Login
Three reasons why I gave this film a chance: stars 2nd favourite actor Tom Hanks and another favourite actor of mine: Ewan McGregor and it is a Ron Howard film and he is a good director. I really didn't like The Da Vinci Code so my expectations weren't very high at all. I thought of this pretty much the same as The Da Vinci Code apart from that the story in Angels And Demons wasn’t as complex as The Da Vinci Code.
Tom Hanks delivers another unsatisfactory performance as Professor Robert Langdon. Tom Hanks is one of my favourite actors if not my favourite but once again the Robert Langdon character didn't suit Tom at all. There are some characters that Tom has played in the past where you think to yourself "OMG! This is like real!'' but in Angels And Demons, this felt like a film that Tom was forced to be in even though the character doesn't suit him at all. Tom was the right age for the character, just not the right person. Ewan McGregor as a vicar?!?! Are you kidding?! He is Mark Renton (Trainspotting), Obi-Wan (Star Wars prequels), Edward Bloom (Big Fish) and Christian (Moulin Rouge!)!! Playing a vicar is the last thing that I was expecting Ewan to play. I didn't even find the character very interesting. I think the keyword to describe the character is "wooden" because it is dull and stupid!! Despite the fact she is quite attractive, Ayalet Zurer annoyed me in this film for the same reason as Ewan McGregor in this film: dull and stupid.
I have always been a fan of Ron Howard but I think that Angels And Demons as well as The Da Vinci Code are just big mistakes. However, there were some moments of good directing in Angels And Demons. Most of the script was stupid but some but very few ways it was quite good.
Overall, Angels And Demons is a disappointment like The Da Vinci Code but a tiny bit better, though. Hope Ron Howard or Tom Hanks don't star in anymore Dan Brown books. To be honest, I think you'll only really understand both films if you have at least read the books.
5/10
