Before I get started, I should note that I spent the last two months re-reading the book, so the bulk of my review will deal with this.
Angels and Demons was written before The DaVinci Code. Like most people, however, I read them in reverse order. It was my feeling from the very beginning that A&D was far superior to TDC and many of the reviews that you will read of this movie (compared to its predecessor) will say the same. And I agree that both as a book and movie it was better.
On its own, though, Angels & Demons (the movie) was pretty weak. A number of key characters were omitted, re-imagined, or combined. This, alone, made for a less dynamic and engaging film. Several key plot points were left out. Some key relationships were altered. And we can argue up and down for changes being necessary to keep the story within a normal time limit. But how can you argue for altering a character from a 250lb 6’2″ black assasin in the book to a 5’10″ scrawny, nerdy white guy in the movie?!? Also notable was the complete redaction of the BBC journalist and his camera-person. Even with all the reporter characters shown in the film, not one of them worked for the BBC.
The acting was fine. The action was ok (though a lot less gory than I had imagined in the book). As a film, I’m sure it was somewhat entertaining. It just wasn’t the book.
If you haven’t read it and are too busy to do so, I would suggest that you see it. Otherwise read the book. If you’ve already read it, I suggest that the only theatre you visit should be the theater of your mind. Don’t let Hollywood ruin this one for you, take your $8 over to Whataburger instead.
Related posts:
Donna
Well I went to see this movie without reading any of the books (but my husband had) and I enjoyed it by itself. It was entertaining and interesting and I think it helped that I had not read the book as I was not disappointed like you were in the changes in some of the characters…I didn’t know the characters (except Tom Hanks character from the 1st movie).
June 4, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Ryan
glad you were able to enjoy it for what it was
June 5, 2009 at 11:42 pm
johnny thunders
“But how can you argue for altering a character from a 250lb 6′2″ black assasin in the book to a 5′10″ scrawny, nerdy white guy in the movie?!?”
was he still an assassin in the movie? and is there something that four inches of height and skin color completely changes about the character?
“Also notable was the complete redaction of the BBC journalist and his camera-person. Even with all the reporter characters shown in the film, not one of them worked for the BBC.”
is there a plot point that relies on one of the reporters working for the BBC?
June 6, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Ryan
“was he still an assassin in the movie? and is there something that four inches of height and skin color completely changes about the character?”
Yes, he was still an assassin, but he was motivated by money, whereas the character in the book was Muslim and was motivated by years of repression and violence inflicted on his people by the Catholic church. Also, he seemed to be a more violent foreboding character, while the scrawny white guy just seemed to do what he was getting paid for.
“is there a plot point that relies on one of the reporters working for the BBC?”
Not specifically that he works for the BBC, but the reporter and his camera-woman are key elements to the story. The fact that they were removed and the BBC not even cameoed was interesting to me – as though the BBC might not want to put their name on the movie.
Thanks for asking.
June 7, 2009 at 7:04 am
Natalie
I’ve read the book and curious about the movie. Great review!
June 16, 2009 at 11:58 am
Ryan
Thanks!
June 18, 2009 at 12:48 pm