Angels and Demons

[MiniBond]

I liked him better than the big bulking sex crazed killer in the book. I thought he was a nice contrast to Silas in the film.

yeah...by being dull t: but the actor was good !

Funny stuff I read on IMDB btw: Thure Lindhart (Chartrand) was considered for Silas at the time of the DVC !

I guess Ron Howard didn't want to make a carbon copy of The Da Vinci Code, at least Howard learned whereas Dan Brown used the same formula for ALL his books.

I don't want to frighten people but the way I see it the Langdon adventures will follow the same formula every time....it's pretty much like the 007 novels with the chicks, the over the top villain, the henchman and so on...

 

[Bim]

I liked him better than the big bulking sex crazed killer in the book. I thought he was a nice contrast to Silas in the film.

I have to agree, this cold version of the assasin worked better with me. That was an aspect of the book i wasnt too thrilled with.

Doctor Jones: the pacing worked for me, specially in the Fire one... man, that one had me going really good.

MiniBond: daaarn, ur way ahead of me here

I have to point out that i thought [BLACKOUT]the Camerlengo's death and his parachuting off the helicopter[/BLACKOUT] were so beautifully done. These could have been eyerolling moments, specially the [BLACKOUT]parachuting[/BLACKOUT], but i feel they were handled just right.

 

[Nirvana]

Bim: The CGI was beautiful.

I don't want to frighten people but the way I see it the Langdon adventures will follow the same formula every time....it's pretty much like the 007 novels with the chicks, the over the top villain, the henchman and so on...

I have this feeling, too.

 

[MiniBond]

Skarsgard once again proves he has no fears....t:

SKARSGARD NOT A FAN OF 'DA VINCI' DAN
Actor Stellan Skarsgard has sent producers of his new blockbuster "Angels and Demons" reeling after revealing he's not a fan of the author behind the "Da Vinci Code" books.

The Scandinavian star called Dan Brown a "bad writer" during a recent appearance on a Swedish news show, and revealed he only agreed to appear in "Angels and Demons" after reading the script based on the book.

He says, "I think Dan Brown is a terribly bad writer, but he has cliffhangers after every chapter which makes you continue reading.

"It's like eating peanuts at a bar. You don't like them, but you keep on eating them anyway."

Skarsgard, who plays a Vatican guard in the blockbuster, admits he would never have signed up for the film had it not been for director Ron Howard's reworked script: "The story is more simple and straightforward but just as dramatic."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=40189

 

[MiniBond]

I have this feeling, too.

not necessarily wrong if it's still as addictive as the others ! It's just that where Fleming shows the villain pretty quickly Brown will try to maintain supense but fail because we'll guess that the "nice friendly helper" is in fact the basterd !t:


just found this btw...
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/theview/local_story_135090435.html

What’s surprising about “Angels & Demons” is the realization that Brown is apparently following a pattern with the Langdon series. There are many similarities between the two books. In both books, a middle-of-the-night phone call awakens Langdon and sets him on an adventure; his expertise in religious symbols is needed in regards to a murder; he is partnered with the murder victims’ daughters, who were both singly raised by a father; all of the action takes place within a whirlwind of hours; in each, they face a sadistic flunky serving a big-wig antagonist; and Langdon must solve puzzles from antiquity, while treading into matters of Christian-based controversy.

 

[Bim]

not necessarily wrong if it's still as addictive as the others ! It's just that where Fleming shows the villain pretty quickly Brown will try to maintain supense but fail because we'll guess that the "nice friendly helper" is in fact the basterd !t:

So maybe in the Lost Symbol the evil bastard will be the villain, just because people wont be expecting it

 

[MiniBond]

So maybe in the Lost Symbol the evil bastard will be the villain, just because people wont be expecting it

could be....t:

 

[Doctor Jones]

not necessarily wrong if it's still as addictive as the others ! It's just that where Fleming shows the villain pretty quickly Brown will try to maintain supense but fail because we'll guess that the "nice friendly helper" is in fact the basterd !t:


just found this btw...
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/theview/local_story_135090435.html

Wow, thank god I'm not alone on this one. This always bugged me.

I mean where is Langdon gonna wake up next in The Lost Symbol?

A crack house?

 

[CelticPredator]

I liked it. But I didnt like 2 things in the movie....

I missed the fight scene between the assassin, and Langdon. I dunno...I like fight scenes...sue me.

and the big one...

Spoiler

I missed the scene where The Carmerlingo lit himself on fire in front of everyone. I really thought that was deeply disturbing. It was alright in the movie...but didnt impact me as much as it did in the book.

That being said, I liked every change they made in the movie. It worked.

 

[stextc]

Minibond :
Saw the film last night and rather enjoyed.
The script did fix up some of the more crazy parts of the book like the assisted reproduction, Langdon not using a parachute etc.

Very nice pacing of the film.
It keep moving at a good tempo.

 

[RoboAmish]

I enjoyed it about as much as I thought I would. As I had figured A&D was always better material for a movie than DVC and this proved it. It was a more solid adaptation overall though, with most of the changes made for the better. Some of the dialougue from Langdon did seem clunky at times when transferred directly from the book, but that's a small quibble that thankfully was only noticable early in the film, before mercifully, a more action packed thriller emerged.

Overall, this was an entertaining flick that kept me on the edge of my seat. Well recommended- 7/10

 

[Reek]

loved it, except how they changed things around in the end. but 8.5/10

 

[hippie_hunter]

So I read The Da Vinci Code in the spring of 2005 and read Angels & Demons that summer. I really liked both and was excited for the DVC movie, and I actually did like it. I openly admit that it had some major pacing issues, though.

Those problems are nonexistent here. This movie was miles better than The Da Vinci Code.

Good:

- Vittoria was beautiful
- Ewan was fantastic as Camerlengo
- Much better pacing
- Excellent Hans Zimmer score
- Cinematography was beautiful
- Surprisingly, the CGI was really good
- The assassin was an improvement over his character in the book
- Langdon's Mickey Mouse watch and Harris Tweed t:
- Langdon's [blackout]freefall[/blackout] was omitted, thank God

Bad:

- I agree with the reviews that of all the cast, Hanks is easily the weakest which is very unfortunate
- I miss Gunther Glick
- It was unfortunate that they just barely referenced Galileo Galilei since he was pretty much the Leonardo Da Vinci of Angels & Demons

Spoiler

- Why exactly did they fuse Olivetti, Rocher and Maximilian Kohler together into one character?
- I really missed Max Kohler, he was one of my favorite characters of the book
- Without the explanation of Camerlengo being the son of the Pope, his motives behind the attack were not clear at all

Overall, great adaption that was miles better than The Da Vinci Code. I can't wait till The Lost Symbol comes out, and for that movie, too.

I completely agree with this. Though I found myself liking the book far, far more. I found myself missing Kohler and Olivetti far more than the pacing issues of the Da Vinci Code. And I didn't like how they made this a sequel to the Da Vinci Code instead of a prequel.

 

[RoboAmish]

I completely agree with this. Though I found myself liking the book far, far more. I found myself missing Kohler and Olivetti far more than the pacing issues of the Da Vinci Code. And I didn't like how they made this a sequel to the Da Vinci Code instead of a prequel.

I have to admit, the constant references to Langdon's previous adventure and the church's mistrust of him because of it did bug me a little and was run into the ground from an early stage. I didn't mind when it was a quick reference but constantly mentioning it was a bit much

 

[nocomics]

So I read The Da Vinci Code in the spring of 2005 and read Angels & Demons that summer. I really liked both and was excited for the DVC movie, and I actually did like it. I openly admit that it had some major pacing issues, though.

Those problems are nonexistent here. This movie was miles better than The Da Vinci Code.

Good:

- Vittoria was beautiful
- Ewan was fantastic as Camerlengo
- Much better pacing
- Excellent Hans Zimmer score
- Cinematography was beautiful
- Surprisingly, the CGI was really good
- The assassin was an improvement over his character in the book
- Langdon's Mickey Mouse watch and Harris Tweed t:
- Langdon's [blackout]freefall[/blackout] was omitted, thank God

Bad:

- I agree with the reviews that of all the cast, Hanks is easily the weakest which is very unfortunate
- I miss Gunther Glick
- It was unfortunate that they just barely referenced Galileo Galilei since he was pretty much the Leonardo Da Vinci of Angels & Demons

Spoiler

- Why exactly did they fuse Olivetti, Rocher and Maximilian Kohler together into one character?
- I really missed Max Kohler, he was one of my favorite characters of the book
- Without the explanation of Camerlengo being the son of the Pope, his motives behind the attack were not clear at all

Overall, great adaption that was miles better than The Da Vinci Code. I can't wait till The Lost Symbol comes out, and for that movie, too.

I agree with most of what ya said about the movie. Its been awhile since I've read the book so I maybe a little fuzzy on some details. I did miss that they didn't have the [BLACKOUT]Langon/assasin [/BLACKOUT]fight,and I'm glad they got rid of freefall. I was hopin they would have the Camerlengo set [BLACKOUT]himself on fire in front of the crowd[/BLACKOUT],but I can understand why they moved it.
Now did'nt the Camerlengo have a big ol' speech in the book about science/religion? I didn't see it in the movie,but /shrug.
Overall it was an okay movie,though I did kindof like DaVinci a tad better. I just missed all the animations to help explain the history of things,and A&D didn't have that I will admit i was'nt feeling great when I seen it..
I'll give it one thing it had a steady pace to it,and kept movie for the most part. It did feel rushed in explaining things,and yet at times it felt slow? Maybe it was just me.

 

[CelticPredator]

He had a big speech about Science/Religion...but it was in another place.


The film really needed that Assassin Vs Langdon fight. I loved that part. So engaging/,

 

[nocomics]

He had a big speech about Science/Religion...but it was in another place.


The film really needed that Assassin Vs Langdon fight. I loved that part. So engaging/,

Ya, now I'm remembering it,this is what I get for seeing it not feeling 100%.

 

[CelticPredator]

I did love that the

Spoiler

4th priest guy lived....

that was pretty awesome IMO. Always hated that death...felt pretty bad for the dude.

 

[bgates87]

I saw the movie today and I really liked it. It's getting lots of negative reviews where the main gripe is that the story is too implausible (it's a thriller, not a documentary) or that it strayed too much from the book. Of course one of the main complaints about The Da Vinci Code was that it stayed too close to the book. I guess Howard and company are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It definitely seemed that most people's mindset at the theater I went into is that they hated this movie and they were just going to see it to find out why. I liked most of the changes made from the book, I felt it was necessary to simplify the plot somewhat by merging characters. The movie was a bit too long as it was, it would have been unbearable if they had stayed as close to the book as they had with The Da Vinci Code. Unsurprisingly Ewan McGregor turned in the best performance, it was fun to watch his character slowly transform.

Spoilers from here on out.

Spoiler

I was happy not to witness Robert Langdon free-falling from a helicopter, although that scene was still a bit over-done. Mostly I think they over-did the explosion of the anti-matter, one big fiery explosion starting with a tiny point of light would have been fine but they had to lay the special effects on thick with several stages of explosions and sound effects that sounded more like they belonged in Star-Trek.

I also liked how they rescued the last Cardinal and had him point them to the killer's hideout, much simpler than trying to follow symbols and whatnot. The killer's death caught me off guard a little, I knew he didn't die the way he did in the book but for a second I thought he might actually escape in one piece. I realized what was going to happen about a moment before it did.

The things I didn't like; I didn't like that they changed the 5th ambigram (it wasn't even an ambigram). I see how it made sense in the context of the film but I still see it as a shortcut taken by the writers to advance the plot faster. As I said before I didn't like the Anti-matter explosion, and I didn't like the complete lack of chemistry between Langdon and Vettra.

Another thing I noticed during the movie is that there is A LOT of music played during the movie that isn't in the soundtrack (I've listened to it all the way through 3 or 4 times a day since it came out so I should know). I feel bad for anyone who shelled out for the score released a few days ago because there will probably be an extended version out sometime soon.

 

[CelticPredator]

I still dont get what the 5th symbol ment....sorry.

It also took me 15 minutes to figure out the one in the book....lol...

 

[Reek]

absence of the illuminati diamond :

not the book ending :


the earth and air kills were wasted compared to the wonderful fire scene, and the water scene was ok.

i thought vittoria was the weakest of all.

hanks was hanks. good. but its hard for him to have a brilliant performance in the type of role langdon is for these movies.

Ewan was great, ive read the book so i knew the whole time what happened, yet he still performed well enough to make me 'think' i was wrong.

 

[MiniBond]

I completely agree with this. Though I found myself liking the book far, far more. I found myself missing Kohler and Olivetti far more than the pacing issues of the Da Vinci Code. And I didn't like how they made this a sequel to the Da Vinci Code instead of a prequel.

Regarding everythig i've read here and there, I feel like I am the only one who actually like the fact that they made it a "sequel" (if one can talk about a sequel, a real sequel takes a lot of the elements of the first one, here the two investigations are independant).....the mentions of the DVC events are not that frequent (two times) and Langdon being persona non grata in the vatican because of it really helped to like his character more !

 

[bullets]

I always like Hanks .

 

[MiniBond]

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1189217-angels_and_demons/ 37% and 5,1 with nearly 200 critics on rotten.....it's certainly gonna end up with the same exact mark as the DVC except if the last batch of critics is all fresh (for the moment the recently added ones are rotten)

 

[Bim]

I saw the movie today and I really liked it. It's getting lots of negative reviews where the main gripe is that the story is too implausible (it's a thriller, not a documentary) or that it strayed too much from the book. Of course one of the main complaints about The Da Vinci Code was that it stayed too close to the book. I guess Howard and company are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Agreed

I must say, i'm not really into rottentomatoes or the whole critics thing when it comes to movies, but for some reason i didnt really expect this movie to get high marks from critics no matter what, just because of DVC.