Fair enough, The Davinci Code was a big disappointment which failed to meet expectations in almost every way possible; the successor however, doesn't deserve the heavy criticism it has received. The film is witty, well paced and cleverly strung together, keeping us guessing until the end. When you think you've got things all worked out, they throw in a twist and for me, that's exactly what a good mysterious thriller should do. It does make mistakes but like many of the recent films, it makes up for it in other departments.
First off, for those of your who weren't satisfied with Tom Hanks portrayal of Professor Robert Langdon in the previous outing, you'll be pleasantly surprised here. While he remains consistent, not dramatically changing the character as actors have a habit of doing in a sequel, Hanks adds an element of humour to the role. The one liners add comic relief to the thrilling mystery and amongst the blood and gore, Hanks picks things up with a laugh. Critics have said they felt this was out of place and untrue to the novels character; I suggest they try reading Dan Brown's books before passing that kind of judgement!
While the film doesn't stay completely true to the novel, there isn't anything majorly different plot wise and the renaming of the Camerlengo is probably the biggest change. On the subject of Camerlengo Patrick McKenna played by the brilliant Ewan McGregor, wasn't he just fantastic? The final twist involving his character was a complete surprise and the predication I had made got completely turned on its head. I personally loved McGregor's portrayal and I couldn't of cast anyone better for the role.
What was bad? The complete waste of Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra, she was simply there as a plot device and there was little chemistry between Vetra and Langdon. While Zurer didn't play the role badly, the character was dispensable and there was very little reason for her presence. It felt as if they thought to themselves, "heck we've got no females in this, lets make one up so it doesn't look like we are being sexist!" Another bad point was the death of the assassin, it was obvious and the build up was there so explosion really wasn't a surprise at all.
So while the plot moved at a better pace than it's predecessor and the action was satisfying, it seems as if Angels & Demons also suffers from the Dan Brown blues and really doesn't reach it's potential. While it may be a good film, if you have read the book or seen the countless, exciting trailers then you may be a little disappointed by the final product. But all in all, it is one worth seeing, especially if your one of the few who enjoyed the first outing.
First off, for those of your who weren't satisfied with Tom Hanks portrayal of Professor Robert Langdon in the previous outing, you'll be pleasantly surprised here. While he remains consistent, not dramatically changing the character as actors have a habit of doing in a sequel, Hanks adds an element of humour to the role. The one liners add comic relief to the thrilling mystery and amongst the blood and gore, Hanks picks things up with a laugh. Critics have said they felt this was out of place and untrue to the novels character; I suggest they try reading Dan Brown's books before passing that kind of judgement!
While the film doesn't stay completely true to the novel, there isn't anything majorly different plot wise and the renaming of the Camerlengo is probably the biggest change. On the subject of Camerlengo Patrick McKenna played by the brilliant Ewan McGregor, wasn't he just fantastic? The final twist involving his character was a complete surprise and the predication I had made got completely turned on its head. I personally loved McGregor's portrayal and I couldn't of cast anyone better for the role.
What was bad? The complete waste of Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra, she was simply there as a plot device and there was little chemistry between Vetra and Langdon. While Zurer didn't play the role badly, the character was dispensable and there was very little reason for her presence. It felt as if they thought to themselves, "heck we've got no females in this, lets make one up so it doesn't look like we are being sexist!" Another bad point was the death of the assassin, it was obvious and the build up was there so explosion really wasn't a surprise at all.
So while the plot moved at a better pace than it's predecessor and the action was satisfying, it seems as if Angels & Demons also suffers from the Dan Brown blues and really doesn't reach it's potential. While it may be a good film, if you have read the book or seen the countless, exciting trailers then you may be a little disappointed by the final product. But all in all, it is one worth seeing, especially if your one of the few who enjoyed the first outing.
No comments:
Post a Comment