Angels & Demons

[rockchisler]

Re: Angels & Demons

Good Movie enjoyed it.

[KG]

Re: Angels & Demons

I was very disappointed with the DaVinci code movie. The book wasn't that great either after having read Angels and Demons first. So I have little hopes for this movie.

yeah I agree...Angels & Demons was the better book IMO but TDC was much more recognized.

[fishepa]

Re: Angels & Demons

I enjoyed the movie. My wife who read the book enjoyed it as well but said there was a lot left out of the movie that was in the book.

[The Chef]

Re: Angels & Demons

They completely wrecked the story IMO.

It was almost entirely different then the book (aside from the main plot). Important parts were left out of the movie that were in the book.

I also think Hanks did worse in this one then he did in TDC (although I never liked Hanks cast as Langdon to begin with).

Well Im going to still check it out. I havent read the book in atleast a year so in all honesty I cant even remember the details of the book anyways. I just hope it entertains in the end.

[USF11]

Re: Angels & Demons

I enjoyed the movie. My wife who read the book enjoyed it as well but said there was a lot left out of the movie that was in the book.

Yeah having read the book, I thought the movie was a big miss. Also the whole motive behind the bad guy in the movie was removed.

[mkharsh33]

Re: Angels & Demons

but let's all be honest, that is a tough book to make into a movie...it's not just history, but the whole aspect of the scenery and the historical value associated with the vatican and surrounding area.

where the DVC bombed, i thought R. Howard did a better job with this movie. not great, but better. i found the movie to be interesting and entertaining, and my wife, who hates movies like this, really liked it too.

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: Angels & Demons

Decent movie, but I just don't get why they changed so many things, unless it had to do with removing controversy:

Spoiler

1. Why remove the Kohler character? Considering the entire plot was supposed to be Illuminati-based, Kohler made the perfect red herring. Here's a guy whose life was ruined because of religion's anti-science attitude. Giving the role to the head of the Swiss Guard simply resorts to the old "he's suspicious looking" trick. Give me one reason why Richter would have done what he was set up to be guilty of.

1a. By getting rid of Kohler, they now have to have the Church call Langdon in, which makes no sense at all. In the book Kohler sends Langdon the Illuminati image, and then he goes to Vatican City to WARN the Church once they realize the antimatter is stolen. Was this removed for pacing? Maybe, because it's awfully convenient that Vittoria is sitting there when Langdon arrives (something else that didn't make much sense to me)

2. Vittoria's character was reduced to a prop.

3. Why change the assassin's entire nature? They introduce this morality in him that comes out of left field, and only exists so Langdon and Vittoria can get to the Vatican in time. Completely pointless.

4. Langdon saves the "water" cardinal's life? I guess Tom Hanks didn't want to do a fight scene in a water fountain?

The other changes, I didn't mind. I certainly didn't miss Langdon's absurd parachuting with a notebook binder or whatever the hell he used in the book.

[ehh]

Re: Angels & Demons

Saw it on opening night.

I hated the Da Vinci Code flick, I shut it off with about a half hour left it was so poorly done IMO.

I liked the book version of A&D more than the book version of DVC so I hoped this movie would be a little better DVC's movie version. It was and I was decently entertained but it felt like way too much of an attempt at a summer action blockbuster and A&D isn't the kinda story that should be contorted into that.

There are way too many details from the book to put into a movie without having it be 4+ hours long but the story was so basic and left out way too many details. The first 125 pages of the book were gone in the first 3-4 minutes of the movie.

Spoilers

Spoiler

Things I didn't like:

A) Removal of Kohler as said above.

B) Vittoria's partner murdered instead of her father, I thought that added a lot to her character in the book and gave her greater reason to go with Langdon to Rome.

C) Didn't get to know the hassassin at all in the movie. I loved in the book how he was almost cocky and felt he was so important because the Illuminati chose him to carry out such an important mission. We knew nothing about him for 95% of the movie, for all we know he coulda been one crazy zealout pretending to be Illuminati as Langdon mentioned.

[SportsTop]

Re: Angels & Demons

Decent movie, but I just don't get why they changed so many things, unless it had to do with removing controversy:

Spoiler

1. Why remove the Kohler character? Considering the entire plot was supposed to be Illuminati-based, Kohler made the perfect red herring. Here's a guy whose life was ruined because of religion's anti-science attitude. Giving the role to the head of the Swiss Guard simply resorts to the old "he's suspicious looking" trick. Give me one reason why Richter would have done what he was set up to be guilty of.

1a. By getting rid of Kohler, they now have to have the Church call Langdon in, which makes no sense at all. In the book Kohler sends Langdon the Illuminati image, and then he goes to Vatican City to WARN the Church once they realize the antimatter is stolen. Was this removed for pacing? Maybe, because it's awfully convenient that Vittoria is sitting there when Langdon arrives (something else that didn't make much sense to me)

2. Vittoria's character was reduced to a prop.

3. Why change the assassin's entire nature? They introduce this morality in him that comes out of left field, and only exists so Langdon and Vittoria can get to the Vatican in time. Completely pointless.

4. Langdon saves the "water" cardinal's life? I guess Tom Hanks didn't want to do a fight scene in a water fountain?

The other changes, I didn't mind. I certainly didn't miss Langdon's absurd parachuting with a notebook binder or whatever the hell he used in the book.

Saw it on opening night.

I hated the Da Vinci Code flick, I shut it off with about a half hour left it was so poorly done IMO.

I liked the book version of A&D more than the book version of DVC so I hoped this movie would be a little better DVC's movie version. It was and I was decently entertained but it felt like way too much of an attempt at a summer action blockbuster and A&D isn't the kinda story that should be contorted into that.

There are way too many details from the book to put into a movie without having it be 4+ hours long but the story was so basic and left out way too many details. The first 125 pages of the book were gone in the first 3-4 minutes of the movie.

Spoilers

Spoiler

Things I didn't like:

A) Removal of Kohler as said above.

B) Vittoria's partner murdered instead of her father, I thought that added a lot to her character in the book and gave her greater reason to go with Langdon to Rome.

C) Didn't get to know the hassassin at all in the movie. I loved in the book how he was almost cocky and felt he was so important because the Illuminati chose him to carry out such an important mission. We knew nothing about him for 95% of the movie, for all we know he coulda been one crazy zealout pretending to be Illuminati as Langdon mentioned.

You guys both make great points about what is lacking in the movie.

Spoiler

1. I also didn't like how the Illuminati diamond suddenly become crossed keys. The book built up to the fifth symbol and it was a poignant moment in the book when it was finally revealed.

2. Why keep the fourth cardinal alive and then elevate him to the position of Pope? It allowed the movie to end on a much less somber note then the book did. Besides, as mentioned above, the fight underwater in the fountain was one of the best moments in the book.

3. Why not divulge that the late Pope was the Camerlengo's actual father? I thought that was the final stake in him killing himself. Maybe that would've been a bit too much of a publicity fight with the Catholic Church over.

In the end the movie seemed like a much watered down version of the book.

[callmetaternuts]

Re: Angels & Demons

Ugh, I've read the book several times and

Spoiler

based on what you guys are saying, the movie isn't that similar to the book. The hassassin has no background? Great. No Kohler? why change the entire PREMISE of how this whole thing began. The "water" cardinal lives? Cmon, he dies, the carmalengo goes nuts, becomes pope for 10 minutes, but kills himself, the pope is found out to have conceived (without doing it) a son. Why change these things? Good Grief

[SportsTop]

Re: Angels & Demons

Ugh, I've read the book several times and

Spoiler

based on what you guys are saying, the movie isn't that similar to the book. The hassassin has no background? Great. No Kohler? why change the entire PREMISE of how this whole thing began. The "water" cardinal lives? Cmon, he dies, the carmalengo goes nuts, becomes pope for 10 minutes, but kills himself, the pope is found out to have conceived (without doing it) a son. Why change these things? Good Grief

Both the Hassassin and Vittoria have zero depth. I always pictured the Hassassin to look like Oded Fehr circa Deuce Bigalow, but he looks like some businessman right off the street in the movie.

[ZB9]

Re: Angels & Demons

Ive never read the book, but I really enjoyed this movie. It's not one that I would want to watch again though.

it seems the people that were disappointed in this flick are those that have read the book

I thought the casting was pretty well done also

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: Angels & Demons

You guys both make great points about what is lacking in the movie.

**spoilers removed**

In the end the movie seemed like a much watered down version of the book.

Spoiler

Regarding the Illuminati Diamond: I did miss it, but I don't think it would have registered on screen. In fact, you could barely read ANY of the brands in the film, probably because giving a long close-up look at charred flesh would have changed the rating of the film. I had to give my copy of the book to a friend just so she could read what the brands actually were.

And yes, I can't believe I forgot to mention the whole Pope as a father part in my earlier post. My guess is that it was taken out just to keep the Catholic Church from going ape****.