Angels & Demons (2009)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The film was terribly tedious and long In the third millennium, making such films is a waste of time and a waste of the material resources of a community I think directors and screenwriters of such films should be sanctioned This means that no one will go to the movies for many years The people of the world maybe unemployed, but they are not at the hands of people It was worth nothing to watch free of charge Because my valuable time and my likes took What really worthless things are done for money

Now I have never read any of Dan Brown's novels, they are all mainly too long. The Da Vinci Code was mainly a complete bore so I lost interest in both it's sequels when they came out. However I happened to see this film a few days ago and realized that it really wasn't that bad. When the Illuminati kidnap four cardinals that are possibilities to succeed the old Pope after he passed away. The church summons Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to find out how and why the Illuminati have returned and to hopefully find the cardinals. Now, I don't think this is a great film by any stretch but it is a very enjoyable and exciting thriller. It is one of these disposable thrillers that you watch on a boring day. The film has some very well directed sequences and the editing as well as the score were both excellent. The content was shallow and if you look for a film that's more in depth, you will be disappointed. However for those who look for a fun thriller that's exciting and features a straight forward story with a few twists and turns, look no further.

The friend Dan Brown lined up with his poor novel "The Da Vinci Code" and to the heat of his success we got his second work "Angels and Demons" in which repeats scheme, style and philosophy, and as we all know, despite To be earlier than the first, became popular after this. Although there are those who think that the latter is better, I had enough to sink the archetypal code. So I can say nothing about the virtues of the text on the film or viceversa. What I do affirm is that what we have seen does not pass from a rather fancy gymkhana in which the tracks follow one another as a clumsy excuse to advance the plot. At first glance it may seem ingenious but if you look closely is a jumble without ton or are in which one does not find out anything. I really barely understood Robert Langdon's (Tom Hanks) deductions, or what led him to go from one side of Rome to another. A lot runs, I run you, fairly forced but little more.Having said that however confusing the details of the investigation, what is the plot I call the first. The bad, the plans, what's behind the Illuminati. Everything, except some points of the plot that neither Ron Howard nor Down Brown could solve. And it is not to put medals but the progressive minds of these creators are simpler than they are totally useless and all the clichés that introduce are come to the league, at least for which it has some sense of smell for these cases. With this the film is not that surprising, nor that arouses much interest. To tell you that he was more concerned if Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer, from Italian and Catholic, nothing, Jewish from Israel) wore shoes or boots (yes, fortunately they were the latter) I tell you everything. Of course, the scenes that are sprinkled "Angels and Demons" between ridiculous and laughable, entertain and allow you to laugh at your expense for how bad they are.Special mention deserves the philosophy of this novel led to the big screen. On the one hand, its success, like that of the "Da Vinci Code", lies in a certain Manichaean and progressive vision that gives a historical pedigree to this leftist position. Light fighting against the reaction for centuries and even millennia. How cool! In this vision, the Catholic Church is the perfect target as an obscurantist institution par excellence. The fact that this approach is a bundle of delirious and pamplained memes without any historical background is the least of it. But on the other, there is a positive vision that encourages the very Church that is attacked so that steps towards a kind of harakiri in which they end up dissolving all their dogmas and beliefs. Here is insisted on the mantra of combining religion and science, as Benedict XVI says, Reason and Faith. What they do not understand, not even the Pope, is that reason and science directly destroy the Faith and what is the Own religion as we know it. I understand that an atheist does not care, but he who writes annoys this tricky philosophy as determined to rationalize religion as to end all the magic, the sacred and the supernatural that every creed defends.

Laughably dumb. One of the most idiotic films based on an equally lame and childish book. People just keep pulling crap out of their behinds in this incredibly stupid film.But maybe the fault lies in the asinine book written by Dan Brown.Bad history. Bad research. Bad premise.Why anyone would pay money to read the trip e written by Brown is beyond me. But I expect much more from Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Pitiful garbage.Avoid this stink-burger at all costs.