Trav’s Review: “Angels & Duds”

GRADE: C-

It took me nearly an hour to get down the first sentence of this review. It’s like preparing yourself to tell someone that he or she is being let go from their job. I want to be cordial in this review out of respect for those involved with the film, but at the same time there is no way of getting around the truth that it was brutal, absolutely brutal.

Despite my better judgment, I managed to build up a slight expectation for Ron Howard’s latest crack at Dan Brown’s fiction while walking into the theater. I clearly knew that I was not walking into a screening of anything Oscar worthy, but I had a minuscule sensation that Angels and Demons would be enjoyable (at least more so than 2006s The DaVinci Code). When I read both books, well before Howard decided to turn them into movies, I knew that Angels and Demons was more entertaining, more thought out, and even more “controversial” than The DaVinci Code. For some reason a majority of others disagreed with me. I’ll give credit to my Catholic upbringing for instilling a sense of pride with all things Vatican related. But back to the film, I was excited to see it be shades better than “The Code” and for all the cynics out there to see what I already knew. I was anticipating seeing the beauty of Rome captured on screen, imagining the audience’s reaction to the plot twist at the end, feeling the sexual tension between characters Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra, and enduring the emotional crunch presented through each individual motive. I anticipated much and seemingly nothing was delivered.

My first grievance is with the writers. I understand it is an adaptation. I am also willing to give leniency to a script that makes concessions with a novel. But the mutilation of Brown’s novel by the writers in this case is simply appalling. By eliminating certain characters or certain scenes, the screenwriters eliminated the motive for actions by any character. Likewise, the minor switch of moving Angels and Demons after The DaVinci Code chronologically goes down as an EPIC fail. But for this I blame the studios.

The choice to adapt The DaVinci Code to the big screen before Angels and Demons was one fueled entirely by greed and frankly, never made sense to me. Any attempt to argue that it is a better story and would be more engaging for an audience is purely false. Moreover, you could not have found a better time to make A&D. The failing health Pope John Paul II (who was undoubtedly the inspiration for the fallen Pope at the start of the novel) and impending election of a new pope would have captured the attention of all Christians, not just Catholics. It would have given the world creative insight into the election process that CNN could never give. Add a “what if” scenario and you have the audiences attention. Instead the studio forces TDC on us with Ron Howard at the helm.

In no way am I attempting to say that Ron Howard is untalented. The man has a knack for suspense (see Apollo 13, Ransom, Backdraft) and is excellent at character driven films (see A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Frost/Nixon), but when he needs to combine the two elements as in The DaVinci Code or Angels and Demons he falls flat on his face. The success of A Beautiful Mind has forever ruined his color palate. His dull tones with hints of gold lighting work beautifully in films set in the 1930s or 1950s, but not so much for a film set in current time.

Perhaps the largest contributor to the failure of this film was the cast. Performances were either lack luster or forced in nearly every case. In my opinion, Ewan McGregor controls the screen whenever present while Hanks is even more unbelievable than he was in Code. Personally I never felt that the role of Robert Langdon should have gone to Hanks. Granted it is far better than having Nicholas Cage (is this not his typical role?) cast as Langdon, however I always believed Langdon to be written with George Clooney or even Russell Crowe in mind. When has Hanks ever been successful in the role of the super intelligent, know he just has to succeed role? Never. He is at his best as either the lovable loser (Forrest Gump) or Mr. “Why did this happen to me” (Cast Away). In A&D his character is far too over confident and far too knowledgeable. It was his subtle inconsistencies which made him at least passable in the Code, but those hesitations are gone and so too is his one strength as Robert Langdon.

Nearly every critic that has reviewed this film has said that the plot is full of holes and constantly reaching. I couldn’t agree more. The film moves at break neck speed while seeming to be anchored by dialogue. It makes leaps and expects the audience to keep up, which it doesn’t. And more than anything, it leaves out the most powerful moments of the novel: the revelation that the murdered pope was literally the Camerlengo’s father, Vetra and Langdon’s sexual tension unleashed, and finding the weapon at St. Peter’s Tomb. Of all the things glossed over by the film, St. Peter’s tomb is the most disappointing. It was the understanding of the first pope buried under his cathedral that really lead to the reinforcement of my faith. It made my connection to Christ so much more material, as I’m sure it would do for all Christians. To simply speed past that scene, to not slow down the pace, is a sin and really says all that needs to be said about the movie. Angels and Demons runs when it should walk, tells when it should show, forces and doesn’t allow the audience to feel.

What should you do? Save your 8 to 10 movie dollars and wait for the  rental.