Angels & Demons

User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 232 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 46 out of 232

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  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. Dec 21, 2015
    5
    "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 .
  23. Mar 27, 2016
    6
    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-clock thriller elements. Less turgid and aggravating than its predecessor, this cleverly produced melodrama remains hamstrung by novelist’s Dan Brown’sScience 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
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. 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.