Movie Review: Angels & Demons
My wife and I went to see Angels & Demons on Friday. I’ll admit that Dan Brown’s two novels, DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons are something of a guilty pleasure of mine. I’m a sucker for conspiracy theories such as those surrounding the Knights Templar and Illuminati. I don’t believe even a fraction of what is said about them, but I find it all entertaining none-the-less. And Brown’s weaving of these ancient conspiracy theories into action stories featuring a Sherlockesque symbologist has made for good fiction. Fiction people take too seriously, but good none the less.
Think Harry Potter for conspiracy fans.
The movies based on these books have been something less than good.
The first one starred Tom Hanks with an improbably bad hair cut. The second one starred Tom Hanks with a better hair cut.
That’s probably my biggest reaction.
The movies are long on the action sequences of the books (car chases, gun fights) and short on most of the (not always spot-on accurate) historical back story that are what makes Brown’s books appealing. People going to these movies hoping to see what Brown has done in the books recreated on screen are going to be disappointed. What I like best about the books is hearing places and works art that I’d like to see some day described in detail, and included in an action story. The movies bring the action, but little of the historical intrigue.
I’d complain about the camera work in the movie, but it’s not just Angels & Demons that has this problem. I know that constantly-shifting camera shots that at times look as though they were recorded by a camera operator who was jogging with a handy cam can lend a scene a certain dynamic quality. That being said, not every scene needs that.
Sometimes you should just point the camera at the scene and record it. Period.
