Angels & Demons
Im always hesitant to say that I liked a sequel more than its predecessor, but that might possibly be the case here. Although to some extent Im a little hesitant to say I very much enjoyed this movie. With Da Vinci code, I really liked it the first time around, before reading the book, because I just got so wrapped up in the story. Then I read the book, saw how much the movie fell short, and didnt think so well of the film anymore. But rewatching the film last week after forgetting most of the details of the book brought my attitude toward it to a mid point between my thoughts toward it the first time and the previous time.
I guess now would be the opportune moment to point out that I have not read Angels & Demons, or more accurately, at this point in time I have only read the first 30 pages of it. (Yes, I stopped by Borders on my lunch break.) Ive got a strong feeling that I'll have a similar change of opinion about this one after reading the book. Might be interesting to see it again in 2-3 weeks and do another write up, but I doubt it'll be worth the $10 movie ticket or the 30-45 writing.
We'll continue with the inevitable comparison of Angels & Demons to The Da Vinci Code. What really got me intrigued (with both stories) is the puzzles in the adventure. In both cases, the fun aspect in the mystery is completely absorbing since Im able to totally buy it because I know so little about the subject. I found the puzzles to be a lot more fluid this time around, and even more believable since it seemed less forced. The other improvement (although is it really an improvement since technicall A&D came first) was that the religious argument in play was a bit more open ended and wasn't as potentially offensive or upsetting. Although it could just be that as someone who has grown up in church and studied LOTS of science over the years, balancing the two hasnt ever really been an issue for me. Also, it should be noted that if you're not at all familiar with DVC, you'll still be able to follow A&D. Except for a few mentions of Langdon's "history with church secrets" there really aren't any references to it.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, more on the film itself. Its biggest flaw was that the movie was over two hours long. (IMDB tells me 2:18). While it didnt particularly feel lengthy (in that I wasn't checking my watch every 5-10) I do think that it could have been tightened up a bit. They could have quickened some of the pace, cut a few things here and there, and not drawn out some scenes too much. It also felt like the ending kept dragging on. I'd think we were done, and then someone else would happen, and I'd think we were done, and something else would happen. I wont get into specifics, but it probably could have been a bit cleaner to avoid the LOTR 21 endings feel.
Cast-wise, nothing too remarkable about Tom Hanks. Definitely not gonna be a classic Oscar worthy role for him, but he fit the character comfortably and seemed to be enjoying himself. I did like Ayelet Zurer and would like to see more of her in the future, but her character did seem kinda useless at times. It was like they figured "Oh crap, we dont have any chicks in this movie" and then added her in as a shadow for Langdon. During the movie, while thinking of things I was gonna say, I was about ready to report that Ewan McGregor was a bit too understated, and while he did his job well, it seemed like a waste of an actor of his caliber and star power. But then the last 30 or so min of the film made me want to retract that statement I'd never actually made (although I sorta did now) and say that he was fantastic and by far my favorite character in the whole thing.
So, um, yeah I did like it but Im guessing that Dan Brown deserves more of the credit for that than Ron Howard does. But I am anxious to continue reading the book. It gave me even more reason to be staring at the clock all afternoon today, with occasional glances at the book on the edge of my desk.
I guess now would be the opportune moment to point out that I have not read Angels & Demons, or more accurately, at this point in time I have only read the first 30 pages of it. (Yes, I stopped by Borders on my lunch break.) Ive got a strong feeling that I'll have a similar change of opinion about this one after reading the book. Might be interesting to see it again in 2-3 weeks and do another write up, but I doubt it'll be worth the $10 movie ticket or the 30-45 writing.
We'll continue with the inevitable comparison of Angels & Demons to The Da Vinci Code. What really got me intrigued (with both stories) is the puzzles in the adventure. In both cases, the fun aspect in the mystery is completely absorbing since Im able to totally buy it because I know so little about the subject. I found the puzzles to be a lot more fluid this time around, and even more believable since it seemed less forced. The other improvement (although is it really an improvement since technicall A&D came first) was that the religious argument in play was a bit more open ended and wasn't as potentially offensive or upsetting. Although it could just be that as someone who has grown up in church and studied LOTS of science over the years, balancing the two hasnt ever really been an issue for me. Also, it should be noted that if you're not at all familiar with DVC, you'll still be able to follow A&D. Except for a few mentions of Langdon's "history with church secrets" there really aren't any references to it.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, more on the film itself. Its biggest flaw was that the movie was over two hours long. (IMDB tells me 2:18). While it didnt particularly feel lengthy (in that I wasn't checking my watch every 5-10) I do think that it could have been tightened up a bit. They could have quickened some of the pace, cut a few things here and there, and not drawn out some scenes too much. It also felt like the ending kept dragging on. I'd think we were done, and then someone else would happen, and I'd think we were done, and something else would happen. I wont get into specifics, but it probably could have been a bit cleaner to avoid the LOTR 21 endings feel.
Cast-wise, nothing too remarkable about Tom Hanks. Definitely not gonna be a classic Oscar worthy role for him, but he fit the character comfortably and seemed to be enjoying himself. I did like Ayelet Zurer and would like to see more of her in the future, but her character did seem kinda useless at times. It was like they figured "Oh crap, we dont have any chicks in this movie" and then added her in as a shadow for Langdon. During the movie, while thinking of things I was gonna say, I was about ready to report that Ewan McGregor was a bit too understated, and while he did his job well, it seemed like a waste of an actor of his caliber and star power. But then the last 30 or so min of the film made me want to retract that statement I'd never actually made (although I sorta did now) and say that he was fantastic and by far my favorite character in the whole thing.
So, um, yeah I did like it but Im guessing that Dan Brown deserves more of the credit for that than Ron Howard does. But I am anxious to continue reading the book. It gave me even more reason to be staring at the clock all afternoon today, with occasional glances at the book on the edge of my desk.