Always blame the Church. They’re pretty easy targets.
A few years after the events of the Da Vinci Code, it appears that Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is back to all sorts of dangerous adventure! However, rather than being called to the scene of a crime and getting falsely accused of it again, this time, Langdon is helping out with a case that may be a whole lot more complicated and serious than he had ever expected it to be. Surprisingly, four cardinals have been snatched from the Vatican and are now mysteriously hidden all over Vatican City; one of them will be killed each hour until midnight, which will then allow for a supposed bomb to go off and take out Vatican City. Over the course of this one evening, it is up to Langdon to figure out just who is committing all of these crimes and for what reasons. Is it just a bunch of angry, disillusioned people who want to raise some hell for good chuckles? Or, are these members of a religion that, in some way, shape, or form, feel betrayed by the Catholic church and believe that it is finally their time to step up and have their voices be heard, regardless of who they may kill in the process? Well, the questions are, apparently, all in the symbols.
Angels & Demons is an improvement over the Da Vinci Code, however, that isn’t saying too much. For one, it’s shorter. Another, it movies a lot quicker. These two factors come into play quite well because, when you think about it, you don’t really have much time to think about why or how hardly any of this matters; the movie itself isn’t harping on those facts, so why the hell should you?
With the Da Vinci Code, it was obvious that Ron Howard and co. set out to make a very serious piece of drama that definitely didn’t spell itself out as such. Here, Howard still seems to be playing in an ultra serious playing field, but also loosens up a bit; there’s a slight bit of self-awareness to the fact that none of what’s going on actually makes sense or matters, which helped the movie seem like actual fun. Rather than just trying to make sure that the audience members at home aren’t too tired just yet, Howard kickstarts this movie’s premise and gets going right away.
Which yes, was definitely the saving grace here.
Still, by the same token, I still can’t help but feel the same problems are around this time around. For one, the plot really makes no sense and it isn’t until the very end that you begin to wonder, “Huh?”. Granted, the movie isn’t totally relying on whether or not everything gets spelled-out in a perfectly clear manner or way, but it also wants us to follow along and think that it’s clever by doing whatever it’s doing. But whenever Langdon gets into a room, stares at stuff and starts speaking about its significance, I couldn’t help but not feel interested.
There were some interesting tidbits that Langdon made about the Illuminati here that most definitely worth the listen, but everything else, not only felt/sounded like bullshit, but didn’t do much to keep the plot going. Instead, it just slowed things down a bit so that characters could drop into unnecessary exposition. Like I said before, not much of that here, when compared to the first movie, but at the same time, still a whole lot more than there should be.
For instance, take Ewan McGregor’s earnest priest character. We have an idea of what he’s about and then, all of a sudden, the other cheek possibly turns and we’re left to think of whether or not he’s someone who can be trusted. The movie never makes a clear case of why this came to be, if only to say that they’re needed to be a baddie or back-stabber found somewhere – so what better person than Ewan McGregor? McGregor, here, is fine and does what he can with a role that seems like it was written for anyone who was willing to take a pay cut, but really, everything gets bogged down to so much speaking and yammering on about lord knows what, that it almost doesn’t matter if he’s in the role or not.
You could have put me in and it still may have not mattered.
As Langdon, Hanks gets to have a bit more fun this go around, as he’s not sitting around quite as much as he was before. Instead, a good portion of the movie finds himself running around all over Vatican City, looking for clues and, occasionally, giving us a small history lesson along the way. Truly, I wouldn’t mind having this around everyday of my life, but so be it. Tom Hanks doesn’t want to hang with me, no matter how hard I try.
And as for the controversial material that so plagued the first movie? Yeah, not much here, which is actually fine. The movie doesn’t really need to harp too much on what it’s trying to say or mean with its material. It’s more concerned with just being a bit of a goofy thriller that, yeah, may or may not make much sense at the end of the day, but at least has a bit more of a grin to work with this time around and doesn’t want to be too stern and serious for the older crowd out there.
Consensus: Angels & Demons is a slight improvement over its predecessor, which may not sound like much, but also means that it’s less serious and a little bit more in-touch with its crazy side.
5.5 / 10