www.theredrighthand.co.uk
| The Red Right Hand www.theredrighthand.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
ANGELS & DEMONS Ron Howard Starring Tom Hanks Ewan McGregor Ayelet Zurer Stellan Skarsgard On 16th May 20006 I reviewed Ron Howard's adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. I wrote two separate reviews; one was fairly short, concise and direct, the other was a massive, trailing rant spouting abuse at Dan Brown's excrementitious work. Now, three years later, I have been asked to review its follow-up (although prequel in book form), Angels & Demons. I hate Dan Brown, he's a shill. As a former bookseller, I found his work poorly written and exploitative crud. So, would it surprise you to hear I actually thought this film wasn't all that bad? Yes, I thought so. The plot is ludicrous but bear with me. Essentially, scientists in Geneva have created a deadly substance known as anti-matter (the God particle, the source of all life... supposedly) but it has been stolen! Dun dun duuuun! The relevance of this theft is brought to light as we are informed that a beloved and progressive pope has died and an old, secret society (the Illuminati) have seemingly remerged with the threat of sequentially assassinating the preferati (four cardinals and possible candidates/successors to the seat of the Holy Father) before detonating an explosive device that will destroy the head of the church and most of Rome. Enter Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon [Hanks]. Thanks to Langdon's expertise with the Illuminati, puzzle solving, crosswords, sudoku and identifying symbols on satchels, he is considered the perfect man to help. The threat comes through that one of the kidnapped cardinals will be killed on-the-hour, every hour until midnight, when the bomb will be set off. There is neither ransom nor demands but Langdon manages to decipher the various three hundred year old clues only to arrive seconds too late each time. But will he get to the bomb in time? I refuse to read Dan Brown's work - I realise that makes me a hypocrite but of the sections I have grappled with, I get so infuriated that I simply cannot continue. Having said that, I know people who have (people with whom I have held desperate conversation about their love for Dan Brown's body of work) and from what I have learned, there have been drastic changes from the original material, which is probably why the film works. Shovel-loads of tacky nonsense have been culled in favour of borderline plausibility. Partly due to these changes, the film offers a fair few positive elements. First, we have the acting, which is all largely engaging with a cast who sell their performances as well as they can, considering the material they have to work with. Ron Howard appears to have paid attention to the criticisms of his previous Dan Brown adaptation and improved upon these flaws; subsequently, the cinematography and score (courtesy of Howard regular, Hans Zimmer) are both vastly superior. In addition to all this, the film is a marvel to watch if only for its use of the glorious locations in and around Vatican City. I understand that many of the interiors are computer generated but they're still formidable renderings that contribute to an all-together visually entertaining piece. In fairness, all faults lie with the original material and the horrible stupidity and implausibility of the plot. Because of this all the tension, hype and foreboding are without pay-off and only serve to further the 'twist' at the end. Granted, this style of story development has worked reasonably well with other projects in the past but everything falls into place so neatly that it loses what little credibility it had and no longer becomes if he will stop the bomb but what will the twist be when he does? Which is a pity because despite working so hard on the script, the screenwriters still seem incapable of rationalising and selling Brown's ramblings. The best analogy I can think of is that of fast food. It's not good for you, it's not necessarily well prepared but it's well marketed and cheap. As such, you don't feel taxed when eating it and strangely satisfied until you a.) open the bun of your cruddy burger and behold the limp lettuce, flat patties and other mashed half-rate background elements or b.) consume the lot and feel the overwhelming desire to find a vacant khazi. My advice? Initially this film succeeds on its own terms as a surface-based thriller that (sort of) entertains over a two hour period but if you have any taste or respect for yourself, try to avoid this one. Release Date: 15th May 2009 The Scene To Look Out For: **Big dumb stinky spoiler - seriously, don't even bother with this section unless you've seen the film** I tolerated a lot in this film. I kept my mouth shut, suspended disbelief and tried to simply enjoy the film for what it was - as this is what most audiences will probably do. However, I simply couldn't stand one of the obvious, early plot-twist giveaways that crippled the flow of the film for me. The audience have diligently followed the trail and finally we are informed that the head of the Swiss guard (played by Skarsgard) is an Illuminati infiltrator. Langdon and a few armed guards burst in to find the Illuminati's final target (McGregor as the carmalengo), squealing with a fresh branding on his chest. It was only one line that did it for me. The downed carmalengo points accusatively and shouts, "He's the one. Look, he's got a gun!" Look, he's got a gun!? You might as well have shouted, "Shoot him! Shoot him now! Preferably in the face so he can't say that I am in fact responsible! Hurry up! Give me a gun, I'll do it!" Secondly, we have a second scene that I... actually enjoyed... sort of. As the carmalengo parachutes down from the rising helicopter, the anti-matter device detonates with a simple explosion followed by a wave of piercing light and in its aftermath, a swirling cloud wreathed in flame. I know this may sound odd but I found the whole effect sequence absolutely beautiful. Notable Characters: Tom Hanks is a great actor, whether watching his care-free characters in Big or The Money Pit to his big dramatic roles in Philadelphia or Saving Private Ryan, the man is a powerhouse. However, he has so little to work with in the form of Robert bloody Langdon. He endears the character, gives him passion and drive but at the end of the day, the character he's portraying is a cowardly, agnostic professor whose only real reason for being in the Vatican is to access their archives for his own needs or that he's an adrenalin junkie. As a role, it's a challenge for an actor and rather than ending Hanks' career, it only reflects on his tenacity as an actor. Highlighted Quote: "My mind tells me I will never understand God.. and my heart tells me I am not meant to" In A Few Words: "Not nearly as awful as I had originally predicted but still the cinematic equivalent of fast food" Total Score: 
5/10Matthew Stogdon |
