ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Movies & Movie Reviews

Angels & Demons

Updated on December 21, 2009

Another overhyped allegedly controversial film since........"The Da Vinci Code"

"Angels & Demons" is about as controversial as watching an episode of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." No, that's putting it mildly. It's about as controversial as watching an episode of "Cops." Sure, the hype would have you believe otherwise but with Ron Howard, he's proven that he's too much of a wuss for that, since the last outing he tried to prove he could do controversial movies was the "Da Vinci Code." Which was sadly not as great as the hype that surrounded it. Based off Dan Brown's book of the same name, that was originally a prequel to the "Da Vinci Code." However, Ron Howard turns it around to where this film serves as more of a sequel instead. Don't worry for those that fear it'll suggest anything like humanizing Jesus Christ or anything like that. No, no, no, unless you count blowing up the Vatican just as controversial. Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), is called upon to investigate a murder, allegedly committed by the Illuminati, that threatens to blow up the Vatican out of an elaborate plot for revenge. "Angels & Demons" is one of the lamest attempts by Ron Howard, to justify his status as a director.

Although the film does touch on the subject of science versus religion, and how blindly we allow ourselves to succumb to our religious beliefs, to ignore many logical and unjust facts. Such as murder in order to justify one's beliefs. It would've been nice had Ron Howard focused the film on that topic a bit more, as I felt that would've allowed for a much more deeper meaning. However, like the "Da Vinci Code", the film starts to touch on a controversial subject matter, but somehow Ron finds a way to back out of it, to make the film more public friendly to be embraced by the mainstream media.

(Warning:  Possible Spoiler Alert in this paragraph)  Allowing for the lines between science and religion to be so blurred, that it makes the subject matter almost irrelevant. Heck, even one of priests is quoted as saying, "religion is flawed, only because man is flawed."  Of course, in the end, Robert is still an atheist and the religious folks are still the same as well.  As it seems nothing really gets resolved or accomplished, just a simple "tongue and cheek" approach understanding that it felt like the film was saying, "let's just agree to disagree."

The only true bright spot about this movie was Tom Hanks.  I felt his performance was the only thing carrying this movie for me.  Don't get me wrong, like the "Da Vinci Code" I wanted to like this movie,  it just fell short on execution.

"Angels & Demons" is not as controversial as the hype will have you believe, nor will it resonate any type of feeling where the audience will be questioning their faith.  No, like I said before, it has more of a "let's just agree to disagree" type of philosophy where nothing gets resolved.  Just another film for Ron Howard to ride the pony tails of success off a controversial subject matter, then wuss out around the end just enough so he won't be condemned by the media.  All this film really proves is that Ron Howard is by far one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Stevennix2001 profile image

      Steven Escareno 7 years ago

      Yeah, I agree with you there. I thought Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor did make up for most this film's flaws to be honest. However, it just kind of annoys me that Hollywood makes Ron Howard out to be this great director, when he's really over rated just like Michael Bay is.

    • NateSean profile image

      NateSean 7 years ago from Salem, MA

      I think the performances were fairly decent. Ewen McGregor and Hanks really stand out for me. In DaVinci Code I thought he bounced off of Ian McKellan pretty nicely.