Angels & Demons (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Book Smarts

Well, now. Who’da thunk it?

Three years ago, I was less than impressed by the big-screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, the preposterous Dan Brown novel that was, inexplicably, a tremendous bestseller — inexplicable except, perhaps, in that it exposed the masses to mindblowing concepts of comparative mythology they hadn’t been exposed to before (you have to read books for that — books other than mainstream potboiler beach novels, that is). Now, though… Angels & Demons, adapted from an equally ridiculous Dan Brown novel, makes for a far more entertaining night at the movies. Seriously, a ridiculously entertaining night at the movies.

I love Angels & Demons, the movie, in fact: it’s as completely ludicrous as the book it’s based on, of course, but it moves so fast and with such confidence that you barely have time to notice. And more importantly, there’s an air of intellectual pornography about it… and I mean that as a good thing. Just as real porn ain’t genuinely sexy or erotic, Angels & Demons ain’t genuinely intellectual or brainy, but it urgently wants to depict books and learning and knowledge and history and art and the smarts it takes to appreciate them as enticing and cool and, well, sexy. The surprising thing is how well director Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon, Cinderella Man) succeeds at accomplishing just that. The book dork in me wishes more movies would talk nerdy to me like this one does, and make it as much popcorny fun.

Does that sound like a contradiction, that a movie could be both mindless and studious at the same time? I don’t think it is. I’m not looking for dissertation here — and good thing, because I’d have been sorely disappointed. I just want a bone thrown my way once in a while: if Hollywood can pander to people who get turned on by fast cars or exploding spaceships or chicks in bikinis in a nonstop roller-coaster ride of a summer blockbuster, then it sure as hell can pander to my book-and-museum-and-cute-brainy-guy fetish in a nonstop roller-coaster ride of a summer blockbuster once every couple of years.

Gotta credit Tom Hanks (The Great Buck Howard, Charlie Wilson’s War) here, too, because he sells our academic hero Robert Langdon way better than Dan Brown ever did. In Brown’s novels, he’s a bone-dry talking head lecturing us on the minutiae of European history and the Catholic Church’s role in it. Here, Hanks imbues Langdon with a wonderfully geeky enthusiasm: when he gets a first look at the Vatican archives he’d been lobbying the Church for years to get access to, his “Oh, wow!” is infectious, at least to those of us who find the concept of a secret library filled with arcane documents indescribably alluring. And the relatively simpler, more streamlined story compared to Code means that Hanks gets a far better opportunity here to play the cerebral-sexy professor than in that other flick, which tried to shoehorn him into an Indiana Jones-type role that he’s not appropriate for. In Angels, however, whether he’s tsk-tsking over religiously motivated vandalism of statuary former popes disapproved of or simultaneously shocked and thrilled over a particularly expedient act of desecration to an old document, he’s perfect.

Not that there ain’t action galore here. Langdon has been called in by the Vatican to help them solve an urgent mystery: In the wake of the pope’s death, four cardinals under consideration to replace him have been kidnapped and a bomb placed somewhere within the Vatican. It’s all the work of the Illuminati, it appears, an ancient order of scientists and thinkers now out for revenge against the Church’s centuries-ago crackdown on them and their heretical theories — the Earth revolves around the sun? nonsense! It’s a whole science versus religion thing, and it’s handled in a way that’s just a tad wishy-washy: Couldn’t screenwriters David Koepp (Ghost Town, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and Akiva Goldsman (I Am Legend, I, Robot) have had Langdon admit he’s an atheist to the dead pope’s confidante/assistant (Ewan McGregor: Cassandra’s Dream, Miss Potter) instead of couching his lack of religious faith in such copout language? (Ah, but I dream: this is a mainstream movie, and Hanks has nice-guy rep to maintain. Though maybe some viewers will see through the copout and realize that what we have in Langdon is our first atheist movie hero… and he’s still the hero and a nice guy.)

The whole movie, most of which takes place over the course of the four-hour countdown to the bomb going off, is a literal ticking clock, a race to find the cardinals before the kidnapper can kill them — which he threatens to do once every hour in esoteric locations throughout Rome that only Langdon, with his knowledge of Illuminati lore and Church history, might be able to puzzle out. And a race to find the bomb, of course. Langdon is aided by physicist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer: Vantage Point), because the bomb is made from antimatter stolen from a secret experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva — nerd alert! science stuff! What’s cool, though, is that Vetra is not there merely so that Langdon can have someone to explain the historical and ecclesiastical stuff to for the audience’s benefit, because Langdon is there for her to do the same with regarding the physics stuff. She’s fully his equal, and that’s such a rare thing to see in a mainstream action movie that it’s worth noting.

Angels & Demons is engaging, rousing, and completely absurd. Good thing the first two qualities more than overcome the third. Though it doesn’t hurt that if a movie could smell tantalizingly like old books, this one is it.

share and enjoy
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Todd Suomela
Thu, May 14, 2009 2:34pm

This kind of review is one of the reasons why I keep reading your work, MaryAnn. I love the geekiness and the appreciation for a thriller that “talks nerdery” as well as you do. I’m actually looking forward to seeing Angels and Demons soon.

Just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work.

Laurie Mann
Sat, May 16, 2009 4:47pm

I didn’t think I’d see a movie that savaged science and logic as soon after Star Trek…

Like Star Trek, there were some nice performances, particularly from Ewan MacGregor. But the level of absurdity all over prevented me from enjoying the movie.

I did get to see the trailers for The Road and Julie and Julia on the big screen, which almost made the trip worthwhile.

Thu, May 21, 2009 4:17am

I went in with very low expectations, and enjoyed myself thoroughly. It was, indeed, ludicrous, but it was good ludicrous.

Dr. Rcoketscience
Dr. Rcoketscience
Thu, May 21, 2009 11:20am

I will say this: the movie was a vast improvement on the book, which – with all due respect to Fred Clark – may be the most gawdawful book ever written.

Mon, May 25, 2009 3:18pm

I, too, like the idea of a secret library filled with really cool old documents – and I agree that it’s nice to see intelligence and history celebrated, even if it is shrouded in absurdity. But the plot of this film is so full of holes that it’s hard to really get caught up in it. By completely throwing any hint of characterization out the window (and pretty much deleting the “bad guys” part of the novel), the writers have left us with a story that doesn’t make sense. It’s not that it’s a ridiculous story – it’s that it isn’t really a story at all. WHY is the “bad guy” (who we see only briefly) doing what he’s doing? What’s the connection between this “bad guy” and the “ultimate bad guy” (revealed at the end of the movie)? What was the purpose of hiding the anti-matter bomb, and what did the “bad guys” THINK was going to happen? What was SUPPOSED to happen? What was their plan? In the novel, there IS a plan. It does make sense (OK, that’s too strong a word) – but at least there are connections revealed that clear things up once we understand them. Here, it doesn’t matter. Dan Brown’s books don’t translate well to the big screen because his plots require too many words to explain. Howard and his team have tried to solve that problem by chopping out as much as they can get away with without making the entire mess incomprehensible. Had they rewritten the story for clarity, pared down the characters (and developed them), and given Hanks’s Robert Langdon more of a personality (the only moments he actually seems to come alive are when he’s ad-libbing a line that isn’t from the novel), the movie could have been a really fun adventure. As it is, it’s frustratingly disappointing. Yes, it’s better than “DaVinci Code” – but that’s not saying all that much. And with a cast and director like these, it could – and should – have been so much more.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Mon, May 25, 2009 7:09pm

Why do I get the feeling that anyone who wants to see a genuinely intelligent movie about religious conspiracy is better off renting the old Mimi Rogers film The Rapture?

Tue, May 26, 2009 1:50pm

My sentiments exactly Kate!

A Guy
A Guy
Fri, May 29, 2009 4:20pm

I’m with Kate. It’s boring. They stripped out so many details about the treasure hunt that it had no meaning. The conspiracy was also stripped down to nothing.

Hanks is utterly humorless (BTW, I don’t need to watch Hanks in a speedo doing flip turns in the pool for 5 minutes, thank you very little). And they gave whats-her-face nothing to do but talk about antimatter. She seemed like she has a lot more going on than that; they should have put her in a pool with a speedo (I should be a producer).

I was happy head out to the bathroom (twice) during this one.