Wendy Wheeler ([info]zainybrain) wrote,
@ 2009-06-20 22:20:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: aggravated
Entry tags:cinema, hollywood, movie review, screenwriting craft

ANGELS AND DEMONS - A movie review
One thing about Ron Howard (good old Opie!) is that he can direct a movie well, where the plot moves along in a snappy pace, the POV is not too arty but adds a little extra to the visuals, and everybody turns in a solid performance. That's pretty much my opinion of ANGELS AND DEMONS, the Part II of the DA VINCI CODE series. Even though it's from a book written by Dan Brown and set in character Robert Langdon's (Tom Hanks) life before the Da Vinci code stuff.

For that reason, I was a little, "Who is SHE?" about the Dr. Vittoria Vetra physicist character. Audrey Tautou was so memorable in the first movie, and surely Agent Sophie and Langdon began a long-term relationship from that adventure? But you only see her as a photo at Langdon's home...

Like many folks, I found Ewen McGregor in priest's robes as the Congomongo (or whatever; they took some Vatican term and made a fake position of power of it for the purposes of the story) to be somewhat erotically charged. Everytime he's used to play someone spiritual or sickly, nope, I don't buy it. He always seems lusty and earthy to me no matter what he plays. (Seeing him buck nekkid in THE PILLOW BOOK all those years ago imprinted me bad, maybe?)

The plot and its 4 deaths to prevent each an hour apart at certain mystical locations only sussed by doing a sort of geocaching, where the powers that be fight Langdon, but some secretly support him, all that is fine. There's a point when I realized that a character was being so purely sacrificial, and the background had been set up for that so it made sense, and I confess I leaked a few tears... It was dramatic, and the special effects were both metaphorical and fascinating.

But then it's a twisty who-done-it, and it twists so crazy much that by the end, I was like "Wait, how could that plan even work?" Meaning the whole logic underpinning the whole movie was rank suckage. It's still a fun ride! But at the end you wonder if Dan Brown and the screenwriters even knew what the underlying story was.




(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]karenkay
2009-06-21 03:51 am UTC (link)
I listened to the book on MP3 several years ago, and I'm pretty sure that Dan Brown hasn't a clue what the underlying story was. He's a really bad writer, and this is one of his worst.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]zainybrain
2009-06-21 04:12 am UTC (link)
Yeah, "poor" (he's filthy rich, actually) Dan Brown is both an awful writer at the sentence level AND illogical and goofy. His work comes off better on the screen than it does in the few pages of his books I've read, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]karenkay
2009-06-21 03:22 pm UTC (link)
Dan Brown hires good researchers and he has a knack for picking topics for his novels that resonate with people. The fact that his work comes off better on the screen is a testament to Ron Howard and Tom Hanks.

(I really don't disdain popular authors--a lot of them know how to tell a story, though not how to write. Dan Brown really doesn't know how to tell the story he has.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…