Enkelit ja demonit

Huonon kirjan pohjalta ei voi kuvata hyvää elokuvaa. Dan Brown on keskinkertainen kynäilijä, eikä Ron Howard taitavan näyttelijkaartinsa kanssa mahda sille mitään. Enkelit ja demonit ei mielestäni missään nimessä ole Da Vinci -koodia parempi. Enkä suosittele lukemaan kirjaa ennen elokuvan katsomista, koska silloin elokuvalle ei jää enää yhtään mitään tarjottavaa. Mieluummin lue vain kirja ja jätä leffa katsomatta. (14.05.2009)

Howard has the craft down pat like few others. In a way, I admire him for how he managed to turn such a simple script (I preferred to skip the book) into a stylish chase after various symbols, statues, paintings, and crazy conspiracy theories which, despite the constant chatter, isn’t boring whatsoever. Compared to The Da Vinci Code, here we don’t get all that babbling that arouses resentment of the Vatican, which means that while the marketing controversy has been reduced, at least the film has avoided outright stupidity. That doesn’t mean that it’s particularly amazing - Brown is still too cheap a storyteller for that - but as a thriller whose aim is to entertain rather than dumbly lecture, it works surprisingly well. The actors in particular are a treat, and the charisma of Hanks, Skarsgård, and Mueller-Stahl and Zimmer's fantastic choruses alone make me want to watch it again sometime. PS: If I were a woman, I would get wet at the sight of Ewan McGregor in the movie theater. He’s never been this sexy on screen. ;-) 3 ½. (19.05.2009)

After the first hour, Angels & Demons becomes repetitive and the audience loses interest in the detective storyline, no matter how dynamic it may be. More ideas wouldn’t be unwelcome. The impressive climax, however, salvages a lot. And the work with the actors (and their hairstyles) is definitely better than in The Da Vinci Code. What fascinates me the most about this “saga” is that for all its straight-facedness, first-class filmmaking team, solid actors and controversial topics, it is unable to be anything but a simple-minded blockbuster for the masses. The masses that are unaware that 50% of their experience is provided by a guy named Hans Zimmer. (14.05.2009)

Brown’s books are undemanding and intellectually shallow, but bloody good page-turners, ideal to relax in summer by the sea. With the films it’s worse because they drag quite a bit, are too talkative and the lack of logic that the books can hide between the lines (or have at least plenty of space to explain in some way) floats to the surface, making it almost impossible to ignore. Angels and Demons suffers from the same problems as The Da Vinci Code, though perhaps it’s more tense. The result, however, is still a not very interesting thriller that might surprise a few people with a couple of rather brutal scenes, but that will bore most due to its chaste asexuality and correctness. 6/10 (29.06.2009)

It’s the opposite of the book: the filmmakers replaced the excellent exposition with a lifeless tour of Roman monuments in the company of the haughty pawn Tom Hanks, whilst the ridiculous finale in Brown's book was a replaced by a rather solid and visually interesting climax. Undoubtedly positive is the performance of Ewan McGregor, and negative the fact that the mysterious and thrilling pursuit of symbols lacked decent acting and directing, and was without a hint of invention and emotion. Langdon simply has a big problem in books and movies in that he still doesn't know if he's more of an action hero or an academic windbag. In literature, this can be somewhat tolerated, but in film it leaves a very bad impression. I round up the score given the last few final minutes. However, I consider Tom Hanks' involvement to be a historical mistake. In the next film, the poor gay will not even fall through the eyepiece of the Pantheon. There’s no way he swam those 50 laps in the morning. Well, maybe with a motor up his ass. (05.10.2009)