Sound Off: Angels and Demons - What Did You Think?

May 15, 2009

Angels & Demons

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Dan Brown. Tom Hanks. Ron Howard. That's one hell of a trio right? Angels & Demons has arrived, three years after the very same people brought us The Da Vinci Code, and it's time to size this one up. It's officially a prequel, although Sony is calling it a sequel, even though was written and published before Da Vinci Code. But is this any better? Have they finally perfected Dan Brown's stories for the big screen? Or is it as boring and way too literal of an adaptation, like Da Vinci Code? Sound off below, leave your thoughts, and let us know what you thought of Angels & Demons!

To fuel the fire, I actually really enjoyed Angels & Demons, a lot more than The Da Vinci Code. I never had a problem with Tom Hanks in the first film, but he has definitely improved this time around. Ron Howard is a great director, at least I think so, and it really shows in Angels & Demons in the way he pulls together so many great elements. The cinematography was superb, the score from Hans Zimmer was exceptional, and the sound design was spectacular. It's not my favorite movie of the summer, but I had a good time watching Robert Langdon run around the streets of Rome. As an improvement over Da Vinci Code, I enjoyed it.

What did you think of Angels & Demons? A thrilling adaptation or too long and too boring?

Find more posts: Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



Why put this article up at like 9 in the morning when everyone sees movies opening night not opening morning . Tom hanks hair looks good though.

PJ H on May 15, 2009


*Spoilers* I enjoyed the movie for what it was but having read the book it was a little disappointed. The best part of the book which was the controversy was completely missing from this movie. Kohler was absent. I think they didn't want to deal with the controversy that The Da Vinci Code had, but it made for a movie that was not as good as it could have been. Going into this movie without reading the book will make this a better movie than if you read the book.

Rob on May 15, 2009


@ #1. Because alot of people go to the midnight showings and to let others who don't see real people's reviews so they can decide if they want to go.

Sean on May 15, 2009



JEFFREY on May 15, 2009


fuck off # 4

nfif on May 15, 2009


Disappointed that the assassin was changed from his original identity (In the book he was Muslim). What is Ron Howard AFRAID OF???

WEAPON X on May 15, 2009


People actually want to see this movie?!?!!?!?

Voice of Reason on May 15, 2009


#6 death maybe?

Nate on May 15, 2009


I've just come to accept the fact that any attempt by Hollywood to translate a book into a movie is always going to be imperfect, so with that mind set I'm looking forward to seeing what all the hull-a-ba-loo is about....yes that's a real word.

Sam on May 15, 2009


OK, I just got back from seeing it (9:20 AM show). Surprisingly the theater had a lot of people for this time of day. Anyway, it's a decent film. Good, not great. Does feel twice as long. I didn't read the book so I haven't nothing to compare it to. Sure, the story is ridiculous. But Tom Hanks and the new leading actress elevated it above the crap that are the "National Treasure" films. Nice cinematography and score. I'd give it a 7/10.

Film fan on May 15, 2009


This film was horrible. So unnervingly bland and repetitive.

Jordan Raup on May 15, 2009


Who can guess why they'd change that, right #6? Who would go see this at a midnight showing if there were any?

LSP on May 15, 2009


I'm so unhappy that they never revealed the camerlengo's motivations. That was the best part of the book!!!!! It was the entire reason for ALL of it, and they just skipped over it. It makes NO SENSE!!

Book is way better on May 16, 2009


i thought it was vast improvement from the da vinci code and it was enjoyable but could have been greater if the story could've been little better but still none the less the thriller part of the movie was great

alan on May 16, 2009


I thought it was good.

Brian on May 16, 2009


Ah, I was so dissapointing at how much the story changed from book to movie. I get that that's what happens but some of the best parts were either taken out or completely changed. What a bummer! Still entertaining though, just not what I was looking forward to.

Katie on May 17, 2009


Like the other postings above I was disappointed by what was left out or changed in the movie. Although, I do understand Ron Howard's motivation to do so. The movie was about 2.5hrs long. He simply didn't have time to set up everything the way it was in the book. It happens with every movie based on a book. I am glad that he didn't have Hanks get in the chopper at the end I wasn't fan of that scene in the book.

Johnny G on May 17, 2009


People will never understand. The script is based off of the book. It is not the book. They have to translate it to a film, and the way cinema works differs from novels, with the antagonist/protagonist/etc. So that is why time and time individuals get mad when they leave stuff out. For one they are turning a book into a Hollywood version, and 2, they simply do not have the time to make it, unless they want to split it into 2 parts (Harry Potter 7). When people go head on into the film expecting it to be the book, stop thinking that way, you will always end up disappointed. So please, can people reviewing the film, review the film, not the differences in the book. I saw the movie and it was a decent film which was very entertaining. For me if I was going to see a movie based on a book that I have never read, I want to hear about the cinematography, the direction, the acting, etc.

Kevin on May 17, 2009


I did not read the book but was rather dissapointed in the movie, it was good but not great I give it a 6 out of 10

N. on May 18, 2009


I agree with #18. Cant expect movie adaptations of books to be anything like the book itself. Too much is allowed to change or is required to change for the success (or lack there of) of the movie. Not to mention this isn't the type of book that could possibly be split into two movies. Harry Potter #7 on the other hand, can easily be split into two, so could most of the other books as well thanks to the changing of the seasons that take place in EVERY film. If nothing else, it was an enjoyable film. Tom Hanks is always a good actor (ignoring Cast Away please) and the direction of the movie was welcome. I didn't ever say "Oh look, that camera angle sucks for that shot." Which, i only do on the second or third viewing of a movie (unless its a horribly shot movie of course). the whole movie was pretty repetitive. Go here, find dead guy. Go back, whine to boss man. Go here, find NEW dead guy. Rinse and repeat. I found that there was a little too much action and not enough puzzle games that I had enjoyed in the books and Da Vinci Code. 🙂

Jared H on May 22, 2009


I was also waiting for Robert Langdon and Vittoria's bath robe scene and yoga moves haha...but nothing happened lol what a bummer

ff on May 22, 2009


Are any of you serious? This movie makes no sense whatsoever. This is possibly the most contrived movie I've seen in recent memory. Actions of most characters during the movie are not consistent with what we learn about them at the end. Sure, the end is a great surprise. But it's a dishonest surprise created in large part by having the characters do and say things that are utterly at odds with the motivations and roles we learn at the end. Give me a break!

Jim on May 23, 2009


I loved it. I liked the book as well, but I thought they made a great flik. I don't really see why the film has to follow the book exactly anyhow. Its made by different people with different views.

maria shavzin on May 31, 2009

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram