Originally written and posted on May 15, 2009.
Angels & Demons
In describing his feelings to the critical reception to 2006′s The Da Vinci Code, director Ron Howard often used the word “frustrating.” This is a rather appropriate one word summation of the film and everything that revolved around it. The source material, plotting, characters, screenplay, expectations, and limitations imposed on the adaptation of the Da Vinci Code would frustrate any director trying to craft a decent film from it, and I’ll be frank when I say that it largely doesn’t matter since Ron Howard was frustrated to a gross revenue on the prettier side of $750 million. But the mere fact that Howard was at all concerned with the reception despite the fact that it was destined to sell no matter what he made is cause for hope with Angels & Demons, a sequel film from a prequel novel. Howard knows that Angels & Demons will sell regardless of quality, but the fact he will still try and make a good film from the messy material is laudable of itself.
Angels & Demons is one of the rare adaptations where I had actually read the book far in advance of even the announcement of the film. Rarer still is how I experienced the book the way it was meant to be. You see, Angels & Demons (and by extension Digital Fortress, Deception Point, and The Da Vinci Code), is a book designed to be read at airports and during long flights. I was on a trip from Toronto to Los Angeles, a trip sadly predating my possession of a Nintendo DS, and I had picked up Angels & Demons as something to kill time. To that extent and only that extent is Angels & Demons a good book.
The book Angels & Demons is a breezy page turner, not meant to be taken seriously despite the pretensions of Dan Brown’s will. Taken out of that context, the book is a complete joke, and this is nowhere more apparent than in its film adaptation. All airport written novels are weak stories padded out with cheap thrills and cliché, designed like a breakneck Hollywood blockbuster but lacking any semblance of credibility like character, wit, or even entertainment. It’s a deadly cycle of book/film/book/film rip-off to the point of nausea where no one remembers where it all began, but we all agree that it’s a mushy mess of mediocrity. Angels & Demons almost comes full circle, representing everything that’s wrong with the genre while bilking powerful executives to grant a credible director with a hundred million dollar budget for a tenfold return.
With expectations so low, the film adaptation could only be worse than its source if I walked out of the theatre with leprosy. Since I don’t have any skin lesions (yet), Angels & Demons must be somewhat successful.

Robert Langdon is a Harvard Symbologist who, fresh after cracking The Da Vinci Code, is roped into yet another religious conspiracy as a mysterious Illuminati symbol appears to be threatening Vatican City shortly after the death of the pope. He and his partner Vittoria Vetra, a scientist working with anti-matter (a.k.a. the “God Particle”) at the Large Hadron Collider, are tasked with retrieving a stolen anti-matter canister hidden somewhere in Vatican City. The anti-matter will destroy a sizeable chunk of Italy if fallen out of electro-magnetic suspension when the battery dies at midnight, and it’s up to them to save the day because the Swiss Guard are utterly useless.
The constant barrage of enlightenment era names and works throughout the film may intimidate certain audiences as being subject matter a bit too intellectually highbrow. If you can’t tell the difference between Sanzio and Bernini, let me assure you that you’re not alone and that it really doesn’t matter. The little details are so casually referenced that they quickly become debased into meaning absolutely nothing and in no time at all they take a backseat to the frantic pace Angels & Demons must maintain. Excitement is the order of the day, lest the film be skewered like its predecessor for being occasionally boring. Many of the film’s other problems like plot and relevance can be easily forgiven providing it maintains a sense of motion.
Where Angels & Demons struggles is its apprehension to throw out the events of the book in favour of creating a better story. There have been some alterations, but the changes aren’t significant and only reflect a desire to speed up the procession of the film and not to make the film any better or worse, giving the impression that screenwriters Koepp and Goldsman have some form of reverence for the original story (raucous laughter). Instead of using the book as merely a jumping off point for the film while breaking out the glue and scissors to craft something more appropriate for the medium à la the Bourne series (which also shares the airport gibberish backing), Howard and company take as much as is possible from the original book as if there was a rabid fanbase to appease à la Watchmen. The film is stuck in limbo, desperately trying to come into its own yet it resists severing the necessary connections to its foundation. I am criticizing its adherence to its source because its source is not very good.
With Angels & Demons futile predilections for its origin comes the realization that Robert Langdon is a terribly uninteresting character. It’s rather remarkable that after two lengthy outings, it’s still impossible to give a damn about what happens to him. There are occasional moments where he begins to earn our empathy or interest, such as the quirk with his red Mickey Mouse timepiece, but the plot’s urgency immediately whisks it all away, turning him into another casualty in the war between Brown’s two most beloved characters, Science and Religion. A certain realization dawned on me towards the end of the film that perhaps we’re not supposed to see Langdon, Vetra, Camerlengo, Richter, Strauss, etc. as characters, but as vehicles for the aforementioned great all encompassing thesis of the movie. Naturally, this is a stupid idea. Turning the characters into thematic soldiers widens the gap between the film and our interest, and destroys any subtlety or nuance that Brown might have accidentally written. And it just goes downhill from there. A deafening crowd of confused Christians amasses in St. Peter’s Square during the papal protocols, and a shot focuses on a nun and a religiously lapsed man debate the merits of knowledge and faith. “Ignoring stem cell research is murder!” he screams. “Man is not God!” she retorts. That’s Angels & Demons’ issue in a nutshell.
To the film’s credit, characterizing the two ends of the debate nearly works, but the shame is that it could’ve been had both ways. The characters are mere autonomous tools, not active agents. I like the idea of Cardinals being infinitely patient and virtuous men, aware of the flaws of its institution while still admiring its perseverance, and I like the idea of scientists being a bit too hasty and arrogant, eager to ride one invention until next year’s model. I just wish they didn’t wait until the last act to shift into this gear. That said, depending on your own personal feelings towards the Science vs. Religion argument, it’s possible to emerge from the film enraged, cheated, or entirely placated. Certainly the ending is a bit of a copout from the argument, but it provides the requisite twist necessary to tie off the film. Most people would be too exhausted to care by that point anyway.
Angels & Demons is an improvement from its predecessor, largely because it makes the most of what it settles on working with. Ludicrous plot and bland character aside, it keeps moving once it falls into a solid groove and should keep people who haven’t read the book engaged. If you have read the book though, this adaptation is far too faithful and not nearly inventive enough to be worth a look.









