Angels and Demons

It's difficult to see the major differences between Angels and Demons and it's predecessor, The Da Vinci code. For starters, the original novels, written by famed author, Dan Brown (though they were released in opposite order as their film counterparts), are very formulaic, as I'm sure future stories featuring the character Robert Langdon will be. Both films share a similar pace and plot line, as well as equally sinister villains behind the master plan. And each film has a twist ending that no one sees coming, unless you read the book before.

It isn't difficult, however, to say that Angels and Demons is better than The Da Vinci code. Because it is.  I'm not sure what about it was better, but I walked out of that theater thoroughly satisfied. Ron Howard and the production crew behind Demons just executed better all across the board. Most of all of that starts with the improved performance of Tom Hanks. I love Tom Hanks and think he is one of the very best actors in all of Hollywood. They should make him the ambassador of Earth because I can't think of one person who doesn't like Tom Hanks. Regardless, he seemed not to be fully in his performance as Robert Langdon in the first go around. This time, he was great. Funny, believable, captured the spirit of Langdon, just all around good.

The surrounding cast was great as well. I can't think of one performance that was subpar. Ewan McGregor was the most notable of said supporting cast. He was excellent, portraying Carmerlengo with grace and respect.

Apart from the acting, the action, effects, camera angles etc. was just better. It is refreshing to see a Hollywood production improve with a sequel as opposed to just creating a watered down version of the first success.

The only thing that I might have done differently is keeping some of the plot line from the book. A lot of the information, not unlike many film adaptations of books, was edited out. Some of it I agreed with; it helped the plot line move quicker for a suspense movie, but some of it I couldn't understand.

SPOILER ALLERT!!! For instance, in the beginning of the movie, someone kills a researcher and uses his eye to gain access to a heavily secured area using a retina scan. Well, in the movie, that was the end of it. In the book, that man who was murdered, was the father of Langdon's love interest, Vittoria Vetra. I thought that was a key piece of the plot line which brought vulnerability two Vetra's character and would have brought a different level of emotion to the film. Maybe there is a good reason for the omission, but I can't figure it out, and that is only one example.

Other than that, however, the film was a success. Exactly what I had hoped it would be, an entertaining summer blockbuster. Oh, and my mother enjoyed it as well. We went and saw it together.

Muller's grade: B-

If you liked this flick, check these ones out: National Treasure, Indiana Jones,  Apollo 13