Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon on the movie poster

I have mixed feelings about Angels & Demons. I feel as though all the pieces were there and yet there was something I can’t put my finger on that I didn’t like. I think that Ron Howard knows how to make a good movie with strong shots, while Tom Hanks both understands Ron Howard and is a good actor in general. Here are some musings about the movie:

I don’t like the whole end twist – It happened in the last movie and they put it in again. Regardless of whether or not it’s in the book, the end sequence is redundant and in both cases makes Robert Langdon just a little dumber.

The music was recycled – I understand as a sequel, the film wanted to reiterate the tone by using very similar music, but I don’t see why they couldn’t play with the score more. Even National Treasure 2 played with their score more.

The opening shot seemed unnecessary – When we first meet Robert Langdon, he’s apparently swimming in his University’s swimming pool. Although it quickly set up Robert’s strong eye, I felt like it was a shameless excuse to have Tom Hanks in a Speedo. I mean there are several ways of opening the movie, like maybe recapping the last movie in some form? I dunno, just a suggestion.

I liked the female character – Vittoria Vetra (played by Ayelet Zurer) felt more integral and useful to Angels & Demons than Sophie Neveu (played by Audrey Tautou) did in The Da Vinci Code.

Why did it feel like most of the budget seem off? – It was like they spent all their money on the beginning sequence and the big end blow out. The middle was just “eh” in comparison.

In the whole, the movie was all right. I think that it was easier to pick up than the first movie, possibly because we knew who Robert was already, but also because it didn’t get as deep into religion as the first one did. Ironic because this one involves popes.

Even funnier fact: I totally didn’t know that Angels & Demons the book was a prequel, but mysteriously the movie is a sequel to The Da Vinci Code.

My grade: 78%