Let's get one thing straight: The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, as written by Dan Brown, are both books that are best described as "airplane literature", i.e. stuff that one can read cover-to-cover while on a plane, train or something without assuming said tome is going to leave anything meaningful once the reading is over. The film version of The Da Vinci Code, while certainly not the best summer blockbuster of 2006 (Mission:Impossible III, X- Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns were much smarter and more memorable), was an enjoyable piece of work because director Ron Howard, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman and star Tom Hanks got it right: the story is deliberately provocative (in a bad way) and slightly pretentious, but as a slick, well-executed thriller it works quite reasonably. The trio (with the addition of David Koepp in the writer's chair following the WGA strike) returns with Angels & Demons, and the results are, sadly, less thrilling than expected.
Once again, Europe and religion are involved: the story unfolds in Rome and the Vatican, with two brief detours in Geneva and Massachussetts. The story is the following: someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, aka Eric Bana's wife in Munich), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected. Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 p.m., after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican (yes, it's silly as hell, but who cares so far?). Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favors science over religion, are behind the whole thing, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.
Setting aside possible chronology issues (the book is a prequel, whereas the movie is a sequel, reflecting the fact that most people discovered Angels & Demons after reading The Da Vinci Code first), the film sticks to the previous entry's blueprint: running from one location to another, clues hidden in works of art, Langdon explaining things, potentially controversial revelations (although the novel's main twist has been removed). It should work, right? And yet Angels & Demons struggles when it comes to delivering thrills and excitement, even if the key set-pieces - one involving the Vatican archives, the other a helicopter - are admittedly spectacular. The main reason the film is less efficient as a thriller lies in the excess of exposition: too much is revealed too quickly, courtesy of some very long conversations between Langdon and, alternatively, Victoria, a Roman police officer (Pierfrancesco Favino) and two unhelpful Swiss guards (who are played, funnily enough, by Scandinavian actors).
The cast is another problem: Hanks is never boring (and he's cut his hair since last time, meaning he looks less laughable), and the support he gets from Favino, Stellan Skarsgard (whose part was extended compared to the book) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (always a good choice, no matter the film) is pretty solid, but Zurer is so bland she even makes Audrey Tautou's much derided final scene in The Da Vinci Code look good: not only is her chemistry with Hanks close to zero, she also has the ungrateful job of sounding convincing when she delivers lines in Italian (the character, of course, was born in Italy; the actress, on the other hand, is from Israel, and it shows). McGregor also has some difficulty conveying the apparent solemnity of his part, but at least they changed the Camerlengo from Italian to Irish to avoid accent problems. And, quite frankly, replacing Paul Bettany's Silas with a textbook hit-man doesn't help much either.
Any good bits, then? Well, the locations - all studio-built, given the Vatican's policy of never allowing any filming on its territory - are a superb piece of eye-candy, and amidst the clumsy exposition there are a few intriguing (but largely inaccurate, apparently) anecdotes regarding a bunch of famous people that should appeal to art aficionados. That's pretty much all Angels & Demons has to offer: it isn't exactly not entertaining (the aforementioned set-pieces and some witticisms coming from Hanks make sure real boredom never ensues), but the beautiful production design can't hide some pretty serious storytelling issues (since when does someone who analyzes ancient texts for a living need help with Latin inscriptions?). Then again, no one ever expected the film to change their views on the religion vs. science debate, right?
Once again, Europe and religion are involved: the story unfolds in Rome and the Vatican, with two brief detours in Geneva and Massachussetts. The story is the following: someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, aka Eric Bana's wife in Munich), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected. Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 p.m., after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican (yes, it's silly as hell, but who cares so far?). Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favors science over religion, are behind the whole thing, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.
Setting aside possible chronology issues (the book is a prequel, whereas the movie is a sequel, reflecting the fact that most people discovered Angels & Demons after reading The Da Vinci Code first), the film sticks to the previous entry's blueprint: running from one location to another, clues hidden in works of art, Langdon explaining things, potentially controversial revelations (although the novel's main twist has been removed). It should work, right? And yet Angels & Demons struggles when it comes to delivering thrills and excitement, even if the key set-pieces - one involving the Vatican archives, the other a helicopter - are admittedly spectacular. The main reason the film is less efficient as a thriller lies in the excess of exposition: too much is revealed too quickly, courtesy of some very long conversations between Langdon and, alternatively, Victoria, a Roman police officer (Pierfrancesco Favino) and two unhelpful Swiss guards (who are played, funnily enough, by Scandinavian actors).
The cast is another problem: Hanks is never boring (and he's cut his hair since last time, meaning he looks less laughable), and the support he gets from Favino, Stellan Skarsgard (whose part was extended compared to the book) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (always a good choice, no matter the film) is pretty solid, but Zurer is so bland she even makes Audrey Tautou's much derided final scene in The Da Vinci Code look good: not only is her chemistry with Hanks close to zero, she also has the ungrateful job of sounding convincing when she delivers lines in Italian (the character, of course, was born in Italy; the actress, on the other hand, is from Israel, and it shows). McGregor also has some difficulty conveying the apparent solemnity of his part, but at least they changed the Camerlengo from Italian to Irish to avoid accent problems. And, quite frankly, replacing Paul Bettany's Silas with a textbook hit-man doesn't help much either.
Any good bits, then? Well, the locations - all studio-built, given the Vatican's policy of never allowing any filming on its territory - are a superb piece of eye-candy, and amidst the clumsy exposition there are a few intriguing (but largely inaccurate, apparently) anecdotes regarding a bunch of famous people that should appeal to art aficionados. That's pretty much all Angels & Demons has to offer: it isn't exactly not entertaining (the aforementioned set-pieces and some witticisms coming from Hanks make sure real boredom never ensues), but the beautiful production design can't hide some pretty serious storytelling issues (since when does someone who analyzes ancient texts for a living need help with Latin inscriptions?). Then again, no one ever expected the film to change their views on the religion vs. science debate, right?