Chaminade Julienne vs. Monroe
Special kids get chance to play
Benefit held for crash victim
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > May > 15 > Entry
‘Angels & Demons’ wrestles for a critic’s soul
Calling Angels & Demons a better movie than The Da Vinci Code is like saying a paper cut is better than a severed limb. Duh.
If Angels & Demons hadn’t been a better movie than The Da Vinci Code, I don’t know that I’d have the strength to type this. I thought that was a sloppy, leaden, misshapen blob masquerading as a feature film. It was one of the worst movies either Tom Hanks or director Ron Howard had ever touched.
The real question should be: Is Angels & Demons, at the very least, passably entertaining? I had a hard time deciding even that. Then, a curious thing happened.
As I left the theater, an angel who looked like a miniature version of me with a halo appeared on my right shoulder, to the sound of the heavenly choir of “The Long and Winding Road” by the Beatles. He said, in his sonorous voice:
“You have to admit, Eric, the film was solidly entertaining this time. The Da Vinci Code took its time, but this film moves much faster because the plot requires it. Since Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) has to find an explosive device before it blows up St. Peter’s Square at midnight, the movie has a beat-the-clock story that quickened your pulse. Much more exciting.”
Then, on my left shoulder, a devil appeared in a puff of smoke to the sounds of the Beatles’ “Helter Skelter.” He looked like me too, but with a pitchfork, horns and a tail. Kind of frightening.
“Don’t listen to that pushover!” he rasped. “This movie is the same pseudo-religious claptrap the first one was. It has all this eye-glazing, expositional word salad. It may play great on the page but is lousy in a movie. Go here, go there, find this, find that, yak, yak, yak, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada yada. You’ve said it many times yourself. The movies are visual - show, don’t tell.”
The angel protested, “He is being far too churlish, Eric, as always. Yes, some of it is wordy, but that’s inevitable. It’s the way Dan Brown writes. Howard makes up for it by making the action scenes genuinely exciting, particularly one in which Langdon and a guard are trapped in a room and running out of oxygen. As recently as Frost/Nixon, you said Ron Howard deserves more credit than he gets as a director. There’s even a funny running gag about Langdon continually trashing Vatican treasures. I heard you laughing, Eric, admit it.”
“That was ME laughing, you idiot, at how dopey it all was!” the devil shot back. “Look, there may be some good action scenes here, but what about a compelling story and characters you care about? I didn’t find much of either here. A movie lives or dies by its script, and Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp just about kill it. What about that jerk-you-around climax? One of those stupid, ‘No he did it/no HE did it’ endings? Please! It’s like M. Night Shyamalan ghost-wrote the movie on a bad day. Fah! “
Even the angel was struggling to answer that point. Finally, in desperation, he stammered “What about Hanks? At least he got rid of that silly haircut!”
I rolled my eyes. “That’s the best you can do?” I said. “Spare me. The movie does have some solid thrills, but I still didn’t care about anybody or anything. Angels & Demons is not that bad, but it’s still a misfire. Sorry.” And at that, the mini-mes vanished off my shoulders.
So much for the better angels of my nature.
GRADE: C+
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Allie D.
May 15, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this
hahaha! VERY creative review concept! I like it! The movies seem to suffer from the same problems as the books. The characters are no less one-dimensional there either. Sigh. I really hope Ron Howard will just leave this franchise alone after this.By Vistavision
May 15, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this
I am disturbed that your personal angels and demons are all stuck in the ’60s, musically.By Daniel
May 15, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this
You have issues Eric, but given that you’re a writer, I suppose that’s expected. I’ll probably never read the books (they don’t seem like my kind of books), but I’ll probably see the movie.. on DVD.