Ewan McGregor in Columbia Pictures suspense thriller ANGELS &DEMONS starring Tom Hanks. Image courtesy of SONY pIctures
Angels and Demons has tarted up the thriller. As a director, Ron Howard, often works within well-established genres. In an attempt to validate Angels and Demons as a serious adult film, Howard has dressed up his characters in suits and given them bogus Harvard degrees; however, no amount of playing dress-up will help elevate this film within its genre. Angels and Demons is disguised under layers of platitudes and production details as something thoughtful and intelligent. It is neither.
Delivering about as much campy fun as a summer blockbuster like The Mummy, Angels and Demons does entertain, but the film cannot be taken remotely seriously. People who enjoyed the film’s predecessor, The Da Vinci Code, will no doubt be satisfied by the sequel, but the film lacks the qualities that would make it into a classic film. Both movies move with a certain amount of manic intensity that keeps the attention of the audience as Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) moves from one clue to the next, but the substance is lacking.
The Da Vinci Code is a slightly better film than Angels and Demons, because it contained a stellar cast, capable of earnestly relaying the movie’s ridiculous dialogue. Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, and Audrey Tautou do not make appearances in this sequel, and the movie is worse for their absence.
Following in the footsteps of the James Bond and Indiana Jones films, both of the Dan Brown films are essentially self-contained. Each of the films is plot driven, so there is very little back-story on Langdon mentioned. Even though Columbia Pictures specifies that Angels and Demons is a sequel, it is as if The Da Vinci Code didn’t even exist. Neither film is needed to better understand the other. The stories are completely unconnected. In novel form the events in Angels and Demons actually preceded the events in The Da Vinci Code; however, The Da Vinci Code was made into a movie first, no doubt because it was financially more successful. The chronological reversal of the events has no actual impact on the movies, except that Langdon’s personal life is essentially nonsexist.
Robert Langdon is a vessel that is defined by circumstance. He never grows beyond his defined function within the plot, which is simply to solve problems. This is essentially my biggest issue with these two films. Who is Robert Langdon? I don’t think that I’m any closer to answering that question now, than I was when I entered the theatre. Tom Hanks is a great actor who is virtually wasted in Angels and Demons. I don’t know of any actor who can make something out of nothing, and I don’t think he had much to work with here.
One of Ron Howard’s best films, Cinderella Man, succeeded where neither of his Robert Langdon centered thrillers has. The film was a formulaic boxing movie, but it presented its material with respect and a high level of craftsmanship. With Angels and Demons Howard seemes to have confused the rush that audiences want to feel while watching a thriller with rushed filmmaking. Ron Howard is a much better director than Angels and Demons would have you believe. He can make very good films. On September 15, 2009 Dan Brown will release The Lost Symbol, his third novel featuring Robert Langdon. I hope that Ron Howard will opt out of directing this next Robert Langdon film, and get back to using his abilities to make better films.
Email this article
Printer friendly page
