Angels & Demons
Sony Pictures Releasing | Release Date: May 15, 2009
6.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 273 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
136
Mixed:
89
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
MovieLonely94Oct 29, 2010
its way better than The Da Vinci Code, but the plot was confusing and most of all: implausible
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
twodollarbillMay 18, 2009
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 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful
5
AmelindaSMay 16, 2009
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. 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...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RvMay 15, 2009
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 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...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KristiPMay 15, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DavidHMay 17, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LonnieHareMay 20, 2009
I think I saw a different version of the film. I thought it was rather boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JeffROct 17, 2009
Too log, too much catholic nonsense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JanYMay 16, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EnriqueMay 17, 2009
An entertaining, well manufactured average thriller.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
YokeBMay 18, 2009
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JordanKMay 18, 2009
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DarrenMMay 20, 2009
The movie falls apart when it decides that long chase scenes and shootouts should be more memorable than intelligent twists and character developement.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RickyQMay 28, 2009
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ErikM.Jun 24, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
mistymMay 18, 2009
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
QBeingJun 12, 2009
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
imthenoobDec 7, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
geo86Feb 19, 2012
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
csw12Mar 30, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
OfficialNov 4, 2013
"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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CineAutoctonoDec 21, 2015
"Angels & Demons" was a movie almost a term of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati , and their evil plans , but Tom Hanks in the adaptation of Dan Brown's book , the film has been very electrifying and terrifying , but very boring after"Angels & Demons" was a movie almost a term of conspiracy theories about the Illuminati , and their evil plans , but Tom Hanks in the adaptation of Dan Brown's book , the film has been very electrifying and terrifying , but very boring after the cosmic explosion scene until the appointment of a new pope , the Vatican is at risk of the Illuminati do .… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
Science and religion collide, commingle and eventually reach a state of peaceful coexistence in “Angels & Demons,” a follow-up to “The Da Vinci Code” in which director Ron Howard conspicuously gives top priority to the story’s beat-the-clockScience and religion collide, commingle and eventually reach a state of peaceful coexistence in “Angels & Demons,” a follow-up to “The Da Vinci Code” in which director Ron Howard conspicuously gives top priority to the story’s beat-the-clock thriller elements. 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.

Although “Angels & Demons” was the first novel to feature Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, the film version is sensibly positioned as a sequel to “Da Vinci” in an early scene in which a Vatican emissary requests the professor’s help in spite of the existing bad blood. This sequence takes place at a Cambridge swimming pool, enabling it to exhibit Langdon (Tom Hanks) in much fitter condition than he appeared three years ago. He’s also clearly changed hairdressers, a good move.

With the last pope dead and the college of cardinals gathered in conclave to elect a new church leader, Rome enters hyper-crisis mode when four eminent cardinals are kidnapped, with the announcement that one will be killed each hour leading up to a bombing that will destroy the Vatican. The culprit, apparently, is the Illuminati, a secret society with roots in the Enlightenment that is now bent on avenging the church’s violent attacks against it more than 200 years ago.

Zipped over to Rome with less than 24 hours to piece together arcane clues as to the clerics’ whereabouts, Langdon is this time asked to put his talents in service of the Catholic Church, not to dismember it, as in “Da Vinci.” Filmmakers are currently getting lots of mileage out of how they were prevented from filming at numerous church-controlled locations in Rome, just as Catholic orgs continue to denounce the picture sight unseen — the irony being that this story takes the side of the church against those who would destroy it.

In the company of Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), who works for the CERN particle physics lab that produced the canister of antimatter that threatens to blow St. Peter’s to kingdom come, Langdon dashes from church to crypt to nave to catacomb, finding freshly killed cardinals and others about to be as he employs his unique expertise to hash out the Illuminati’s insidious plan.

Perhaps recognizing how static and talky “Da Vinci” was, Howard and lenser Salvatore Totino this time have the camera thrashing and thrusting about while keeping Langdon constantly on the move and laying Hans Zimmer’s thumping score on top. While more superficially stimulating, the adrenalized approach can’t hide the utter absurdity of a timeframe that gives the characters just an hour each time to navigate the labyrinths of the Vatican basement archives, figure out what to do next and make their way through crowds and Roman traffic to the location of the next atrocity.

Brown’s straight-line plotting, streamlined by scenarists David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman, creates some impatience and a hunger for any kind of surprise. The latter is satisfied to an extent by the climax, which, however far-fetched, is visually spectacular and dramatically both evenhanded and unexpected.

Hanks is kept in motion so much, there’s hardly time for characterization as such; it’s enough that the borderline risible aspects of his character in “Da Vinci” have been eliminated. Zurer takes a while to make an impression but a thoughtful intelligence finally breaks through to favorable effect. McGregor — like Hanks, looking better than he has in his last couple of films — is OK as the custodian of church power during the traumatic transition, and Mueller-Stahl keeps his character’s hand hidden like an ace poker player.

If, as reported, the production shot in Rome for only two weeks, it sure doesn’t show; pic is saturated with local atmosphere, evidently achieved through expert location lensing combined with wizardly sleight-of-hand in the visual effects and production design, especially in the climactic section set in St. Peter’s Square. Dark exterior scenes accurately reflect the low lighting levels of much of nocturnal Rome.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
UNARMED_JORDOct 17, 2016
whilst the improvement is definitely significant Angels and demons cannot help but go drift into a ridiculous and utterly unrealistic story however the action sequences and Tom Hanks performance definitely delivers
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FilipeNetoFeb 24, 2018
Based on the homonymous novel by Dan Brown, this film takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an adventure in Rome, where he will try to save the Catholic Church, and the "Eternal City", of the threat of an antimatter bomb. Directed by RonBased on the homonymous novel by Dan Brown, this film takes the symbologist Robert Langdon in an adventure in Rome, where he will try to save the Catholic Church, and the "Eternal City", of the threat of an antimatter bomb. Directed by Ron Howard, the film has a screenplay by Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp, and a cast headed by Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer.

Let's start with an important statement: I haven't read the original book yet, so I don't know how far the film is faithful to its story. All that I will write was only about the film, forgetting the book.

And I start with the skeleton of the film: its far-fetched and strange script. In fact, the whole story seems centered on a macabre plot to a certain guy can be elected pope. A conspiracy that seems hard to swallow or fully understand. It looks like that guy draws an intricate plan that, from a certain moment, depends almost entirely on luck or, at best, on good odds. And that is totally senseless. The script has several flaws and even the correlation between some artworks presented seems too forced to be credible.

The actors are good but could have had a more interesting performance. Although Tom Hanks has improved his performance as Langdon (he clearly had some minor difficulties with the role in "Da Vinci Code") and have done an excellent job, his partner, Ayelet Zurer, received a more ungrateful and undeveloped character. In fact, Vittoria Vetra always seems to be left on scene and rarely contributes decisively to the investigation, merely following Langdon. Ewan McGregor was perfectly comfortable with the role of Camerlengo, but his character ends up being the victim of the major script errors that we have mentioned. Stellan Skarsgård shone in the role of the suspicious commander of the Swiss Guard, but Pierfrancesco Favino could have done a better job if his character, Inspector Olivetti, not spend half the movie lost and without knowing how to lead the investigations. The special, visual and sound effects were excellent, especially in the final of the film. The soundtrack, by Hans Zimmer, lives up to his reputation but not brings any novelties.

Despite these errors, the film is not too bad. Good action sequences, a very healthy suspense, the beauty of the scenarios of Rome and its artworks, combined with a story that has no dead moments, help the public to swallow the film and make it quite acceptable.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

48 Critic Reviews

6.2 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy Userscore
1 88 Black Panther
2 82 Isle of Dogs
3 82 A Quiet Place
4 79 Annihilation
5 73 Love, Simon
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Instant Video
New on Netflix
New on DVD/Blu-ray
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL