Angels & Demons
The holiest event of our time. Perfect for their return.
Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon investigates a mysterious symbol seared into the chest of a murdered physicist. He discovers evidence of the unimaginable, the rebirth of an ancient secret brotherhood known as the Illuminati, the most powerful underground organization ever to walk the earth.
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.
Hans Zimmers "Chevaliers de Sangreal" slowly begins to build. The violin weeps it's sweet music into the air, harking us back to The Da Vinci Code, tying the two together in a harmonious swirl of DNA.
But here we tread a very different path to illumination.
Where A&D is in literature a prequel to Code, director Ron Howard chooses to bring us firmly into sequel territory having already established Tom Hanks's Robert Langdon and his back story of pissing off the Roman Catholic Church. It's a smart move on his part, as this movie with the exception of the same lead character is as far removed as possible from the labourious meanderings of Dan Browns best seller.
Howard himself knew…
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.
No movies get analyzed, criticized, or critiqued more then ones that have been adapted from books and novels. With movies like these, people are always sure to say..."the book is better then the movie" ... and most of the time it is. After reading "THE DA VINCI CODE", I was excited so see it come to the big screen because "THE DA VINCI CODE" was one of the best books I have ever read, mainly because it primarily deals with "theorizing" and making you look at things like you've never seen them before. Although I did enjoy the film when it came out, it received a batch of controversy and criticism from the catholic religious community. I'm probably one of…
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.
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...!
"If God has issues, they won't be with what I've done... they will be with what I'm about to do."
Esta es una de esas películas donde al guión se le notan varias inconsistencias, pero al final no importan, y esto es por la manera en que Ron Howard filma, narra y produce su cinta (quizá mucho mejor que sus demás películas)
'Angels & Demons' es un placer tanto para los ojos como para los oídos, gracias al score celestial de Hans Zimmer (no sé cómo le hace este señor para que todo se torne épico con su música). Es una película que además de meternos en una aventura en el Vaticano, al mismo tiempo vamos obteniendo pequeños "hints" sobre su…
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)
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.