VitoCorleone1972 I must begin this review by stating that I have not read this novel. However, I suspect that it's source material is one of this film's greatest aids as the strongest aspect of it is definitely the story.The plot involves a plan to murder four Vatican cardinals and effectively destroy the Catholic Church. Robert Langdon follows a path of clues in an effort to save the cardinals and the Church. This story sets itself up for constant intensity as you know that there are always lives on the line. It also takes place in just about 12 hours with very urgent pacing, making the narrative even more of a ticking clock.In addition, I enjoy Langdon's knowledge and how he is able to piece together the clues and follow the path. It's interesting and you constantly want to know more.Besides the wonderful and involved story, the picture also boasts impressive performances from its cast. I have yet to discover a bad Tom Hanks performance, and here he brings a definite sense of knowledge and urgency. Meanwhile, Stellan Skarsgård and Ewan McGregor bring necessary depth to their characters as you find out that they are not what they appear to be.Hans Zimmer's score is loud and epic. It adds gravity and weight to some of the film's most important moments and lightens up for the rare quiet moments.Ron Howard directs the piece with a very large scope and tries his hardest to make the story seem large and important. Given how intense most of the film is, this is a wise decision that really helps the audience understand how vital everything is. It's a double-edged sword, however, as Howard's direction is also the biggest flaw of the movie. It doesn't occur often, but there are some scenes which should be quieter and more reserved, but which come off as overly bombastic due to his frenetic direction. This only happens in perhaps two scenes, though.All in all, I greatly enjoy this film. I find it interesting and intense throughout, and the involved plotline is always moving. As a work of entertainment, I definitely recommend it.

kaianmattmckay And I say that with disbelief fully suspended.This is what happens when you try to convert a reasonable page-turner into something without pages: over two hours' worth of escape room antics, laced with conspiracy theory, characters that are as unlikely as they are uninteresting, and dodgy science, the whole of it cobbled together in Europe and surrounded with plenty of non-English dialogue, to lend it an air of what some audiences presumably think passes for old world culture and sophistication.There's a reason why Dan Brown's stuff is often classified as "airport fiction": you pick it up somewhere before departure, flick through it while waiting and in-flight, finish off around arrivals, and then throw it in the trash. This film is a pleasantly faithful adaptation of that concept.Tom Hanks plays a shouty American academic-turned-sleuth (basically a flabbier Indiana Jones with more belly and less khaki), his cardboard cut-out, vaguely Southern European sidekick trails in his wake, echoing his leaps of intuition (when she isn't staring at some undisclosed point off-screen), mostly woodenly but sometimes in a foreign language, because that's more authentic than a shouty American, and the rest of the reasonably good cast spend most of the time gurning.The only halfway interesting performance is from Nikolaj Lie Kaas, which is why I'm giving this 3 stars, instead of the minimum of 1 star necessary to be able to leave a review.

TheLittleSongbird While it was a long way from perfect, or even great, 'The Da Vinci Code' was better than expected, considering its less than great reputation.Despite being a box office success, 'Angels and Demons' received mixed to negative reviews, and it's not hard to see why. As an adaptation of the book, which also had some imperfections but was an engrossing and intriguing read, 'Angels and Demons' is extremely poor, with much being cut out or dumbed down, giving the film an over-simplified and over-complicated feel. On its own terms, it's just as problematic and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, inferior to 'The Da Vinci Code', sharing some of the same flaws but amplified while making more on the way.'Angels and Demons' to its credit is a great-looking film, being beautifully shot with breath-taking locations that could have been utilised more. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting and accentuates the thriller mood of the film. Tom Hanks gives his role an easy-going charm, while Ewan McGregor has an earnestness while also trying very hard to give his character plausibility (though the character has too much of the opposite for him to properly succeed).Stellan Skarsgård is similarly strong, as are Victor Alferi and a chilling Nikolaj Lie Kaas.On the other hand, Ayelet Zurer is a charmless and bland substitute for Audrey Tautou, with little to do and giving her worthless dialogue far too much weight. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl's very over-acted villain and Pierfrancesco Favino who spends the whole of his screen time looking hopelessly lost.The cast are not helped by their (interesting) characters being reduced to mostly simplistic caricatures, and even those not quite as badly affected are underdeveloped. Nor with a truly corny and clunky script, muddled direction by Ron Howard and a story that feels convoluted, to the point of incomprehensibility in places, and childish with plot twists too obvious.People have said that 'Angels and Demons' had brisker pacing than 'The Da Vinci Code'. Personally, it was partly yes (it is in a way) but largely no. To me the pacing was all over the place, with so many convolutions and parts that feel jumpy it did feel rushed, while the middle act especially lacked urgency and instead dragged like mad.Overall, not without dishonour, and with enough to prevent it from being completely demonic, but very lacklustre and disappointing, with it also falling far short of being angelic. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Kirpianuscus adaptation of one of his novels.nothing new. answer to success of a bestseller series. but... . the charm of style is lost. the story is real confuse. the joy to discover a decent film remains unrealistic. because it has the gift to be a collections of runs, mysteries, theories without any support. a film who has not the advantage of cast because Tom Hanks is far to be part of his character and Ewan McGregor seems do a work without purpose. sure, Vatican. sure, the clash between police and science. but all at the most unrealistic level. without the desire to give a story to the public. only few action moments. but each could be better in another genre product.