Movie 174: Angels & Demons

Angels & Demons (2009) by Ron Howard
starring Tom Hanks & Ewan McGregor



In a nutshell: Dan Brown's style of information-heavy fiction doesn't translate well to the screen. Too much time has to be spent dropping obscure names with mildly adequate explanations and the characters barely get developed as a result.

Quick synopsis: Before he tracked down the long lost bloodline of Christ, symbologist Robert Langdon helps the Catholic church get to the bottom of a plot organized by a long-hidden threat, aiming to bring it to its knees.

Content: I have to believe that with Dan Brown's mega-best-selling easy-reading books as source material, there were good movies to be made from The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but Ron Howard's films were not the great films that might have been. They are very average movies with very questionable casting that move far too fast for the twists and turns to have any impact.

During the peak of the Da Vinci Code's popularity, I felt no shame in enjoying Dan Brown's contributions to literature. But I have witnessed a small backlash against Mr. Brown when people began to realize that he writes at a 6th grade level and repeatedly uses a certain cheap trick to create suspense - 2 page chapters with a cliffhanger at the end of each one. Nevertheless, these facts have not turned me against Brown's books, but have merely shifted them into the "guilty pleasures" section of my library (which incidentally just added Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol).

But the odd thing about Brown's Robert Langdon series (Da Vinci Code, Angel & Demons, Lost Symbol) is that while Langdon is the lead and the novels are undoubtedly interesting, Langdon himself is not interesting. He mostly serves as the source of the obscure facts required to move the story forward. He hardly even has a discernible personality. And when the character was written for the screen, there was no time to extrapolate on the little basis given by the books because of the minutes devoted to necessary information, twists and turns required to keep the story intact.

Perhaps certain actors could have taken character development upon themselves in interpreting Langdon, but Tom Hanks doesn't pull it off. At least he got rid of his laughable hairdo from The Da Vinci Code, but he is equally as bland. Ewan McGregor plays a pivotal character, but I think he is an overrated actor. I don't remember liking him in anything except Trainspotting through the years. I generally like Stellan Skarsgard (of Good Will Hunting fame), who plays a commander in the Swiss Guard, but I am slowly realizing that his campy appearances have turned into a sort of novelty for me. I get excited in a way only comparable to the momentary excitement I feel when Christopher McDonald (the immortal Shooter McGavin) inevitably pops up in what seems like every B movie. The female lead (I don't even know who she was) was completely nondescript.

Brown slick little cliffhanger trick does not translate to the screen either. A film that jumped around as much as his books, would probably have been worse than Ron Howard's finished products.

It is possible for films that fly through at a breakneck pace to work. See Snatch for verification. The characters in that movie are even fairly well developed. And then there is one other film that serves as concrete evidence that Angels & Demons (and Da Vinci Code) could have been done better - National Treasure - because it is the exact same type of adventure plot. So what is it that makes National Treasure immensely more enjoyable than either Brown adaptation? The single characteristic that jumps out is HUMOR. Angels & Demons was COMPLETELY devoid of even a hint of humor. But again, there were probably no spare minutes in the film's already lengthy run time for that. National Treasure was also not burdened by any source material and was created specifically for the screen. Adaptations are always trickier and Howard's attempts at adapting Brown haven't clicked, for whatever reason.

I don't mean to give the impression that Angels & Demons is a bad movie - it is not. It is worth watching once and is not offensive in any way, but it's not memorable or rewatchable. When dealing with such far-fetched stories supposedly set in present-day reality, a little humor makes it much easier to suspend disbelief, perhaps because the characters seem to be in on the joke as well. I think that to make Brown's books into GOOD movies, more ADAPTING was necessary, and less faithfulness to the original material.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
3. Jackie Brown (#173)
4. Adventureland (#170)
5. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
6. Duplicity (#167)
7. Battle Royale (#165)
8. Into the Wild (#166)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)