Angels and Demons

[Mulli]

The book has a couple of serious flaws in it.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Angels & Demons

Angels & Demons

Release Date: May 15, 2009
Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony)
Director: Ron Howard
Screenwriter: David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman
Genre: Suspense Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material)
Website: AngelsandDemons.com

Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard, Pierfrancesco Favino, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Armin Mueller-Stahl

Plot Summary: The team behind the global phenomenon "The Da Vinci Code" returns for the highly anticipated "Angels & Demons," based upon the bestselling novel by Dan Brown. Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard religious expert Robert Langdon, who once again finds that forces with ancient roots are willing to stop at nothing, even murder, to advance their goals. Ron Howard again directs the film, which is produced by Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, and John Calley. The screenplay is by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman.

When Langdon discovers evidence of the resurgence of an ancient secret brotherhood known as the Illuminati - the most powerful underground organization in history - he also faces a deadly threat to the existence of the secret organization's most despised enemy: the Catholic Church. When Langdon learns that the clock is ticking on an unstoppable Illuminati time bomb, he jets to Rome, where he joins forces with Vittoria Vetra, a beautiful and enigmatic Italian scientist. Embarking on a nonstop, action-packed hunt through sealed crypts, dangerous catacombs, deserted cathedrals, and even to the heart of the most secretive vault on earth, Langdon and Vetra will follow a 400-year-old trail of ancient symbols that mark the Vatican's only hope for survival.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Shane]

Very long and average movie IMO. Would def wait for video. Ron Howard used to make some great movies. What happened?

 

[Chaplin]

The movie was pretty much average, but it did have a certain amount of excitement to it. You are pretty much on the edge of your seat the whole time. So in that respect, Ron Howard was successful. I think this was a better movie that DaVinci Code.

The biggest problem with this movie (same with DaVinci Code) is that Tom Hanks wasn't really playing Robert Langdon, he was playing Tom Hanks.

 

[Shane]

The movie was pretty much average, but it did have a certain amount of excitement to it. You are pretty much on the edge of your seat the whole time. So in that respect, Ron Howard was successful. I think this was a better movie that DaVinci Code.

The biggest problem with this movie (same with DaVinci Code) is that Tom Hanks wasn't really playing Robert Langdon, he was playing Tom Hanks.

Totally agree chap! Especially with the Hanks reference.

 

[dodie53]

A & D >>> Da Vinci Code

 

[Russ Smith]

Loved it, I'd say it was the best movie I've seen in a theater in awhile except it was the first movie I'd seen in a theater in awhile.

Really good, loved the music just fit the action to a T.

 

[UncleChris]

My lovely bride liked it better than I did, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Cinematography was quite good, I thought and I liked all the actors in their roles. No Oscars here, but good, "adult Nancy Drew/Scooby Do" kind of mystery. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

 

[Bada0Bing]

I read the book a long time ago and forgot to watch the film. Finally got around to it.

Very long and average movie IMO. Would def wait for video. Ron Howard used to make some great movies. What happened?

Yeah, I liked The Da Vinci Code, but this was average at best. Not sure what happened to Ron Howard either. Outside of Rush, nothing stands out in the last 15 years.