Angels and Demons

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:26am

Saw the movie tonight and while I thought it was better than THE DA VINCI CODE, it was no where as good as the book. Within the first 15 minutes, I realized that they completely changed the beginning from that of the novel, which did not have the same impact as in the book. The main "grump" I had with the movie is that there is NO character development. It's just murder, run, murder, run, oh look a van, murder, run. They also revised or completely omitted key characters and situations from the book which would have made the characters more 3 dimensional instead of card board cut outs that talk and move.

Also, it got a little "eye roll" worthy when the clue just POPS out at Langdon out of no where. It's like when House sees a candy bar and makes a sexual joke and that some hows gives him the idea that some rare disease can be cured with prednisone.

If you liked the movie THE DA VINCI code, I say go see it. Ewan McGregor was, hands down, the best part of the movie.

Updated On: 5/16/09 at 12:26 AM

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:45am

I saw it today, and I really really liked it. I hadn't read the book, so I didn't know anything about it prior to seeing the movie. Really liked Ewan McGregor, he was one of the strongest links of the movie. I actually liked Tom Hanks a whole lot more in this one than Da Vinci Code, and thank God they got rid of the mullet.

I really enjoyed the movie, and the cinematography was beautiful. I'd gladly go see it again, but I've always enjoyed movies that heavily deal with history like Indiana Jones and National Treasure.

[Weez]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 6:54am

I love Dan Brown. I laughed at The Da Vinci Code from beginning to end! I'm almost tempted to go see this one at the cinema, except that'd cost more money than I can really afford. I did have a good giggle at the trailer though.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 7:10am

yeah, i saw it yesterday too. and I had just started rereading the book and got so pissed when I saw they had completely changed the beginning and left out a huge main character. total crap. and they left out what I believe to be a very important detail about Ewan McGregor's character (his relationship with the pope.) And Vittoria is barely needed at all in the movie.

but it was really beautiful to look at and so much better than the Da Vinci Code.

and so happy Tom Hanks did not have his mullet. But he's still in the movie so, eh.

read the book then see it. book is so much better. and funnier I think. :)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 9:55am

I saw it last night. I remember being more compelled by the story when I read the book, but I don't think that was because I knew the plot before the seeing the movie -- I barely remembered anything past the basic outline, and purposefully didn't remind myself of any spoilers before I saw the movie. So, I recognized that there were things missing, and that there had been more to the story in the book, but I couldn't remember what those things were without looking them up. But it did make me want to re-read the book, because even if I was a little bit let down by the movie, it made me remember how much I did enjoy the book. I still liked it. I thought it was exhausting to watch, but in a good way.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 10:45am

I say watch the movie first and THEN read the book.

It was a beautifully shot movie, I will definitely give them that. And thank GOD the mullet was gone.

My main thing was that there was no character development. I felt NOTHING for any of the characters, minus Ewan McGregor.

It was a good movie, but I was just really disappointed that they didn't stick with what made the book so good.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 11:30am

I liked the book better than the DiVinci Code. Haven't seen either movie.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 11:36am

I thought the film greatly improved on the book. Dan Brown is really kind of a bad writer, as one of the actors in the film pointed out in an interview (Stellan Starsgaard, I think). The book is nothing more than a series of short chapters with cliff-hangers after every one, much the way James Patterson writes. The film was beautifully shot, and eliminated a lot of the nonsense from the book.

Yes, there wasn't any real character development, but I don't think this is the kind of film you go into expecting to emotionally connect to these characters.

[romantico]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:35pm

I enjoyed the film, but liked Davinci Code more I think. I agree Ewan was the stand out actor in this one like Ian McKellen was in the first one.What I found remarkable was not one frame was shot in the Vatican and I had heard the Vatican made sure none of the churches were to allow the film to be shot in them as well.So, most of the interiors were either CGI/matte paintings or sets created to replicate the churches.I was very impressed with some of the interior and set shots.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:50pm

What I think is interesting is that they say it's a sequel to the Da Vinci Code, but they make no reference to it at all, so why couldn't they have made it a prequel like the book is? What, did they not think that Langdon would grow a mullet between A&D and Da Vinci?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 1:07pm

Dre - They do make a couple of references. They said things like, "Since your last run in with the Church" or stuff like that.

[romantico]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 1:55pm

Sort of like the last person they would ever turn to they now have to turn to.I think in this film they wanted Langdon to have a tense history with the Catholic church which would add some irony that it is they who need his help in this matter. Also explains why they gave him what he needed to complete his second volume to his book.

Kind of like Michael Savage asking Hillary Clinton for help to get his name off the list of people banned from entering the UK.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 4:16pm

Wait, if Angels and Demons (the book) was actually the prequel to The Da Vinci Code, then wouldn't the previous "run-in" be something else that has nothing to do with The Da Vinci Code? I remember a similar reference in the book to something else that had happened, and then being annoyed that they referenced it in the movie, but didn't bother to mention WHAT it was. I could be crazy, but I remember that reference being in the book -- and if it was, it can't have anything to do with The Da Vinci Code.

Updated On: 5/16/09 at 04:16 PM

[justagirl2]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 4:44pm

Seems like there are a lot of mixed reviews. I'm seeing this tonight...also liked the book better than The Da Vinci Code, but haven't read it in a few years so I doubt I'll catch anything that's missing (which might be for the best). I think I'll take spider's advice and reread it after I see the film.

Most importantly...is the music as awesome as it is in The Da Vinci Code?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 5:55pm

the score is AMAZING, JAG.

Emcee - The book doesn't have anything between the Church and Robert. They found him through his research on the Illuminati. In the movie, they find him because of his research and his past with them. That's one of the reasons why they said they kept him out of their archive because of what happened in THE DA VINCI CODE. Very subtle references but Ron Howard said the movie is being seen as the sequel...not prequel

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 7:36pm

The novel of Angels and Demons was actually written before The Da Vinci Code. It never became a hit, or all that popular, until The Da Vinci Code was published, amidst all the controversy.

The film, however, has switched the chronology, and the events in Angels and Demons (the film) actually occur after the ones in The Da Vinci Code.

[James885]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 1:09pm

I saw it the other night. I will agree that it's much better than the film version of The Da Vinci Code. However, the book is still miles better than the movie.


(WARNING! NOVEL AND MOVIE SPOILERS!!)

While most of the omissions and changes from the movie didn't bother me, a few did:

- the fact that they cut out the director of CERN. He sort of embodies the whole science vs. religion thing, which was one of central themes of the book. The director also plays a major part towards the end of the novel in exposing the camerlengo.

- the movie significantly weakened the character of Vittoria Vetra. In the novel it was her father who had been her partner in creating the antimatter and he was the one who was murdered at CERN by the assassin. It gave Vittoria a personal reason to track down whoever stole the canister. By changing this in the movie, they basically reduced her to being Langdon's sidekick, instead of one of the central characters of the story.

- Ewan McGregor stood head and shoulders above everyone else in the film, and this is one of the reasons why I wish they would have included the scene in St. Peter's Square where the camerlengo has his 'revelation' as well as the scene at the end where he tries to justify and explain his actions to the cardinals. I'm sure Ewan would have been spectacular in those scenes. I also hated how the movie didn't fully explain the camerlengo's relationship to the Pope.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/18/09 at 7:32pm

Tom Hanks in a Speedo is something I never needed to see.

The book was better than Da Vinci Code, so the movie was better as well. I haven't read it in a few years, so I forgot some of the details- I did remember her father was her partner and that Robert was at CERN where he learned about the parachutes, but he ended up not needing that information anyway.

The cinematography was gorgeous. It made me want to leave for Rome immediately. Definitely an improvement over Da Vinci Code and the weird blue hallucinations.

Updated On: 5/18/09 at 07:32 PM

[Dre2387]

Posted: 5/19/09 at 2:18pm

SPOILERS!!!

James885, I completely agree. They left out so much! The director of CERN, Vittoria's personal connection to antimatter (which gives her better character development. there is none of that.

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/19/09 at 4:29pm

I saw this movie yesterday. It is better than the DA VINCI movie and in some ways better than the book, but the puzzle aspects drive the plot. The characters are not people, they are like the little pieces that move around a game board. But Ewan McGregor is so fine to look at and is so engaging in this film that he really single handedly keeps it going. My reaction to the music in this movie was that at times the music was being asked to create a mood of suspense that the plot wasn't creating. It was powerful music, but I was noticing it too much.

Still - I have had worse afternoons at the multiplex.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 5/19/09 at 4:55pm

i really liked the music. I'm definitely going to buy the soundtrack soon.

spoliers!

Is anyone else pissed off that they completely left out the real relationship between the pope and Camerlengo? how the pope didn't want to break his vows but still wanted a child so turned to science? it's so powerful and I think such an important part of the book.

Also, in the book, Camerlengo was declared pope for at least 10 minutes then he committed suicide due to the fact that he learned he murdered his real father.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 1:31pm

***SPOILERS***

Also, in the book, Camerlengo was declared pope for at least 10 minutes then he committed suicide due to the fact that he learned he murdered his real father.

Actually, that was only a very small part of why he committed suicide. He really wanted to create a "miraculous" exit so that he would be remembered as a divine martyr and saint in the eyes of the masses, much in the way that he staged everything else.