User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 218 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 218
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. twodollarbill
    May 18, 2009
    5
    I was pretty disappointed with this movie in general, I have read this book that Dan Brown wrote so well, and they missed some very important parts in the movie. I really hope they do a better job next time, and not leave important twists and jists that really gets people talkin, i enjoyed the Davinci Code way better, and Tom Hanks deserved to be in a better movie, he is a great actor, if I was pretty disappointed with this movie in general, I have read this book that Dan Brown wrote so well, and they missed some very important parts in the movie. I really hope they do a better job next time, and not leave important twists and jists that really gets people talkin, i enjoyed the Davinci Code way better, and Tom Hanks deserved to be in a better movie, he is a great actor, if it weren't for him being in the movie, it would've sucked worse. Expand
  2. Oct 29, 2010
    6
    its way better than The Da Vinci Code, but the plot was confusing and most of all: implausible
  3. AmelindaS
    May 16, 2009
    5
    Pretty disappointing. Ron Howard sank to cliche shots and some of the dialogue was so stilted, people in the audience snickered to each other over the obvious insinuations. The ending is predictable despite the surprise it tries to deliver. A limping summer movie in an otherwise very promising season...Star Trek, Terminator...
  4. Rv
    May 15, 2009
    6
    Followed the book for the most part, but then went all hollywood on me at the end. Left out all the good stuff, that made the book great and people going (huh). To bad the makers had to bow down to the PC's in the world and not stick with the book, that made so many peope read it. Better luck next time...
  5. KristiP
    May 15, 2009
    6
    There are two ways you can look at any movie based on a book. In the perspective of having read the book, or not. Watching the movie in the latter perspective, it is a great movie that is full of action, and well, more action. I was very impressed with the casting, especially with stellan skarsgard and ewan mcgregor in their respective roles, though maybe not with mcgregor's irish There are two ways you can look at any movie based on a book. In the perspective of having read the book, or not. Watching the movie in the latter perspective, it is a great movie that is full of action, and well, more action. I was very impressed with the casting, especially with stellan skarsgard and ewan mcgregor in their respective roles, though maybe not with mcgregor's irish accent, and tom hanks's constant refrain "it's got to be here!" The scenematography was brilliant, and you couldn't help but sit on the edge of your seat wondering what clue Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) would uncover next. HOWEVER- in regards to the brilliant novel that this movie is supposed to be based off of, i was sorely disappointed. First of all-if anyone has ever read the back cover of angels and demons, it happens BEFORE the da vinci code, hence the meaning of PREQUEL. also several other parts deviated extremly from the original plot. i'll try not to spoil too much, however, robert langdon was never approached by the vatican police until he actually arrived in the vatican. there's more, but it's getting late as i've just watched this two and a half hour movie that started at midnight. Expand
  6. DavidH
    May 17, 2009
    4
    I read Da Vinci Code, but not Angels & Demons; thought that might help enjoyment of this movie, but still left the theatre somewhat unimpressed. Yes there was lots of action, but for some reason it just seemed a bit flat.
  7. LonnieHare
    May 20, 2009
    5
    I think I saw a different version of the film. I thought it was rather boring.
  8. JeffR
    Oct 17, 2009
    4
    Too log, too much catholic nonsense.
  9. JanY
    May 16, 2009
    6
    It's a pity that the filmmakers has taken too much liberty in changing the book's contents. The film I saw has lost quite a bit of the charm, thrill and suspense that pushed me to finish the book in one weekend. Ayelet Zurer's Vittoria is quite a contrast to the book's Vittoria and a disappointment, coming off as pretty dull and lacking the energy, excitement, and It's a pity that the filmmakers has taken too much liberty in changing the book's contents. The film I saw has lost quite a bit of the charm, thrill and suspense that pushed me to finish the book in one weekend. Ayelet Zurer's Vittoria is quite a contrast to the book's Vittoria and a disappointment, coming off as pretty dull and lacking the energy, excitement, and spirit I was expecting to see. There's zilch chemistry between her and Professor Langdon's characters. As usual, Tom Hanks is great, but it's Ewan McGreggor's Carmelengo who is phenomenally captivating.... charming on the outside and very unpredictable within. It's a pity that the scenes involving the exposure of the anti-matter from the helicopter have cut off the Professor's participation. Those scenes in the book gave me the most suspenseful and thrilling moments to capture. Anyway, the film is still worth paying the normal tix price... especially for those who have not read the book. . My vote: 6.5/10 Expand
  10. Enrique
    May 17, 2009
    6
    An entertaining, well manufactured average thriller.
  11. YokeB
    May 18, 2009
    5
    I enjoyed the Novel much more, it seemed that everything was just too easy in the film. If you haven't read the book, I don't know if the viewers will actually really understand what is going on. I must say the book inspired me to visit Italy,and it was nice seeing all of the scenery again from the Sistine Chapel, ST Peter's Cathedral, the Pantheon etc.
  12. JordanK
    May 18, 2009
    4
    Overall, it was incredibly long and boring. Why on earth are these films (this and the Da Vinci Code) so talky? Can't the filmmakers find a less literal way to get the points across? And the line readings and acting were very cheesy. Tom Hanks playing Robert Langdon are the worst film roles I have ever seen him in. I wanted to slap Ewan McGregor, he came across like a self-righteous, Overall, it was incredibly long and boring. Why on earth are these films (this and the Da Vinci Code) so talky? Can't the filmmakers find a less literal way to get the points across? And the line readings and acting were very cheesy. Tom Hanks playing Robert Langdon are the worst film roles I have ever seen him in. I wanted to slap Ewan McGregor, he came across like a self-righteous, over-earnest little kid. The true stars of the film were Vatican City and the container of anti-matter. They were the only things that came anywhere near redeeming this film for me. Expand
  13. DarrenM
    May 20, 2009
    4
    The movie falls apart when it decides that long chase scenes and shootouts should be more memorable than intelligent twists and character developement.
  14. RickyQ
    May 28, 2009
    5
    A pretty bad adaption of the book, but a decent thriller for everyone else. Too bad Ron Howard doesn't take the time to actually explain the story, the pacing is totally off and can really confuse people who haven't read the book. And for those of you who did why were there so many unnecessary changes from the book, like whole characters who were changed or completely missing? A pretty bad adaption of the book, but a decent thriller for everyone else. Too bad Ron Howard doesn't take the time to actually explain the story, the pacing is totally off and can really confuse people who haven't read the book. And for those of you who did why were there so many unnecessary changes from the book, like whole characters who were changed or completely missing? Overall, I would rate Da Vinci Code a little bit better but I'm really disappointed by both. Expand
  15. ErikM.
    Jun 24, 2009
    5
    An average rating for an average film. The problem with this film is that it does exactly what you expect, it entertains on a level that will just about sustain most peoples attention for the running time. There is nothing worthy of note in this film. Tom Hanks runs and spouts long chunks of information, the direction is perfunctory, and the score is by the numbers. The only thing worth An average rating for an average film. The problem with this film is that it does exactly what you expect, it entertains on a level that will just about sustain most peoples attention for the running time. There is nothing worthy of note in this film. Tom Hanks runs and spouts long chunks of information, the direction is perfunctory, and the score is by the numbers. The only thing worth mention in the entire film is the cinematography, however, I suspect that Rome is such a beautiful city that my 1 year old nephew could point a camera at the city and it would be beautiful. If the wife hadn Expand
  16. mistym
    May 18, 2009
    5
    I have read this book that Dan Brown wrote so well, lets just say, I was dissappointed in the movie, they left out major parts of the movie. Thats the only controversial part I thought, that they left important parts out of the movie,, blah!
  17. QBeing
    Jun 12, 2009
    6
    If you can get past the fact the police are portrayed as being dumber than the average high school stoner. Then it is an entertaining film. Enjoyable while watching it, but very contrived at the end. and when it is over you are kind of left with the feeling of Eh. could have been worse but could have been so much better. I preferred the first.
  18. Dec 7, 2012
    6
    More action packed the the first film and just as enjoyable imo. Rather suspensful as well. It just doesn't have what made the first film so good though and that's what hurts it imo. Still a solid film though.
  19. Feb 19, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have read the book and I was excepting a thrilling movie. I am completely disappointed, I wanted more I got less. So many basic elements have been skipped. They tried to give action and rush but for me they totally failed. The movie has no pace. I wouldn't recommend this movie. Expand
  20. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Angels and Demons is not comparable to The Da Vinci Code. Everything that made the Da Vinci Code good was lost in Angels and Demons. The story was incomprensible with acting that seem that they were going through the motions. Huge disappointment.
  21. Nov 4, 2013
    6
    "Angels & Demons" is the sequel to "The Da Vinci Code" and is undeniably an improvement. This one doesn't feel as overlong, it's fast-paced, and has some swift and intense action.
  22. Jul 29, 2014
    6
    Though much better than the very similar "Da Vinci Code", "Angels & Demons" is nothing more than a conspiracy-theory-style flick, entertaining to watch but empty of sense and depth. Its premise is undeniably intriguing, some plot twists thrilling, Tom Hanks looks enjoyable, but overall this movie is much less than it promises to be. Merely a good film to pass the time.
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.