May 20, 2009 07:02 AM
2347 Views
(Updated May 20, 2009 07:06 AM)
After being disappointed by "The DaVinci Code" (DVC) movie, I was keen to see the treatment that Angels and Demons (A&D) would get. The screenplay gets much better treatment than DVC but in my opinion it is still not up there. In A&D, the screenplay in addition to the modified start and end keeps Tom Hanks (Prof Langdon) away from a lot of the action he is involved in the novel.
I guess this time around there was realization from Ron Howard & team that Tom Hanks cannot pull off the action hero role that may have been better suited for a younger Harrison Ford or even Sean Connery. While DVC appeared a lot jerky and hard to follow for those that did not read the novel (in order to capture all the sub plots and make it closer to the novel), A&D has a good flow - the plot can be followed as easily as a single line of falling dominos. Tom Hanks is just ok as Langdon –
I did not expect him to do any better. Ayelet Zurer as Dr. Vittoria is ok. The reel life Vittoria did not live up to my image of the Vittoria from the novel. Ewan McGregor (as Camerlengo) has probably done more justice to his role than anyone else. Kudos to the team that designed the sets - most of the movie is shot in Hollywood and not Rome!!! It does look like it has been shot on locale entirely. Only a few shots (such as the one where the new pope on the balcony waving to the crowd) which involves mixing of the real life footage with those from the movie cameras give the concept away.
Wonder if the CERN collider depicted is the real stuff - got a kick out of it. Another important change that Ron Howard introduced was he has treated A&D as a sequel rather than a prequel maybe to try and convince the viewers that Prof Langdon is more capable and confident this time around?? Could'nt he have introduced someone else as Langdon instead?? First time around was a mistake - this is a blunder.
The movie is not particularly good but without the slightly better treatment it gets compared to DVC, it would have been worse. The movie makes no claims nor corroborates any controversies- some of the key dialogues are retained verbatim including the one which states something to the effect that science and religion must coexist. Maybe that is why there was no hoopla from any group over this movie. If you are like me, trying to compare the novel with the movie or if you have not read the novel and would like to know what this is all about, go see the movie - others can safely pass.
Info from Wiki: Directed by Ron Howard; written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman, based on the novel by Dan Brown; director of photography, Salvatore Totino; edited by Dan Hanley and Mike Hill; music by Hans Zimmer; production designer, Allan Cameron; produced by Brian Grazer, Mr. Howard and John Calley; released by Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 20 minutes.
WITH: Tom Hanks (Prof. Robert Langdon), Ewan McGregor (Camerlengo Patrick McKenna), Ayelet Zurer (Dr. Vittoria Vetra), Stellan Skarsgard (Commander Richter), Pierfrancesco Favino (Inspector Ernesto Olivetti), Nikolaj Lie Kaas (Assassin/Mr. Gray) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (Cardinal Strauss).
