'Angels & Demons' review

Tom Hanks (Credit: Zade Rosenthal/Sony)

Photos:

Angels and demons on screen

Tom Hanks’ movie is all talk, check out the real things

There's chaos brewing in Rome and only expert symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) can stop it. The death (or is it murder?) of a Pope has left a leadership vacuum at the top of the Catholic Church, and the four cardinals next in line for the position (dubbed "the preferiti") have been kidnapped. A legendary secret society known as the Illuminati tops the suspect list, especially when they threaten to detonate an "antimatter" device stolen from scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) that could cause a nuclear-level event within Vatican City. With the blessing of the acting head of the Church—the Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor)—Langdon and Vetra race to unlock a series of clues believed to lead to Illuminati.

The buzz: Langdon's first screen outing, "The Da Vinci Code," grossed over $200 million at the U.S. box office and over $750 million worldwide—making it the biggest global blockbuster ever for both Hanks and director Ron Howard, and all but mandating a follow up. Hanks and Howard turned to this story, originally published three years before "Da Vinci" by Langdon's creator, author Dan Brown. That's led some people to incorrectly assume the film is a prequel to "Da Vinci"—the storyline remains largely faithful to the novel, but this is in fact a sequel. Though no knowledge of "Da Vinci" is necessary to understand what's happening in this standalone adventure.

The verdict: "Da Vinci" was one of the most sluggish blockbusters in recent years, yet there was something vaguely encouraging about its success at a time when most event movies are designed to appeal to teen boys first, everyone else second. Brown's shaky foundation for a "thinking person's" thriller—a frequently preposterous mix of historical conspiracies, secret societies, Catholic dogma and just a hint of heresy—returns in the still silly sequel, but Howard seems to have learned from criticisms over the first film's pacing. Even in the absence of a central mystery as controversially compelling as the bloodline of Jesus Christ, the director amps up the excitement factor for a faster, slicker, better-acted follow-up. Still unconcerned about appealing to hardcore action fans, "Angels" turns out three-quarters of passable fun for adults. Then the overwrought and over-obvious climax pushes the film past the two-hour mark, and past the limits of what audiences should have to endure in their fake-smart summer entertainment.

Did you know? Although other people have made sequels to Howard's films—like "Cocoon: The Return" and "Splash, Too"—this is the first sequel he has directed himself.

Add a comment