Films

8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Film of the week

Angels & Demons (12A)

(Rated 1/ 5 )

Reviewed by Anthony Quinn

It's been three years since The Da Vinci Code, perhaps long enough for the filmmakers to get away with what is virtually a remake of it. Dan Brown, the man responsible for the bestsellers on which they are based, has limited the action here to a single city, on a single night, but it doesn't help in limiting the verbosity or in streamlining the plot: Angels and Demons proves every bit as swollen and portentous as The Da Vinci Code.

It's been three years since The Da Vinci Code, perhaps long enough for the filmmakers to get away with what is virtually a remake of it. Dan Brown, the man responsible for the bestsellers on which they are based, has limited the action here to a single city, on a single night, but it doesn't help in limiting the verbosity or in streamlining the plot: Angels and Demons proves every bit as swollen and portentous as The Da Vinci Code.

There is a scene about halfway through this sequel to The Da Vinci Code when the scholar-hero, played by Tom Hanks, is locked inside a glass-walled library vault whose oxygen supply has just been treacherously cut off. We are meant to be horrified as he staggers along the precious book-lined corridors, surrounded on all sides by arcane knowledge, yet unable to draw breath into his lungs. There could be no more perfect metaphor for this movie, a see-through construct packed to the rafters with complex information but peopled by characters denied the simple oxygen of credibility. How can we possibly care about a man being starved of air when he has nothing of real life about him in the first place?

It's been three years since The Da Vinci Code, perhaps long enough for the filmmakers to get away with what is virtually a remake of it. Dan Brown, the man responsible for the bestsellers on which they are based, has limited the action here to a single city, on a single night, but it doesn't help in limiting the verbosity or in streamlining the plot: Angels and Demons proves every bit as swollen and portentous as The Da Vinci Code. It is, however, nine minutes shorter than that film, so there's something to be grateful for. Robert Langdon (Hanks), the Harvard symbologist "who cracked history's most controversial code", has come to Rome at the invitation of the Vatican. The Church is already reeling from the death of a "progressive and beloved Pope" – a reminder that we are in a fantasy – and now it seems that the four top Cardinals in the running to succeed him have been kidnapped. Each one will be executed, an hour apart. Aaagh! It's apparently the work of a nutso breakway sect named Opus Dei – sorry, the Illuminati – who are very antsy about the Catholic faith's embrace of science and enlightenment. This doesn't mean the use of condoms, alas, but something called "the God particle". This is the super-secret anti-matter that's been hijacked from a Swiss laboratory and is now primed to explode over Rome at the stroke of midnight.

So Langdon, using his vast erudition, must delve into the arcana of Catholic doctrine and iconography to help the Vatican police avert disaster. This mostly involves a lot of dashing via car to various churches around the capital, just in time to find a poor old cleric expiring from some horrible ritualistic death. I haven't read Brown's source novel, but from the sound of it he's cut-and-pasted his entire Rome guidebook for this. In the course of Langdon's manhunt the script (by Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp) keeps scattering gobbets of historical detail, like one of those paddle-wielding tour guides who lead flocks of uncomprehending tourists around the sights. The Pantheon is the oldest Catholic church in Rome. Papal autopsy is forbidden by Vatican law. Bernini designed St Peter's Square. Peter, the first Pope, was crucified upside down. Well, thanks for the information, but it doesn't raise the excitement level of this film one iota. In fact, it actually slows the whole thing down, obliging characters to append little spoken footnotes every time they mention something else we haven't heard of. It's a murky, dispiriting festival of pedantry, a way for Dan Brown to gussy up his non-thrilling thrillers and persuade his readers that they're getting something, like, really deep. But research only becomes interesting when it's been integrated into the story, and sometimes not even then. It doesn't make the story interesting per se.

That last bit is Latin, by the way, a language this film uses to kid us we're into something very posh and abstruse. Langdon is aided on this score by Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer), a foxy scientist and Latinist who thinks nothing of ripping pages out of a priceless church manuscript if it might contain a clue. Not that Langdon shows himself lacking in the European tongues. "How you say – form-i-da-bile?" says a police chief. "Formidable", replies our hero, exhibiting that famous erudition. Zurer, by the way, makes a more agreeable companion to Hanks than pouty Audrey Tautou did in the first movie, though she has to take her chances against an all-male cast of exceptional dreariness. Stellan Skarsgård and Armin Mueller-Stahl provide the requisite hints of sinister duplicity, while Ewan McGregor has been recruited, in a casting decision of hilarious ineptitude, to play the late Pope's Irish-born confidant and spokesman. It's yet another in McGregor's roster of fakes, just behind his plummy-voiced Obi-Wan in Star Wars and his pathetic cockney crim in the Woody Allen film Cassandra's Dream.

Ron Howard, who directs, calls Dan Brown's book "incredibly original, thought-provoking and, on a cinematic level, irresistible". This sheds a dismaying light not only on his reading habits but on his ideas about cinema. What exactly is irresistible about Tom Hanks furrowing his brow, hurrying down gloomy passageways and spouting Vatican history? The pomposity of Angels and Demons is astonishing, or would be if we didn't already have lavish evidence of the same from The Da Vinci Code. You can even hear it in the thundering percussive score by Hans Zimmer, overlaid with the kind of swooping choral voices that seem to announce apocalypse. It makes a commotion, it dabbles in mystery, but nobody should trouble to wonder whether it actually means anything – not even Ron Howard.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Angels & Demons
[info]obidoug wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 02:02 pm (UTC)
A hugely enjoyable romp which seems more like 45 mins than 2+ hours. Don't expect too much and take no notice of the critics
Are you serious, critic?
[info]whollynormal wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 05:22 pm (UTC)
Far more pompous than Langdon's "vast erudition" is this critic's review. Mr. Quinn misses the point of this movie: entertainment. Having not even read the book, Mr. Quinn seems to believe this book/movie was meant to be a learned treatise. Far from that, this book/movie is a mixture of truth and fiction--no more reliable than Wikipedia and meant merely to entertain. In writing such a scathing review of this movie, Mr. Quinn's employment at The Independent is obvious. This movie is no "Gone with the Wind" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" -- movies, it seems, Mr. Quinn would dub aptly artistic. However, no one claims this movie is a classic. It's a 2-hour escape from real life where people can be caught up in someone else's problems for a moment. Step off your high horse, Mr. Quinn.
Re: Are you serious, critic?
[info]internet_09 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 09:12 pm (UTC)
Agreed. Quinn, I suggest you open up a little bit, (maybe read the book while you're at it) and just accept that this movie was good, not great or amazing, but good. No need to bash a good story. And if you are going to say it was a bad movie, at least be a man about it and don't whine about it.

By the by, she rips the page to symbolize the gap between science and religion. Ms. "Foxy Scientist" representing science, has little care for catholic documents; as her primary goal is to obtain her "god particle".

And I guess movies that have a time span of one night must suck, according to Mr. Quinn.
"One final note to point out, I'd like to point out your second paragraph:
Angels and Demons proves every bit as swollen and portentous as The Da Vinci Code. It is, however, nine minutes shorter than that film, so there's something to be grateful for."

I had to stop there because I didn't want readers to choke on that grenade of sentences a second time. Maybe when you write a review for something next time, follow through with the topic of your paragraphs instead of jumping from one thing to another.

So next time you write a review (I'm not saying don't write bad reviews, I believe they are vital to the world) don't whine about it, but actually step back and critique it.

PEACE OUT BRO!

P.S.
The books rule, and Dan Brown is an interesting fellow.
Re: Are you serious, critic?
[info]ramjet44 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 10:21 pm (UTC)
The whole movie is just plain junk.I can't believe the Vatican gave permission for this!
Note to Mr. Anthony Quinn, reviewer
[info]linwin1 wrote:
Friday, 22 May 2009 at 10:08 pm (UTC)
This is..a movie. (look that up in your Funk & Wagnal)
to Mr. Quinn, reviewer
[info]linwin1 wrote:
Friday, 22 May 2009 at 10:14 pm (UTC)
This is..a *movie. (look that up in your Funk and Wagnall)
How predictable Mr Quinn. Did you actually watch the film?
[info]jharmar1999 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
Surprise surprise, Quinn gives Angels and Demons 1 star. This doesn't bother me as I've long stopped taking any notice of his reviews. Yes Mr Quinn, you've made yourself out to be different from the other reviewers, now please go and sit in the corner and let the grown ups talk.

I think one thing Mr Quinn fails to realise is that sometime people go to the cinema to watch a film for fun. Sorry I used the F-word there but it's true, maybe unbelievably to you, Mr Quinn. Quinn is obviously one of those people who totally miss the point of Dan Brown's work. Are you meant to take it seriously. No. Is it meant to rank as a literary masterpiece, and sit alongside the works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Dickens. Again, no. Is it meant to be read for fun (there's that F-word again, sorry). Well, yes in fact.

"That last bit is Latin, by the way, a language this film uses to kid us we're into something very posh and abstruse". I was thinking the same about your reviews, Mr Quinn, except I would replace the word 'film' with the word 'review', and substitute the word 'Latin' with any number of words, most of which I won't type here for fear of being deemed offensive, but I'll say excrement for now to start the ball rolling. "The pomposity of Angels and Demons is astonishing, or would be if we didn't already have lavish evidence of the same from The Da Vinci Code". Again, a perfect description of your reviews, if you change the necessary words.

As for your criticism of the film for "... scattering gobbets of historical detail, like one of those paddle-wielding tour guides who lead flocks of uncomprehending tourists around the sights". Well, believe it or not Mr Quinn, many people are not expert on the Catholic church, the Papacy, the Vatican, the Illuminati etc. The information was extremely helpful to the flow of the film, and was not delivered in anything like the fashion you describe in the review.

The self-parody of a reviewer that Mr Quinn is sums up how the Independent itself is progressing. You don't have to be different for the sake of it. It's OK to have the same opinions as others. I have read the Independent for about 10 years now, but I'm now getting tired of it's self-righteousness. Anybody have any suggestions on other papers I can read?

It seems to me that Quinn had pretty much made his mind up about the film before he had watched it. Parts of his review are actually factually wrong, and he even admits to not even reading the book, but then makes assumptions about it. He also criticises Ron Howards summary of said book, again without having read it himself. I wonder if he actually watched the film itself.

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date