Movie Review: Angels & Demons (2009)

Angels & Demons (2009)

When it comes to Dan Brown, you either love or love to hate him. Yes it’s true that his work is far from literature, but it’s so damn enjoyable; he’s like the Bruckheimer of his medium, and we all know how lucrative guilty pleasures can be, especially with a good dose of controversy. Even if Brown can’t get a break, any ridiculous CNN fodder is good business. Therefore, it should surprise no one that anything attached to his work will breed controversy, slander, poor reviews, and general disgust, but it will also probably make a cathedral’s worth of money. Such is the atmosphere surrounding Angels & Demons (2009), a film that, stripped of this environment, is actually quite a good movie (but most people won’t admit it).

Of course none of us would be talking about Dan Brown if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code (2003), a true commercial juggernaut and cultural phenomenon. One could argue about the exact reasons for the novel’s success, but there’s no denying that its themes of lies and deception within religion and government struck a chord with the post-9/11 zeitgeist. The funny thing, however, is that The Da Vinci Code is actually Brown’s latest novel (not yet counting the upcoming The Lost Symbol (2009)), and its success revived interest in his earlier works, one of those being Angels & Demons (2000). Because both novels feature the same main character, Harvard symbologist Dr. Robert Langdon, Angels & Demons actually serves as a prequel to the DaVinic Code. Therefore, there was no real hullabaloo during the initial publishing of Angels & Demons, but that has all changed with the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Given the shear success of the novel, it’s no surprise that The Da Vinci Code (2006) was the first film to roll out. Helmed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks as Dr. Langdon, The Da Vinci Code proved to be an immense cash machine while being almost universally panned by critics, which is sort of controversial in its own way and only fueled the spectacle. It’s usually a rule of thumb that the sources material will be superior to the movie, but in the case of The Da Vinci Code, the general consensus was excretion on film. Now while I may be one of the few who casually enjoyed that film, it was riddled with flaws. But I will refrain from going into that now; the point is that Angels & Demons was going to drop into treacherous waters no matter what, as ridiculous as that is.

In my opinion, Angels & Demons is the better novel, and the same goes for the movie. Both Howard and Hanks return, and they certainly learned a lot from their last go around. Besides addressing Langdon’s hair style issue, the narrative has been streamlined, the dialogue has been trimmed, and the action has been fine-tuned. Even if the somber ambiance from its predecessor remains (which is really unavoidable when dealing with religion in religious locations), Angels & Demons is leaner and more exciting than The Da Vinci Code. As entertaining as the novel is, to translate it to film verbatim would mean more of a Nicholas Cage flick (and two National Treasure movies are enough thank you very much). Fortunately, all the right choices were made when trimming the real cheese, making the story as realistic as possible while staying true to Langdon’s hunt for the Catholic terrorizing Illuminati in Rome during the aftermath of the Pope’s death (but that’s all I should really say). While Hanks may have seemed like a dubious choice for Langdon before, he certainly proves his worth now, and Ayelet Zurer is perfect in the role of Vittoria Vetra. In addition, strong performances are given by Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgård, yet another improvent. If the movie’s critics had actually read the book and refrained from smoking crack, they would realize that this is a smart adaptation. Howard has forged a film that builds upon atmospheric suspense, utilizing the mammoth architecture as a menacing force, offering rich visual textures that both augment the story and enhance the experience when the action arrives. It’s a film not dissimilar to Chris Carter’s criminally underrated and misunderstood The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008), one where patience is rewarded.

Viewers need to remember that Howard is at the wheel, not Jon Turteltaub, and that this is a film crafted by pros and starring pros. To lump this film in with the usual action blockbuster fair is a mistake, and those who do will be disappointed, just like they were the last time. Of course it’s not a perfect film, but it certainly is one of the more original and interesting mainstream movies of the season, and it has already proven to grab the world’s attention and curiosity. The way I see it is that no matter what, Dan Brown makes money, so you might as well just stop kidding yourself, step off your righteous pedestal, and watch the movie, you just might enjoy it, especially if you’re still hurting from X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) or even still the last Indiana Jones “Dances with Aliens” movie; come on people, you know you’ve done worse!

3.5/5

S. McSmoke-Smoke