Angels & Demons

User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 219 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 219
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ShannonO
    Nov 10, 2009
    3
    The book was fantastic. As a born and raised Catholic myself, I take no offense because the underlying message is that God is real. The movie, however, was an atrocity. Not only did it ignore many key elements of the book, most of what I saw was wrong. It did not stay true to the book in the least. I can see leaving out some elements in the essence of time, but Langon's character was The book was fantastic. As a born and raised Catholic myself, I take no offense because the underlying message is that God is real. The movie, however, was an atrocity. Not only did it ignore many key elements of the book, most of what I saw was wrong. It did not stay true to the book in the least. I can see leaving out some elements in the essence of time, but Langon's character was far too quick to believe the Illuminati were re-born; he was not summoned by the Vatican, he was summoned by CERN; Ms Vettra did not find her father, nor did she ever see her father's body; the Camerlango held a completely different role and even switched positions on some decisions from the book to the movie... Need I go on? I was so disgusted in the first 5 minutes that I had to walk out of the room. Expand
  2. Apr 3, 2012
    2
    Dumb movie. The ending was hilariously stupid. Tom Hanks and that hair deserve to be thrown away. I could care less about this complex piece of dung. No angels could save this disaster of a movie.
  3. Nov 16, 2013
    2
    Angels & Demons is pure hell to watch.
    A very poor adaption of a good book. The plot holes are painfully prevalent, and Tom Hanks can't save the terrible script he is handed. The movie has artificial suspense leaving viewers without a care for whats going on. By the ending you will have no idea why or how any of the prior events happened, and for that reason the film fails.
  4. Feb 4, 2014
    0
    This is the only film I have ever walked out of. Sat there confused by what the hell was going on we struggled to keep up with it and had to keep turning to each other to ask why and what had just happened. We walked out just as a helicopter exploded. It was the final straw in a ridiculous and hideous film.
  5. ClifC
    May 17, 2009
    3
    Swindle! I wanted to leave during the film. The only things I appreciated were the visual effects and the moment of the explosion. I hate when the main characters know everything about everything. And Langdon knew everything about everything, but the only problem was the short time. I mean... There's not really a plot. You know that everything will be ok at the end. And you guess Swindle! I wanted to leave during the film. The only things I appreciated were the visual effects and the moment of the explosion. I hate when the main characters know everything about everything. And Langdon knew everything about everything, but the only problem was the short time. I mean... There's not really a plot. You know that everything will be ok at the end. And you guess there will be a surprise. So for me it was no more a surprise when the end. Expand
  6. ChadS
    May 17, 2009
    3
    Crash Test Dummies' Dan Roberts wrote a stunning pro-evolution song called "In the Days of the Cavemen"(from the album "God Shuffled His Feet"), in which the concept of a palimpsest is communicated in the chorus: "See in the shapes of my body/leftover parts from the apes and monkeys" was the key couplet. One of those parts is the appendix. It's a useless organ to homosapiens, Crash Test Dummies' Dan Roberts wrote a stunning pro-evolution song called "In the Days of the Cavemen"(from the album "God Shuffled His Feet"), in which the concept of a palimpsest is communicated in the chorus: "See in the shapes of my body/leftover parts from the apes and monkeys" was the key couplet. One of those parts is the appendix. It's a useless organ to homosapiens, but way back when our ape cousins were "foraging the forests like a primate," the appendix was utilized for the digestion of raw meat. A sort of palimpsest is suggested in John Turtletaub's "National Treasure", a "DaVinci Code" knockoff, when Ben Gates(Nicholas Cage) uncovers a treasure map underneath the Constitution(to be a true palimpsest, the map had to be written beneath the existing parchment). Under everybody's noses, this seemingly goofy follow-the-clues, almost Dadaist romp, in retrospect, might have been commenting on the Dan Brown novel. Using the palimpsest as metaphor, "National Treasure" seems more pro-science than "Angels and Demons". To better illuminate the Illuminati's platform, replacing the generic exchanges(humor-free and personality-free) between Robert(Tom Hanks) and Vittoria(Ayelet Zurer) with shop talk about the Big Bang Theory and evolution, might have helped offset the obligatory scenes of action. "Angels and Demons" is a film without rhetoric, which is curious, since its themes are nothing but rhetorical. Understandably, many lives are in jeopardy, so it's not the time or place for the academician to debate the merits of science over religion with the Vatican. But with his colleague, among themselves, for the sake of exposition, the two scholars should have given the intelligent design proponents something to talk about, and mount an argument for science instead of banally commenting on the insipid clues that the story forces them to follow. The film's brief mention about stem cell research from two protestors on opposing faction is more stimulating than anything in this popular entertainment, which doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to really fluster either side of the God issue. Expand
  7. DianneR
    May 15, 2009
    1
    Previewed as "better than The Da Vinci Code." Should have known by that statment! "Babe" was better that The Da Vinci Code!!!
  8. kp
    May 16, 2009
    3
    The pace of this movie alone might put one to sleep. The film adaptation is incredibly predictable out unlike the book which will keep you on the edge of your seat. A few good thrills, but overall another massive failure for Ron Howard. I think Robert Langdon should just be left to the pages and not on screen.
  9. ShivB
    May 17, 2009
    2
    Ron destroyed the book ! Missed all the critical bits a few essential characters (and their wheelchairs) and the god dam Illuminati diamond!! turned it into some keys? what up man? I don't think they even Read the book! Some movies do books justice by bringing to our eyes what we see in our minds eyes when we read the books. This movie just chewed the book up and spat it out like Ron destroyed the book ! Missed all the critical bits a few essential characters (and their wheelchairs) and the god dam Illuminati diamond!! turned it into some keys? what up man? I don't think they even Read the book! Some movies do books justice by bringing to our eyes what we see in our minds eyes when we read the books. This movie just chewed the book up and spat it out like used bubble gum and then stuck it to the bottom of the desk we were sitting at and then charged us 15 bucks to stare at it for an hour. Expand
  10. Fantasy
    May 21, 2009
    1
    This was a film for people who have had a lobotomy or decided to check their brains in at the door. The plot is absolutely ridiculous. There's no character development at all. As a matter of fact there's no dialogue or sexual tension between the two lead characters. There are more plot holes than in swiss cheese. Unless one believes that the lowest man on the totempole can This was a film for people who have had a lobotomy or decided to check their brains in at the door. The plot is absolutely ridiculous. There's no character development at all. As a matter of fact there's no dialogue or sexual tension between the two lead characters. There are more plot holes than in swiss cheese. Unless one believes that the lowest man on the totempole can manipulate the books, the archive chambers, the Pope, all the Cardinals, the head of the Swiss Guard, and an assassin. And Rambo can also, kill, maim, and torture. And if that isn't enough they want you to belive he can time events down to the nano second. Want more? Can't any of us have the ability to fly awaiting helicopters, parachute like a storm trooper, set car bombs, but somehow overlook the basic Big Brother camera that was watching his every move. But of course no one but Tom Hanks after two hours and twenty minutes of agony is smart enough to figure it out. At least Italy looked nice when there wasn't explosions and murders galore. It was laughable without any suspense whatsoever. Ridiculous is an understatment. Believe me the Catholic Church has nothing to worry about! Expand
  11. WilliamD
    May 20, 2009
    0
    Wow this movie was horrific. I really don't understand how people can say this movie is good, except if they havent read the book, because the story is completly changed. *Spoiler Alert* *Spoiler Alert* *Spoiler Alert* The last cardinal is suppose to die, not become pope
  12. LarryK
    May 31, 2009
    2
    A boring Ron Howard film? What's this world coming to?! 2 points only because Tom Hanks is in it. Having read the book and being familiar with the story line apparently is a detriment to enjoying this film.
  13. KevinE
    Jun 3, 2009
    3
    I was extremely disappointed with this entire adaptation of Dan Brown's novel. Putting aside the plot crafted by Brown, I want to focus on the movie's version. After reading other reviews, people are saying that the plot is not at all believable... well, that is partly to blame on the awful screenplay. The original novel had a much more captivating story while during the film I I was extremely disappointed with this entire adaptation of Dan Brown's novel. Putting aside the plot crafted by Brown, I want to focus on the movie's version. After reading other reviews, people are saying that the plot is not at all believable... well, that is partly to blame on the awful screenplay. The original novel had a much more captivating story while during the film I actually found myself wishing it was over. The movie deviates from the script so dramatically that the story is not even the same story anymore. Whole characters are removed and events are completely changed. They replaced the hassassin (yes, I meant to spell it that way... read the book) with a completely different character (among others) and completely and unnecessarily changed significant elements. From the fourth cardinal on the story was not anywhere near what happens in the novel. Especially the Illuminati Diamond! Then there is Tom Hanks' abysmal portrayal of Langdon. I was not happy with that decision from when they made The Da Vinci Code. What the casting director was thinking I will never know. Hanks actually makes the character someone I want to hate. His own sense of undeserved self-importance is nauseating. Langdon's character may be important and command respect but Hanks certainly did not bring that home. The only reason this film even gets a 3 in my opinion is because the book deserves that much. The movie itself was awful. The Da Vinci Code did not do well and this one followed suit. Da Vinci Code was better in my opinion. I would like to see both movies remade with a respectable script and a better director, cast, and crew. This definitely won't be a movie that I will be adding to my collection. Expand
  14. JackF.
    May 15, 2009
    2
    You can accept that the story in a Dan Brown "thriller" is always going to be implausible, but the dialogue is so embarrassingly bad - it patronises you as a viewer by presuming you couldn't possibly follow the most obvious of plot points without them spelling it out in ways that no sane human would talk. A monumental waste of money and of my time.
  15. ChrisV
    May 15, 2009
    3
    If you read the book , you will be disappointed. Major characters are missing and the story was re-arranged to make it...softer. It really took away from the story. The set design was worth it but the story does not compare to the book. I went to the midnight showing and I really should have waited.
  16. LarsW
    May 15, 2009
    3
    After the painfully accurate Da Vinchi Code director Ron Howard tried to change things around to get rid of plot holes and plot twists that went beyond belief, which resulted in abandoning all of the characters' relationships, backstories and interactions to the point that even Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon seemed more like a minor character. Great actors and sets may save the movie After the painfully accurate Da Vinchi Code director Ron Howard tried to change things around to get rid of plot holes and plot twists that went beyond belief, which resulted in abandoning all of the characters' relationships, backstories and interactions to the point that even Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon seemed more like a minor character. Great actors and sets may save the movie for more forgivable viewers and those who are unfamiliar with the novel. Expand
  17. BeckJ
    May 16, 2009
    0
    Wretched film. Unforgivably unbelievable. Wait for TV release.
  18. JonathanW
    May 16, 2009
    1
    Awful awful movie... Terrible dialogue, you could almost say before they did what was gonna come out of their mouths. Woeful casting, ewan mc gregor should be ashamed for being involved in such a load of crap (money aside). Totally cringeworthy... I was bored after 15 minutes. Cinema full of idiots who thought parts of it were hilarious! Shocking.
  19. CurrenW
    May 17, 2009
    2
    The trailer looked awesome, but the movie was just a boring disappointment. The acting was lame (even Tom Hanks sucked), there was only one good action scene, and the music was often times way too dramatic. I was expecting this film to be the next National Treasure, but what I got was just a boring, worthless disappointment. If you really want to see this movie, just catch it on TV The trailer looked awesome, but the movie was just a boring disappointment. The acting was lame (even Tom Hanks sucked), there was only one good action scene, and the music was often times way too dramatic. I was expecting this film to be the next National Treasure, but what I got was just a boring, worthless disappointment. If you really want to see this movie, just catch it on TV sometime; it's not even worth the 99 cents I spend for renting movies that are at least one year old; it's that bad. Expand
  20. BobH.
    May 23, 2009
    0
    So awful and ridiculous I felt sorry for Tom Hanks. Ron Howard who is beloved has to have lost his mind. There are so many plot holes that you can't take anythng seriously. After a while you realize that the same scene is basically being repeated over and over again. And finally if you use your intelligence you realize that noting makes sense at all. A waste of time and money. Just awful.
  21. Gary
    May 24, 2009
    1
    Awful shoot em up bloody murder mystery set against the backdrop of the Vatican in Rome. Mindless senseless brutality with Tom Hanks running around Rome like a chicken without a head. And the ending is so dumb that if you try to make heads or tails out of it it's almost laughable. The Catholic Church has nothng to worry about as no one can take this movie seriously. REFUND!
  22. KermitK
    May 27, 2009
    2
    An passable thriller. That is the reason I rated it 2. The whole movie collapses towards the end when unbelievable coincidences come into play( I sure would like to know what Carmelengo was planning to do with the lump of anti-matter had there been no helicopter waiting ), not to mention many gaping holes in the plot. Great shame the makers of this film thought they could get away with it.
  23. AndrewH
    May 28, 2009
    2
    Its a terrible film, even worse than the Da Vinci Code. A person on here who gave it 10 spelt subtle as sutil. Says it all really.
  24. ArthurC.
    Jun 2, 2009
    3
    You can certainly look past unrealistic moments in films. But you can't overlook them when the film is so boring. How come they can't adapt Dan Brown's books properly for the screen.
  25. CongoGongo
    Jun 2, 2009
    0
    That Ending! If it wasn't bad enough when I saw this ending I wanted to upchuck. Forgotten the minute you leave the theater. It has to be a total embarrassment for Tom Hanks to have this on his resume. Just awful!
  26. TravisC
    Jul 2, 2009
    2
    This movie is garbage from start to finish. Like Dan Brown's novels, it's packed with childish riddles and absurd plot turns that insult the intelligence of the viewer/reader. Broad daylight turns to black night instantaneously and with no explanation. Tom Hanks' character manages to drive across the entire city of Rome in 5 or 6 minutes multiple times. The entire timeline This movie is garbage from start to finish. Like Dan Brown's novels, it's packed with childish riddles and absurd plot turns that insult the intelligence of the viewer/reader. Broad daylight turns to black night instantaneously and with no explanation. Tom Hanks' character manages to drive across the entire city of Rome in 5 or 6 minutes multiple times. The entire timeline of events is utterly impossible and totally unbelievable. I'm all for suspension of belief, but this is a joke. Everything Dan Brown touches turns to crap. Expand
  27. PaulS
    May 16, 2009
    0
    After seeing this movie, it left only one mystery unsolved....how do I get my money back! A lame movie and a definite contender for a golden rassie for worst film and or worst director.
  28. TheWhiskeyMan
    May 27, 2009
    0
    So ridiculous that I started laughing out loud. And that ending. Rambo in a collar who somehow knows to steal ten million, kill a trained assassin, out smart the police and the Swiss Guard, car bomb, contact terrorists, fly helicopters, parachute, turn off oxygen, etc. But other than that he is just a good little church mouse. So stupid that it defies all logic.
  29. RichardW
    May 31, 2009
    2
    One of the dumbest and most confounding endings in the history of cinema ruins an otherwise well done mystery.
  30. Jun 15, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.

    Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).

    Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.

    Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.

    Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the **** erased.

    While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.

    Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world… no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day…? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study… (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.

    On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.
    Expand
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 36
  2. Negative: 3 out of 36
  1. Reviewed by: Deborah Young
    70
    Plucking the same violent, occult strings as "Da Vinci" while avoiding its leadenness, Angels keeps the action coming for the best part of 139 minutes.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    Less turgid and aggravating than its predecessor, this cleverly produced melodrama remains hamstrung by novelist's Dan Brown's laborious connect-the-dots plotting and the filmmakers' prosaic literal-mindedness in the face of ripe historical antagonisms, mystery and intrigue.
  3. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    40
    More entertaining than "The Da Vinci Code," but still tosh.