plot deep withing Rome's Vatican City involving the Illuminati Group and the Catholic Church.

With great support from Ewan McGregor and Stellen Skarsgard, the gripping story powers on at a great pace, taking time to think out the puzzles and cryptic clues both you as the audience must solve with Langdon to end up at a blistering finale.

It takes a while to get going, but is great fun and the use of locations and story inside Vatican City is well thought out, and could easily be taking place in reality without us knowing...!

I fell asleep during this movie so many times so I never saw more than 30 minutes. Finally after making it through the whole movie (with hardship) I realized why I fell asleep.

My body was trying to prevent me from seeing it.
Disappointing. Only Ewan McGregor made me try that many times.

Better than DaVinci code, still not amazing.

3 estrelas e 1 coração <3

The book is better.

Publiqué el 12/08/2010:

Acabando de ver "Ángeles y demonios" con mi hija mayor...
2010-08-12 07:04:53 (+00:00)

26/02/2013:

La secuela Brown/Howard es aún menos interesante que "Da Vinci code" y sin la controversia religiosa de ésta, no queda mucho más que contar, fuera del espantajo de los Ilumnatti.