User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 217 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 217
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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Dec 29, 2013
    8
    The movie Angels & Demons pales in comparison to its novel but is nonetheless thrilling, exciting and more compelling than its film predecessor. 7.6/10
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Aug 30, 2013
    10
    Very entertaining and suspenseful!! Ron Howard is a very good director. Watch this movie!! It's obviously very underrated but do not listen to the critics and enjoy it!!
  8. Feb 23, 2013
    9
    Angels Demons is the sequel to the Da Vinci Code, and while it's generally said that Da Vinci Code was better, I disagree. When Da Vinci Code came out, I had just seen National Treasure, and there were so many similarities, that I didn't enjoy it as much as I should have. Angels Demons does what every sequel aspires to do. It takes the characters we like and puts them in a similar butAngels Demons is the sequel to the Da Vinci Code, and while it's generally said that Da Vinci Code was better, I disagree. When Da Vinci Code came out, I had just seen National Treasure, and there were so many similarities, that I didn't enjoy it as much as I should have. Angels Demons does what every sequel aspires to do. It takes the characters we like and puts them in a similar but different story. Tom Hanks is once again terrific, bringing an intensity that few others can match. Following the clues lost in time and the twists and turns thrown in by writer, Dan Brown, Angels Demons is most defiantly a sequel that lives up to the first one and also gives you something to talk about. What else could you ask for? Collapse
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    Great movie, very entertaining with a thrilling story. Again same as Part 1 the "Da Vinci Code" pretty much setup story but...who cares. These are the movies you go to the cinema for.... I love such mystical thrillers of which you unfortunately nowadays can only find so few.....Watch it!
  14. Nov 19, 2011
    7
    The acting was good and it is suspensful and keeps you interested through out. Was no where near as good as the previous film was and I was actually a bit disapointed with it because it abandond the puzzles (which made the first film so good) and had far too much violence.
  15. May 18, 2011
    8
    "Robert Langdon" (Tom Hanks) is back, and he has only a few hours to solve a mystery to save thousands of Catholic faithful, and top candidates for role of pope, before an incident which will kill them all as they await the annoucement of who the new leader of the church will be.

    Now, "Langdon", along with a woman who helped create antimatter in a lab, must figure out the clues and save
    "Robert Langdon" (Tom Hanks) is back, and he has only a few hours to solve a mystery to save thousands of Catholic faithful, and top candidates for role of pope, before an incident which will kill them all as they await the annoucement of who the new leader of the church will be.

    Now, "Langdon", along with a woman who helped create antimatter in a lab, must figure out the clues and save the faithful of the world's largest church.

    Let me say first that this is much better than the original movie, which I barely remember seeing. You really don't need to read the novel that the movie is based upon to enjoy it.

    There are some really good performances in this film, especially from Hanks, who proved himself as a solid leading man many times. Here, he really shines as a leading man.

    There is some serious problems with character development with supporting characters, especially "Dr. Vittoria Vetra" (Ayelet Zurer), whose antimatter is being used as a weapon, and "Camerlengo Patrick McKenna" (Ewan McGregor), who turns an interesting plot twist that I never expected at the end, but isn't seen as much as I would like.

    Another problem with this movie is that it is obvious that they opted for green screen for many scenes depicting Roman Catholic churches within Rome's city limits (the church refused to allow the movie to be filmed at the locations since the church declared the book offesive to the church). A barely trained eye (which I have since I learned TV production back in high school) could see the actors were in front of a green screen. These effects will become noticeable to the untrained eye as the film ages, and special effects advance.

    One thing this movie does pretty well is that it gives very little time for the audience to breathe between action and plot advancing scenes. You get excited as "Langdon" and "Vetra" get closer to the murderer(s) as they discover new clues.

    Despite not being able to shoot on location, and the threat of a strike at the time, Ron Howard did a great job in the director's chair as usual. He was able to use interesting camera angles to help tell the story nicely.

    I can't really say I noticed the soundtrack of the movie, since I barely pay attention to instrumentals since that's not my style I listen to. I do notice that it helped the scenes, and in this movie it did.

    If you see this on any of the movie channels like HBO, or on Netflix, check this one out.
    Expand
  16. May 9, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Angels and Demons is the sequel to 'The DaVinci Code' both based on the novels by Dan Brown. Angels and Demons is the first in the novel series but second in the movies and tells a fast paced story about a bomb threat that could potentially wipe out Vatican City. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a representative from Vatican City and is asked to help find the bomb hidden somewhere in the Vatican.

    On top of the general bomb scare, the pope has died two weeks previous and now conclave (where the college of cardinals vote in the next pope) is about to begin. Then to add even further to the plot, the preferiti (those most likely to be voted as the next pope) have been kidnapped by the same people who planted the bomb, the Illuminati.

    Angels & Demons brings you on a fast paced story, which leads you all around the fabulous city of Rome. Not only do you get an amazingly gripping plot, but you also get a history lesson from the brilliant minded, Robert Langdon. You get a sense of history of the Catholic Church in Rome after you see church after church whilst following clues that lead Langdon to the kidnapped cardinals and eventually to the bomb. The movie shows some brilliant acting throughout, whilst running from church to church the actors essentially have to 'walk the walk' and 'talk the talk', especially Hanks who informs you of facts that you might not have known about Rome and the Catholic Church.

    In general, a very interesting movie and very attention grabbing. No matter what age you are (once you can grasp the concept and are remotely interested in religious history) you can enjoy this movie. Sadly though Angels & Demons was not received in the box office as well as The DaVinci Code was, but it is still a good movie.

    Positives: Fascinating and attention grabbing plot with great acting all round.

    Negatives: Doesn't live up to the hype of it's predecessor. Nowhere as good as the novel. I give it a 8/10.
    Expand
  17. Mar 16, 2011
    8
    I liked that movie. It kept me watching, which is rare these days. I did not read the book, so I have no comparison to that. I was never bored, the action moved along, the acting was good, Rome was nice and authentic. If all movies made these days would have the same caliber, audiences around the world would be happier !
  18. Jan 18, 2011
    7
    Much better than The Da Vinci Code but the subject matter (symbolism and the likeness) is a very hard sell going from book to the big screen. At times Tom Hanks having to explain things felt so out of place, yet it was necessary to keep the plot moving. Angels and Demons might have been ranked a bit higher for me but I was unfortunate (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) and readMuch better than The Da Vinci Code but the subject matter (symbolism and the likeness) is a very hard sell going from book to the big screen. At times Tom Hanks having to explain things felt so out of place, yet it was necessary to keep the plot moving. Angels and Demons might have been ranked a bit higher for me but I was unfortunate (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) and read the book before seeing the movie and as the movie strayed so far from the book I became a bit annoyed thus making my viewing experience not as enjoyable. But if you haven't read the book by all means watch the movie as it will give you a heck of a good thrill ride with some extremely disturbing visuals. Expand
  19. Oct 29, 2010
    6
    its way better than The Da Vinci Code, but the plot was confusing and most of all: implausible
  20. MarkF.
    Nov 17, 2009
    9
    A genuinly enjoyable thriller. Fast paced, an intelligent plot, and amazing production values. A little disappointed with how loosely adapted this film was from the Dan Brown novel, but Ron Howard at least pulls some twists of his own to allow the story to keep flowing. A brilliant movie.
  21. 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
  22. JeffR
    Oct 17, 2009
    4
    Too log, too much catholic nonsense.
  23. ScottD
    Oct 9, 2009
    9
    I enjoyed this film a lot, despite the length and extension of the action (I enjoyed this actually). I found the film very interesting, there was a fair share of action, but I liked the film more on the way it tells the story, and how interesting it was for me.
  24. ChrisC
    Jul 24, 2009
    7
    Surprisingly good, much better than the DaVinci code movie IMO. Flowed pretty well.
  25. LuisG
    Jul 16, 2009
    8
    Coming in with little notion of what the previous film was despite wide exposure ... angels and demons plays out as a international easter hunt full of clues and chases. Hanks is far more pausible . Ewan pitch perfect. Enough winks to remain grounded.
  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. 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
  28. BrentP.
    Jun 16, 2009
    7
    Not terribly entertaining, but an interesting story. I read the book and loved it. The movie is a descent translation, but not a substitute by any stretch of the imagination. Read the book, then go see the movie.
  29. 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.
  30. JoseG
    Jun 12, 2009
    8
    OK, Ok, I admit it, I haven't read the book... yet... but, book aside, I think was a OK action movie... the script was so so... also the acting, but I have no regrets of watching this movie... maybe I change my point of view when I finally get the book.
  31. RockyB
    Jun 8, 2009
    10
    Best movie I've seend so far. Full of breath-cutting sceans and an ending which you won't expect unless you red the book.
  32. WilliamT
    Jun 5, 2009
    8
    I don't know how or why, but I ended up enjoying this film very much. There's no outstanding reason.
  33. 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
  34. 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!
  35. 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.
  36. RichardW
    May 31, 2009
    2
    One of the dumbest and most confounding endings in the history of cinema ruins an otherwise well done mystery.
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. dane
    May 28, 2009
    10
    My favourite movie of the past few years. Fast paced with interesting history, many brutal yet beautiful scenes that will stay with you for a while after you leave the theatre. The soundtrack is just perfect. Top marks.
  40. 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.
  41. Sam
    May 28, 2009
    9
    I really hate the way some people claim that because others like a popcorn movie they are idiots. At NO POINT does this film say something like: "this FICTIONAL story means that the Catholic Church is corrupt and evil". In fact, for anyone who paid even the slightest bit of attention, there is only one evil person from the church! There is not supposed to be sexual chemistry, and the I really hate the way some people claim that because others like a popcorn movie they are idiots. At NO POINT does this film say something like: "this FICTIONAL story means that the Catholic Church is corrupt and evil". In fact, for anyone who paid even the slightest bit of attention, there is only one evil person from the church! There is not supposed to be sexual chemistry, and the action/chase scenes were, to my mind, intriguing and tense, even for one who has read the book and knew the outcome. To correspond to one particular review which annoyed me: The villain does not interfere with the books or the archive chambers; had sole access to the pope and his medication leaving the cardinals and swiss guard no reason to suspect him either in person or on camera; and it is clearly stated that he trained in helicopters with the air force prior to his joining the church. There was NOTHING for the camera's to watch him for, as it was the assassin who did all the actual activities which, whilst extreme are all possible, save perhaps for the infiltration of CERN and the actual kidnapping of the preferriti, which I did find somewhat implausible. The villain's role was that of planning and, with someone who knew the EXACT proceedings of the election of a new pope, the ideas cannot have been too challenging. That said, a main plot hole for me in the film was how the villain found out about the illuminati and their secrets in the first place. I wanted to give this film an 8.5 for these flaws (and some moments of poor dialogue), but rounded up upon reading some of the more negative reviews, although some of the positive reviews (making people investigate Islam? Come off it Karl S that's ridiculous) also seem completely erroneous. Enjoy it as an action movie, at which it excels. Expand
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. DanielG
    May 26, 2009
    10
    Better than the davinci code in terms of Langdon's intelectual potential. Even if it mentions a lot of fictional events, it touches reality in a sutil way.
  45. 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!
  46. R.L
    May 24, 2009
    8
    When I first heard they were making a film adaption of "Angels & Demons" I didn't know what to expect, sometimes these film adaptions of extremely popular books are not as good as the source material. But for once they did very well, Angels and Demons is prefect summer entertainment in every way imaginable. It's got loads of action, a great story and some very intellectual When I first heard they were making a film adaption of "Angels & Demons" I didn't know what to expect, sometimes these film adaptions of extremely popular books are not as good as the source material. But for once they did very well, Angels and Demons is prefect summer entertainment in every way imaginable. It's got loads of action, a great story and some very intellectual moments about the maters that go into electing a new pope, it also boast some very good acting on the part of the main and supporting cast, the first one it kind of lagged a little, but his one delivers an unprecedented amount of good out of the park fun. It gives you what you want and doesn't fail to show it. Tom Hanks( Minus his lame hair from the previous film.) delivers an awesome return performance as Robert Langdon, who has really jumped form lowly symbologist to superhero status all in two films. But to reach my point Angels & Demons is a film that won't let you down and will not disappoint fans of the books either, it's a perfect summer movie that when you walk into that theater, sit down and watch this film you'll be walking out smiling knowing that you got your money's worth. Expand
  47. 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.
  48. AmandaD
    May 22, 2009
    10
    Awesome movie! Keeps your attention throughout the whole movie. As good as National Treasure.
  49. 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
  50. 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.
  51. 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
  52. LonnieHare
    May 20, 2009
    5
    I think I saw a different version of the film. I thought it was rather boring.
  53. DanaM
    May 19, 2009
    9
    Really enjoyed this movie. Twisting and turning at high speed, this movie keeps your attention. I really don't care that thie plot follows history. It was great entertainment and worth my ten bucks.
  54. davidm
    May 19, 2009
    7
    Okay, so the movie is more like a 6 but it gets an extra point because it was entertaining. Considering the movie was based on the book, it is a touch out there and unrealistic, but come on guys, there are movie out there about Killer Cell phones. The A List cast was great, the movie overall was a bit predictable. I would still recommend people go watch it. I would say it was worth Okay, so the movie is more like a 6 but it gets an extra point because it was entertaining. Considering the movie was based on the book, it is a touch out there and unrealistic, but come on guys, there are movie out there about Killer Cell phones. The A List cast was great, the movie overall was a bit predictable. I would still recommend people go watch it. I would say it was worth spending the money on it. Expand
  55. 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!
  56. reedf
    May 18, 2009
    7
    Just got back from the theater and despite a few unintentional laughs at the strained twists and a weakly predictable fourth act, the wife and I enjoyed this -- but much like the National Treasure films and the recent Indiana Jones,we felt like we should be there with our son, and that our son would still echo our sentiments that the grown-up-adventuring thing ran its course and ended Just got back from the theater and despite a few unintentional laughs at the strained twists and a weakly predictable fourth act, the wife and I enjoyed this -- but much like the National Treasure films and the recent Indiana Jones,we felt like we should be there with our son, and that our son would still echo our sentiments that the grown-up-adventuring thing ran its course and ended with Last Crusade. I give Ron Howard and Tom Hanks more breathing room than they may deserve, as criticism goes, and will be the first to say the movie is a pile of flaws, but I also feel it's worth watching while it's new. I would also rate the music higher than the script and the script higher than the editing -- and am officially no longer eager to see a movie written or adapted by Akiva Goldsman, bleaugh. Expand
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. Enrique
    May 17, 2009
    6
    An entertaining, well manufactured average thriller.
  61. 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
  62. TDKinDallas
    May 17, 2009
    7
    An entertaining night at the movies. I was wondering what they were going to do with some of the wildly unbelievable stuff from the book. They just left it out. Bravo. Nothing special, sort of a procedural, worth a watch.
  63. LynnA
    May 17, 2009
    8
    My partner & I have both read the book multiple times and were in Rome for nearly a week 2 yrs ago ... we both LOVED this movie. It's not identical to the book but all books get parts cut when made into movies. We thought the plot held together well & the characters were generally very well developed. Did the writer of Metacritic's description see the same movie we did? I My partner & I have both read the book multiple times and were in Rome for nearly a week 2 yrs ago ... we both LOVED this movie. It's not identical to the book but all books get parts cut when made into movies. We thought the plot held together well & the characters were generally very well developed. Did the writer of Metacritic's description see the same movie we did? I don't think so; this summary was so far off of the plot you really should have somebody different take another stab at it. Expand
  64. KarlS
    May 17, 2009
    10
    It was a great movie.It shows the whole Chritian world what politics got into the religion and how corrupt it is.Hopefully will make them rethink and investigate Islam.
  65. ToddD
    May 17, 2009
    8
    First off I liked the movie. Was it as good as the book? No, it was not. Though the pace was good it lacked the heart pounding, thrilling suspense of the novel. I finished A&D in a matter of days because I simply could not put it down. Did it convey the same sense of awe and wonder in the search for the "God Particle" as a Higgs Boson is known? No. Did it convey the existential crisis First off I liked the movie. Was it as good as the book? No, it was not. Though the pace was good it lacked the heart pounding, thrilling suspense of the novel. I finished A&D in a matter of days because I simply could not put it down. Did it convey the same sense of awe and wonder in the search for the "God Particle" as a Higgs Boson is known? No. Did it convey the existential crisis that the Large Hadron Collider poses? The spark of Creation in the hands of man? No it did not. A&D is a deep book. Posing huge questions. Do I trust that Director Ron Howard was aware and fully understood this? Yes I do. I believe Mr Howard has given us a smart, beautifully shot picture that is accessible to a wide audience. I thought Ewan McGregor was especially good in his role. Do I think that A&D the novel will get more reads as a result of the film and as such - those new readers are in for a big-time thrill! Its quiet amazing that the archaic rules of the Catholic Church (Conclave, it's Archives, etc.); great works of Master Artist; and real science are the making of a summer blockbuster. Hoo-ray for Dan Brown! Expand
  66. 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.
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. KennyR
    May 17, 2009
    7
    really more like a 6.5. For someone who has not read the book, I can understand the liking of the movie, especially given its fast pace, action, and plot. However, the movie does not do teh book justice. In order to keep the movie in a conceivable time frame, Howard clearly decided to omit certain details that are certainly important. His omition of things such as the camerlengo's really more like a 6.5. For someone who has not read the book, I can understand the liking of the movie, especially given its fast pace, action, and plot. However, the movie does not do teh book justice. In order to keep the movie in a conceivable time frame, Howard clearly decided to omit certain details that are certainly important. His omition of things such as the camerlengo's past, and certain characters (head of CERN cough cough) greatly decrease the movie, but overall a good attempt and I acknowledge the impossible task that Howard was faced with when asked to turn this into a 2 and a half hour movie. Overall, a job well done but read the book Expand
  71. Jp
    May 16, 2009
    9
    Being that it's really hard to make a book, a good book, into a good movie, ron howard did a great job with what he could. Not going to lie, better than Da Vinci Code, and though a little different in some aspects from the book, it still kept me at the edge of my seat.
  72. AlexB
    May 16, 2009
    9
    After having read the book, I was throughly pleased. Except for the wishy-washy ending, the movie is a fantastic adaptation. What people who read the book and gave bad reviews fail to realize that this is DIFFERENT from the book. It is an ADAPTATION, and a spectacular one at that. If you enjoy being entertained and enjoy good film-making, go see Angels and Demons.
  73. 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.
  74. BeckJ
    May 16, 2009
    0
    Wretched film. Unforgivably unbelievable. Wait for TV release.
  75. SusanC
    May 16, 2009
    10
    I loved this movie as well as the first one. I had no idea that the movie was as long as it was because I was lost in it. The cinematography was great. The tension and pace were excellent. I still like the first one better.
  76. LesterO
    May 16, 2009
    7
    Very entertaining!
  77. 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.
  78. 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
  79. 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.
  80. 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...
  81. ChristopherG
    May 15, 2009
    9
    A very good adaptation of the book, but with some changes which led to the credibility of the story, and makes Robert Langdon a better ally to the church, rather than a perceived enemy
  82. TomfromEvanston
    May 15, 2009
    8
    Damn good movie. A bit heavy-handed at times, a bit disjointed at times. Overall a great time. Acting was good, directing was capable, story was good. I think it helped that I had read the book and been to most of the locations in the movie (we actually chose Rome based on Dan Brown's book for a vacation). Good pace, exciting, gruesome at times. I liked it a lot.
  83. FataM
    May 15, 2009
    9
    I thought it was very deftly done--never flagged, stayed true to the book. I found it enormously entertaining!
  84. 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
  85. LizC
    May 15, 2009
    10
    I went to see this movie at midnight on Friday morning. I didn't think I would stay awake but with all the action and suspense, I didn't have a problem keeping my eyes open. BEST movie I have seen in a while.
  86. MickH
    May 15, 2009
    9
    Fast entertaining, beautiful to look at. A very good summer popcorn movie.
  87. ChazzR
    May 15, 2009
    10
    The movie doesn't entertain profoundly - nor does it profoundly entertain. It takes a lot of work to turn a Dan Brown novel into a movie. I don't think the various and myriad would-be movie critiques have gotten over their superficial preconceived notions about Ron Howard's directing ability or Dan Browns story telling, and therefore, haven't given this movie it's The movie doesn't entertain profoundly - nor does it profoundly entertain. It takes a lot of work to turn a Dan Brown novel into a movie. I don't think the various and myriad would-be movie critiques have gotten over their superficial preconceived notions about Ron Howard's directing ability or Dan Browns story telling, and therefore, haven't given this movie it's due. The movie does tell a story... and an underlying truth. Whether or not we choose to recognize it, is of course, up to us. In that, lies it's redeeming value. I thought it was a good movie and I recommend it... and when it comes out on DVD, I'm going to buy it. Expand
  88. 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.
  89. TinaW
    May 15, 2009
    8
    I love ALL Dan Brown's books. I thoroghly enjoyed the story line. A bit condensced for time and varied to keep the audience engaged. I love moives and this was interesting, brought out a little known legend, made fodder for others to grasp and possibly take off on. Like DVC It really makes you want to read the book (if you haven't already). I hope that a good Director that is I love ALL Dan Brown's books. I thoroghly enjoyed the story line. A bit condensced for time and varied to keep the audience engaged. I love moives and this was interesting, brought out a little known legend, made fodder for others to grasp and possibly take off on. Like DVC It really makes you want to read the book (if you haven't already). I hope that a good Director that is into FX will grasp Deception Point and make a HIT out of that book. Done well, I would buy it for gifts as well as for my Dan Brown Collection. An entertaining movie even at the midnight showing. Expand
  90. WiniB
    May 15, 2009
    8
    No need to compare this movie, on it's own, it made 2 hours go buy quickly. It was however, predictable. I will see it again because on it's merit, it was entertaining and I believe you need to see it twice to see what you may have missed. There is always something.
  91. GordonC
    May 15, 2009
    7
    being the first book that got made last into a movie, Angels & Demons is the better of the two books, I hope the movie dose it justice, oh and one more thing, if your going to be a Critic you must learn to read first, or at least know what you are talking about
  92. 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.
  93. IremT
    May 15, 2009
    9
    This movie was amazing. Not as good as the book, but so much better than The Da Vinci Code. The twists are brilliant (unlike in State of Play).
  94. 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!!!
  95. 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
  96. 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...
  97. JohnA
    May 15, 2009
    8
    Angels and Demons re-affirm the past dealings of the church with a link to the future of religion. The twist towards the end was excellent. A "MUST' see movie.
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.