Angels and Demons

*** Stars

Movies like the The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons kind of have the same restrictions as Watchmen, where the books are rather unfilmmable. For the first half or so of Demons, there are several moments of expository dialogue and the whole telling-not-showing dilemma. This movie could be much better, but to enjoy it for what it is, you have to enter the theater accepting the fate of its structure.

What's refreshing about Angels and Demons is how much of an old-fashioned adventure it is, a totally fun ride that coasts along effortlessly for its 140 minute runtime. While I agree with the majority that The Da Vinci Code was a letdown, it certainly wasn't awful. If people had a problem with the 2006 smash hit, they may be delighted to know that Angels and Demons is a major improvement. However, if you enter this film with any sort of judgment on its plausibility or realism, then this is not the film for you. I would suggest reading Dan Brown's excellent book before hand.

Now for those who just want to see the movie, here are the basics: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is back in action (although the book is actually the prequel, the filmmakers have wisely based it after the events of The Da Vinci Code) after the murder of Leonardo Vetra, a physicist who created the first ever anti-matter. Anti-matter, the opposite of matter, has enough power to cause monumental destruction.

After Vetra's death, his daughter Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer) and Langdon travel to Vatican City to find the secret brotherhood behind his murder, The Illuminati. Once they get to the holiest place on earth, clues’ including the four alters of science (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) mark a path that will lead them to the element that could kill millions. While this is happening, thousands have gathered at St. Peter's square due to the death of The Pope, where The Cardinals are in meeting to select the newest head of the religious world.

Yes, the plot is absurd. Sure, the ideas are far-fetched. But that's the point. Who in the world would want to see a summer blockbuster that must stick to the strict codes of religious practices? That's what Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) classes are for. We're not here to learn about the accurate translations of selecting a new pope or the restrictions of real science. We're here to see Robert Langdon on a preposterous adventure that stirs controversy and excitement.

Of course there has to be a sense of coherency and narrative structure. Without that, movies like this would be impossible to enjoy. What I mean is this: I have heard several people stating that the movie is silly and unrealistic, yet they defend and applaud Dan Brown's novel. How in the world can you claim that one is not silly and the other is when the latter is based off the source material? If you want to argue that you don't like Hanks as Langdon or Ron Howard's over-the-top antics so be it, but if you can't get passed the absurdity of the plot, again, just stay away.

For me, I like Angels and Demons. I like its excitement. I like Tom Hanks's natural influence on screen. And strangely enough, I like its release date. After the month of May, this summer will soon consist of mostly mindless dribble and/or blockbusters that would rather produce dollar signs over art (a few exceptions include Funny People, Public Enemies, and Inglorious Basterds). And while Angels and Demons is a blockbuster and a sequel, at least it's ignoring certain people's pointless criticisms (you know who you are) and lets we interested few to appreciate a fast-paced thrill ride.