Review: Angels & Demons (2009)

[Homer Yen]

Angels & Demons - Beautiful Film within Unsatisfying Narrative
by Homer Yen
(c) 2009

What's the fundamental difference between an employee and an owner?  I
believe that an employee considers their activities to be tasks -
things that are done based on someone else's grand plan.  Meanwhile an
owner sets in motion a vision that they have.  They want to bring that
grand plan to realization no matter what the cost.  When you are
all-in, no sacrifice is too big.  Today, in my world, if given a
choice, it's better to be an owner than an employee.

In 2006's "The DaVinci Code," Dr. Langdon (Tom Hanks) becomes involved
in a mystery after a crime is committed.  But, in that film, he comes
across like an owner - filled with passion as he pursues his personal
vision to uncover a sacred secret/truth.  Now, in the follow-up to
that film, the setup is similar here as he become involved in a
mystery after a crime is committed. But, from the get-go, that spirit
of ownership never gets established for two reasons.  First, he's
relegated to the status of an employee, for in this film, he follows
someone else's grand plan.  Second, given his feelings of church and
God (established in the first film and early on here), there doesn't
seem to be any compelling reason for him to accept the case.  When he
does, it's more like a sharp detective accepting challenging work just
to keep him busy.

"Angels & Demons" is really just a well-dressed but formulaic
thriller.  The plot structure is familiar if you've seen "Speed" or
"DieHard 3".  You know, if you don't get to a certain locale by a
certain time, something sinister will happen.   There is a secret
society called the Illuminati that has possibly re-emerged to exact
vengeance on the church.  There is a massive explosive device that has
been planted somewhere within the Vatican which has the firepower to
level the city as well as centuries of history along with it.  There
are enigmatic clues that have been left behind to help the authorities
stave off this cataclysmic event.  Despite his previous run-in with
the church (in the first film), Dr. Langdon's unique expertise in
Roman history makes him well-suited to find the trail of breadcrumbs
left through time.  Throughout, there is a definite sense of urgency
as Dr. Langdon whisks through various parts of Rome.  And Tom Hanks
appears more professorial (and has better hair) than in his previous
outing.

What did make this film interesting was the peek into the inner
workings of the papacy.  I certainly learned some interesting (and
probably arcane) vocabulary such as: preferati - the likeliest
candidates to be the next Pope; and: camerlengo - the one who presides
over the conclave when appointing the next Pope; and: conclave - the
place in which the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church meet in
private for the election of a pope.  I think my IQ might have
increased a few points.

One need not have seen that first film to follow "Angels & Demons".
It is a stand alone film much like the "Indiana Jones" films or
"National Treasure" films.  But having seen it would allow you to
understand my employee vs. owner analogy.  In fact, I think that you
would actually enjoy this film more if you had not seen the first
film.  And because I did, here's what keeps tugging at me.  This is a
follow-up to one of the most controversial stories of all time (now,
in the world of publishing, Angels & Demons was published first, but
moviegoers will see this after "The DaVinci Code")!  "The DaVinci
Code" might have been labeled blasphemous.  But at least those ideas
made that film compelling and engrossing.  This one is ok to watch,
had high production values, and has more texture than films of similar
ilk.  But it lacked the sense of wonder and discovery of the first
film.  I heard that even the film review in the Vatican newspaper
deemed the film as harmless entertainment.  Really then...how good could
this be?

Grade:	C+

S:	0 out of 3
L:	0 out of 3
V:	2 out of 3