Angels & Demons (2009)

The film was terribly tedious and long In the third millennium, making such films is a waste of time and a waste of the material resources of a community I think directors and screenwriters of such films should be sanctioned This means that no one will go to the movies for many years The people of the world maybe unemployed, but they are not at the hands of people It was worth nothing to watch free of charge Because my valuable time and my likes took What really worthless things are done for money

This movie made it from a solid 7/10 on my personal rating scale up to an 8, just barely, because the ending was absolutely fantastic.I highly recommend watching this with family and loved ones. It is a warmer movie than movie #1 The Da Vinci Code, and there is more love. It felt more balanced than the first film did to me.Enjoy. You can thank me afterwards.

from movie making point of view this is very good.But from the "thought inspiring" viewpoint it is one of the best.The thought inspiring nature of movies is the only thing that is needed to learn things.Now about the movie making view------------ For making a movie one needs 2 things -idea and format.The idea is itself a high one i.e Dan brown's.The format should have been varying from it but it fully agrees with the idea.And to the extent both agrees is what the output is.Overall it is very thought inspiring. Learn and Fun -these are the two things that are needed for entertainment of the mass and also individuals.One of these or both are final things that a movie needs at the end.

While it was a long way from perfect, or even great, 'The Da Vinci Code' was better than expected, considering its less than great reputation.Despite being a box office success, 'Angels and Demons' received mixed to negative reviews, and it's not hard to see why. As an adaptation of the book, which also had some imperfections but was an engrossing and intriguing read, 'Angels and Demons' is extremely poor, with much being cut out or dumbed down, giving the film an over-simplified and over-complicated feel. On its own terms, it's just as problematic and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, inferior to 'The Da Vinci Code', sharing some of the same flaws but amplified while making more on the way.'Angels and Demons' to its credit is a great-looking film, being beautifully shot with breath-taking locations that could have been utilised more. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting and accentuates the thriller mood of the film. Tom Hanks gives his role an easy-going charm, while Ewan McGregor has an earnestness while also trying very hard to give his character plausibility (though the character has too much of the opposite for him to properly succeed).Stellan Skarsgård is similarly strong, as are Victor Alferi and a chilling Nikolaj Lie Kaas.On the other hand, Ayelet Zurer is a charmless and bland substitute for Audrey Tautou, with little to do and giving her worthless dialogue far too much weight. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl's very over-acted villain and Pierfrancesco Favino who spends the whole of his screen time looking hopelessly lost.The cast are not helped by their (interesting) characters being reduced to mostly simplistic caricatures, and even those not quite as badly affected are underdeveloped. Nor with a truly corny and clunky script, muddled direction by Ron Howard and a story that feels convoluted, to the point of incomprehensibility in places, and childish with plot twists too obvious.People have said that 'Angels and Demons' had brisker pacing than 'The Da Vinci Code'. Personally, it was partly yes (it is in a way) but largely no. To me the pacing was all over the place, with so many convolutions and parts that feel jumpy it did feel rushed, while the middle act especially lacked urgency and instead dragged like mad.Overall, not without dishonour, and with enough to prevent it from being completely demonic, but very lacklustre and disappointing, with it also falling far short of being angelic. 4/10 Bethany Cox