johnlink ranks ANGELS & DEMONS (2009)

Nothing like a wedding to keep you from seeing a single movie for almost a full month. But my rankings return with a vengeance (at least until my honeymoon next week… so nevermind). Anyway, we saw ANGELS & DEMONS a week ago (pre-wedding) and I’m just getting a chance to post it now. So on with it…

ANGELS & DEMONS is the movie based on Dan Brown’s best selling book. A professor of symbolic history (Tom Hanks) has to help members of the Vatican track down the killer of the world’s most high profile papal prospects.

I saw ANGELS & DEMONS (2009) in the theater on 5.18.09. It was my first viewing.

NOTE: THIS RANKING UTILIZES THIS SITE’S ORIGINAL SYSTEMIC ARTICLE WRITING METHOD. THE METHOD BY WHICH THE RANKINGS WERE ARRIVED AT, HOWEVER, REMAINS THE SAME.

FILM

Ron Howard does a nice job of shooting this movie. For not having much access to Vatican property, he sure made his setting authentic. The movie feels like it takes place where is should, and we never get the sense that we are being green-screened or overly abused with CGI. The plot of this thing is a little stale, a little cookie cutter, but the direction and technical efforts in this film are well executed. SCORE: 7

MOVIE

I never felt in danger. Once the thrust of the plot starts, we can see how it will unfold. The twist ending is nice, but I think it is a little too set-up (and this from someone who had zero knowledge of the plot going in). SCORE: 6

ACTING

A lot of exposition. I know that is a writing note, but it effects the acting. One of the first rules of writing is show don’t tell. The actors here are asked to tell a lot. But there are a few nice moments, including a nice button on the film by Armin Mueller-Stahl, who I thought had the nicest character work in the entire piece. SCORE: 6

WRITING

My problem with this movie is its script. As alluded to above, the stakes should feel higher. But because we are explained to death, and because noone seems to be too worried that they only have a FRICKIN HOUR to find the next victim, the motivation to find the killer seems secondary to being clever with the puzzles. The villain(s) is (are) not strong here, in my opinion. The screenplay felt like it was intimidated by the source material. SCORE: 4

FINAL TALLY

FILM: 7; MOVIE: 6; ACTING: 6; WRITING: 4

7+6+6+4+0=23

FINAL SCORE: 5.75

Advertisements

~ by johnlink00 on May 26, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: