A better thriller than Da Vinci Code was. Too bad, the scale of the plotline isn't as epic as the first one (not a bad thing but kinda made it just another -passable- thriller). B-

Well, what a bunch of foolishness.

A very disappointing, mindless follow-up to the very astute foundation it arises from. (Sound familiar? It's the same pattern as the Star Trek franchise.) I loved The Da Vinci Code, but found this to be a bombastic swirl of incoherence to mask the utter idiocy of the storyline. Sure, there were some nice historical touchpoints, some cool secret security technology, some wildly graphic violence (wait, what!), and a melodramatic tone that was too much for even me: the Melodramatic King! But unfortunately, this was all that and less...

It's hard to believe it's by the same author, the same production team - - it's one of those... how do ya say it?... cash-in's. No wonder this sequel's screenplay was carrying on about anti-matter - - the first movie mattered, this one is just the opposite. Dan Brown steals the catchphrases of conspiracy investigators and some kinda bastardized particle physics, and tries to paint them over top of the most ridiculously frantic treasure hunt (at least the producers of the National Treasure franchise corral their ridiculousness within the boundaries of logical storytelling parameters). This is outright flimflammery.

A surprising failure to this viewer.

out of

Big improvement from Da Vinci Code, but still the plot has holes like Swiss cheese. Thankfully this time we way more action and you won't have time to get a nap. Overall I enjoyed it.

I give it B-.

Da Vinci was D for comparison.

Thar's rich coming from Mr. Inconsistent - - or should I say MR. INCONSISTENT! You regularly change your opinions depending on on which way the critical wind happens to be blowing...

Out of the hundreds of films I've reviewed on KJ, I have changed my grade on two of them.

Is it me or are the bad reviews for this based on the story itself and not really Ron Howard's fault? The impression I'm gettting from reviews is that most have not read the book and thus are unfamiliar with the story. It's just like twilight which had bad reviews but fans of the book thought it was great.

A plodding, overblown borefest. I thought this actually made The Da Vinci Code look like a masterwork of suspense and entertainment. This may well be the worst film Ron Howard has ever directed, and poor Tom Hanks drifts through the film devoid of any charisma or appeal. I absolutely couldn't get into it at all. D+

With Angels & Demons, Ron Howard has delivered an entertaining, well-crafted film, one far superior to the dull-as-dishwater The Da Vinci Code.

Is this a great film? No, it's not. The plot is, of course, beyond ludicrous. Despite its real world pretense, many of the scenes are just as zany as what you will find in this summer's other, Vulcan and Autobot-filled event pictures. And though the ensemble cast is solid, no one performance stands out as particularly special. This won't go down as one of Tom Hanks' finest moments as an actor, though he does inject more charisma and energy into the role of Robert Langdon than he did in "Da Vinci." And Langdon's new haircut is a major improvement!

However, who's going to see this for airtight plotting or award-caliber performances? This is a scavenger-hunt adventure through and through and it delivers in spades what the audience expects from such a film. The locations, from an enormous underground lab in Switzerland to the streets of Rome to the catacombs underneath Vatican City, are atmospheric and fascinating. The pace is very fast -- IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES and TWISTS AND TURNS happen every five minutes and you are rarely given a moment to catch your breath and notice the waves of absurdities and historical half-truths and lies.

Overall, I can't help but recommend this film. It may not hold up in a court of great cinema, but on a Friday night, in a theatre full of fans eager to suspend their disbelief, with the smell of hot popcorn in the air, Angels & Demons delivers the entertainment goods. The third act includes a parachuting priest! C'mon, have fun!

B+

A

Obi-Wan OWNS!

B-. Better than DVC, if that means anything.

I'm feeling a B right now. It's not Howard's fault this time around, and definitely not Hanks'. I kind of want to give it a B+ just because I know with time this grade is going to really drop. Fuckin' CGI Rome locations really got annoying. So did the lack of any kind of backstory.

Well Howard learned his lesson from DVC to make this prequel much more fast paced and entertaining. I thought Hanks did well for what he was given, although sometimes it felt like he was speaking a foreign language while explaining the clues. My favorite, "This is the first sign, the path is alive!" While the plot is not as grand as DVC was, it was a great suspense thriller that keeps you guessing.

B+

My favorite is the nonchalant delivery of "These walls are layered, there's a passage-way over here."

It works better as a thriller compared to The Da Vinci Code (despite having a less exciting story to work with, imo), and it's a decent time-killer, but damnit, I couldn't wait for it to end at the 2-hour mark.

**

It's bad enough you clutter up the rest of the forum with your foolishness - - stay out of the review threads, you ignorant cuntard.

I second this opinion
Watched about 45min of this the other day, it was considerably better than DVC, and enough to make me wanna see the rest (given the time). I was gonna dodge it cause I hated DVC so much, and Howard is so on/off, but I plan on watching it now.

I liked it more than I expected. It is what it is... a fast-paced, fun chase thriller in the spirit of Indy and National Treasure. Hanks' history briefing everyone at the beginning reminded me of Raiders actually. It won't be winning any awards but it's an entertaining summer movie. I think adopting a slightly lighter tone helped it.

The twist at the end though is a bit... unneeded. The fire thing and all... yeah. I could've lived with them ending it with Ewan as the hero from the sky. But I guess that's more Dan Brown's fault than anything... maybe he had M. Night fever when writing this

The female character is an improvement over Tautau's role... at least she is as competant/intelligent as her job would imply and doesn't stand around with a dumb look on her face wondering what's going on the whole film.

I think both this and Da Vinci Code get a bad rap... I like them more than the National Treasure films, as mentioned. I wonder if they'll find a way to continue the "Robert Langdon" franchise... I wouldn't mind seeing it

3.5/5

Well, they already have. The Lost Symbol has already been greenlit.

I thought the twist ending was also unnecessary; the 30-45 minutes prior to it was just phenomenal. I enjoyed it quite a lot. I had to leave for 20 minutes during the middle of the movie because of a phone call from work, so I'll be catching it again sometime before it leaves theaters.

oh yeah.. a solid, entertaining (if not average) B

It was pretty engaging, and Howard was actually putting forth effort to this film.
I've decided to do something a little new, I'm gonna break down this movie in segments and rate each.
*note, this has many spoilers, don't read if you haven't seen it!
Beginning: the first 30 min. where they recruit him, debrief him, the setup: this was well done and rather engaging, I enjoyed the reminder of ROTLA, and I like the vatican police guy. Also, I loved the short scene about developing the anti-matter, that was pretty cool. 8/10
Development: when he is looking through the archives and explaining everything and they search through the first couple church's, about 45 min. This part was pretty bad, the explanation was kind of obnoxious and wasn't very interesting. Also the search through the first two church's was not that entertaining or well constructed and generally weak. 5.5/10
Rising action: the church of fire to the part where the "murderer" blows up. Very good. This part was dramatic and intense and even fun. It was very engaging and sort of kept you guessing, (the only part that did). I also liked the "murderer" he was relatively well played. This was the best part of the movie. 8.5/10
Climax: They find the bomb, Ewan McGregor flys up and the sky gets pretty. Okay, not much to this part, I liked the explosion. I think this was kind of rushed but was pretty dramatic and entertaining. 7.5/10
Ending: horrible. Unnecessary, stupid, boring, predictable, bland, and reduced this movie to the level of any other adult thriller. They had a chance to be creative or intelligent, and was not at all. I spose this is how the story was written, but it was also horribly adapted and developed by Howard. I hated this part, and while it didn't really ruin the movie entirely, I hated it. 3.5/10

Summary: it's okay. The ending sucks, and it's kind of mediocre and bland, but it's sometimes very entertaining and fun too. A decent movie, watch this before Wolverine but you should have seen ST at least 3 times before you watch either of these.

The Assassin is my favorite part of this film.

THat's it.

Pretty much an awesome thriller from beginning to final third. Once McGreggor is "attacked" It may just be me but that is far too cliche these days to make it in such a high profile film. Up until then it truly is monumentally exciting and Hanks actually has that Hanks factor he was missing for a while, and thankfully no mullet.

A- until the reveal, B+ overall.

4/10 -> D

It's boring and predictable. The worst thing that could happen to a crime/mystery movie. McGregor currently holds the 2009 crown for worst acting.