Comments on: Movie Review: ANGELS & DEMONS

By: desdemona

desdemona — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:14:44 +0000

That movie was crap compared to the book…hated teh fact that it was set after the Da Vinci Code for continuity's sake, hated the changed ending, and hated the fact that there was so much time and epic music wasted on car chases. It just seemed so bland, whereas in the book everything moved more quickly, they were more focused on the people and the plot rather than the intermediary driving scenes, and Robert and Vittoria's relationship actually went somewhere. Also it is way more obvious in the movie who the real bad guy is (who I won;t reveal in case others havent read/seen it). And don't even get me started on Tom Hanks. I feel like completely betrayed the book by watching this movie. That's two and a half hours of my life that I can never get back.

What can I say that's positive? Well…I did love the setting, and cardinal on fire was pretty cool (excuse me being shallow for a moment but I like fire…so sue me), but these movies could have been so much better than they were.

By: mudd86

mudd86 — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:19:55 +0000

I would rahter watch mold gow on dog poop!!!

By: MatthewJames056

MatthewJames056 — Sun, 17 May 2009 08:27:00 +0000

I haven't seen this yet and somehow my prediction was spot on with your review. After seeing the first film, I was expecting a mediocre follow-up. The DaVinci Code wasn't a bad movie by any means, just mediocre. I feel like they were relying on the story to carry itself without giving all the necessary thought to transfer the suspense from the book to the big screen.

I mean, when you read the books the first thing that comes to mind is (for me at least) "Hey! This would make a great movie!" Given the impression of an easy transition to a film, I feel like they could have blown this project up and done a much better job with it if they really wanted to. I'm sure the movie is alright, but what bothers me is that both of these could have been so much more than "alright."

By: FiveThumbsDown

FiveThumbsDown — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:08:50 +0000

The book is pure fiction, Dan's just good at making it sound authentic.

Your REAL Havard physicist needs a REAL chill pill

By: JimboD

JimboD — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:11:08 +0000

i just got back from the theater, I liked it a whole lot! I felt like a little disappointed when i predicted the "ending", just to have things turn and mind f*ck me. Great flick.

By: Anders

Anders — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:10:58 +0000

It's just a movie, I don't think Dan Brown ever said it's novels were the truth.

The movies are like present time Indiana Jones films, they take some loose legends and make some histories around them.

Why it that so hard to grasp?

By: Roman

Roman — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:39:34 +0000

I thought the movie was entertaining. Unlike its predecessor the pacing on this one was more suspenseful and the acting more taught. I liked for the reasons of escapism. The purported historical beliefs should be left at the ticket counter because less one forgets this is just a fictional movie. Great entertainment all around…maybe.

By: cck

cck — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:18:04 +0000

According to a REAL Harvard physicist, the film as well as the book lacks one major thing – TRUTH! When something is purely fiction, i.e. sci fi, I have no problem with it and can enjoy it and have fun! But when you try to purport your fiction as truth and be all serious about it- then when your fake truth falls down all around you – well then… I’m sure that technically speaking, for the acting and the film making part it was very well crafted, however I’m sure it is not worth the big screen this summer – too many other really good summer movies to compete with.