Funny stuff

From three very different reviews and reviewers of Angels & Demons: first, from Steven D. Greydanus of DecentFilms.com:

Well, that’s what happens when you tell the story out of order. Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code as a sequel to his novel Angels & Demons, but the movies reverse the order — so we now have Langdon running around Rome trying to save high-ranking officials of what he already knows is a false religion that’s been murdering people for centuries to cover up the lie on which the institution is founded.

Perhaps aware that more incentive is needed, the filmmakers dovetail the book’s parallel search plots, suggesting that the Path of Illumination marking the locations where the kidnapped cardinals will be murdered could ultimately lead to the antimatter bomb threatening to destroy Vatican City.

So Langdon’s scavenger hunt across Rome isn’t just about trying to save four celibate geezers from being brutally murdered by the Illuminati — it could also wind up saving the priceless treasures of Vatican City.

Can we slow down a moment to get our bearings? Sorry, no time. The movie never stops to catch its breath, and neither can we. Besides, either you already know what I’m talking about, or you already know that you don’t need to know, right?

The bottom line, for those who care about such things, is this. Once you’ve established that your story is set in a world in which Jesus Christ is explicitly not God, and the Catholic religion is a known fraud perpetuated by murder and cover-ups, it sort of sucks the wind out of whatever story it was you were going to tell us next. Langdon could be ironing his chinos and helping little old ladies across the street, and it would still be set in that world, and those who care about such things will find it hard to bracket that and just go along with the thrill machine.

Read his entire review. And then this, from A. O. Scott of The New York Times:

Played by Tom Hanks in his high minimalist mode, his face stroboscopically snapping from wry smirk to worried squint and back again, Langdon is something of a cipher in his own right, a walking embodiment of skeptical intellect who seems, most of the time, not to have a thought in his head. Once again Mr. Hanks is accompanied by a ravishing international movie star, in this case the Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (“Munich,” “Vantage Point”). She plays Vittoria Vetra, an Italian scientist — specializing in “bioentanglement physics” — whose role is to serve not as a romantic foil for the sexless professor but rather as his sidekick sleuth and fellow panelist in a high-velocity interdisciplinary seminar.

The high-minded shop talk, half buttressed by real historical information, half floating in the ether of cocktail party nonsense, seems to be a crucial feature of a Robert Langdon adventure, and you can only be charmed when the symbologist says things like: “An obelisk! A kind of pyramid adopted by the Illuminati! If he’s going to kill, he’ll do it here.”

And as an exercise in extreme mass-market tourism “Angels & Demons” gives pretty good value. Unable to shoot in the Vatican itself, Mr. Howard and his team have deftly blended actual Roman locations with Hollywood stage sets and C.G.I. confections to make a dreamy, ephemeral Eternal City.

The costume and production design — all those red cardinals’ robes swirling dervishlike in the incense-tinted light, those sensuous Bernini sculptures and soundless library stacks — nearly steal the movie from the bland, dogged heroes. Luckily an international squad of potential villains and victims — you’ll figure out who is which soon enough, since Mr. Brown tends to let the wiring show when he rigs his surprise twists — has already carried out the larceny.

Finally, here is Christopher Orr of The New Republic:

For its first three quarters, Angels & Demons is less awful than The Da Vinci Code: unremittingly silly and unexpectedly violent, but better paced and with a cast that seems generally committed to the task at hand. But in its closing laps, Angels & Demons makes up the distance with a series of twists that brutalize science and faith, character and continuity, and anything approximating narrative coherence. No, the film does not conclude with Langdon being elected Pope himself, but, watching the spiraling inanities of the last 20 minutes, one might be forgiven for thinking it would be the next logical step.

And yet, yes, I am going to see the dreaded flick (but I'm not paying full price) later today. Hopefully I can stay awake for the whole thing, something I struggled to do when I saw The Da Vinci Code. In related and unsurprising news, the movie is getting pounded by the critics. Which goes to show, I'd hazard to guess, that no matter how much you gussy up a pile of manure, it is still going to stink.

Comments

[Sandra Miesel]

But the miserable thing will still make $50M.

[fr richard]

Sandra...heh! You're right, I'm sure.

But they must be a tad concerned because just by the promos and 3 second glances I've seen while watching a show or changing channels, it appears as though Hanks and Howard are on every single talk show and interview situation they can get for themselves.

And it appears that they've even doubled-up, on different days, for some talk shows.

I know it's a common practice used to promote films, but I can't recall anything quite like this in recent years.

[Subvet]

"...yes, I am going to see the dreaded flick ..." That should make you eligible for some sort of indulgence.

[Jitpring]

Fr. Barron's take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=672-YIixU74

[Kanakaberaka]

Forgive me, but my wife and I just have to see this flick. I read "Angels and Demons" after the "Da Vinci Code" Movie came out. And from what I have read in the reviews posted here, this movie is faithful to the book in all it's pulp fiction like charm.