Well, the Vatican DID!
“Hmm? Wha …?”
I hear you say.
It’s Saturday, which my long time readers will realise, is Movie Night.
And some of the semi-regulars will kick themselves for missing, actually.
Because this post’s title refers to a throw away line from the central character of “Angels and Demons”; the symbologist, Robert Langdon, ably reprised in the prequel, by Tom Hanks; to the effect that the Vatican had called him!
Actually, very ably reprised, both by Hanks and director, Ron Howard.
Because both Adrian and myself felt that this was actually a better movie than the original “The DaVinci Code.”
Seriously!
We saw that, way bad in January of this year and both agreed it was hokum.
But entertaining, none the less.
Which was a pleasant surprise, for me; I’ll be honest, I’d read the Dan Brown novel of “The Da Vinci Code”, and quite frankly, hadn’t been impressed.
Entertained, but not impressed …
To be honest, “Silence of the Lambs” was a better novel than “The Da Vinci Code,” from where I’m sitting.
And possibly a better film, with five whole Oscars to it’s name …
Either way, “The Da Vinci Code”, however hokey it is, is still entertaining.
“Angels and Demons,” though …
“Angels and Demons,” is actually a hell of an improvement on its predecessor.
The various supporting characters — Ewan McGregor as a young and idealistic priest, Armin Mueller-Stahl as the politically savvy Cardinal Strauss, Nikolaj Lie Kaas as the the hit-man, Mr Gray and not forgetting Ayelet Zurer as CERN physicist, Vittoria Vetra — are both well cast and capable; and somewhat more believably than the cast of “The Da Vinci Code”. Although I do know that this is where Adrian and I’s positions are reversed.
Unlike “The Watchman”, where I’d read the original novel, and Adrian hadn’t, Adrian’s read the novel of “Angels and Demons”, whereas I’ve not.
And, while I don’t think I suffered much, because of it, I find myself wishing that Howard and co had fleshed out Mr Gray some more; from what Adrian told me, tonight, there’s a heck of a lot more in the book, than there is on the screen!
It’s kind of the same with the plot; I got the feeling from Adrian that the original novel was a lot more fleshed out that what I’d guess from what’s on screen …
Saying that, though, I don’t think it suffered greatly, in translation.
The plot’s the other reason I think “Angels and Demons” is the better of the two movies; Robert Langdon gets called in by the Vatican, when four senior Cardinals are kidnapped on the night that a new pope is due to be elected, and hidden — apparently by The Illuminati — and told that the kidnappers will kill one of those Cardinals, every hour.
Starting at 8 pm, and going all the way up to 11 pm.
And will blow* up an unidentified church, in Rome, on the dot of midnight …
Having that deadline gives “Angels and Demons” a tension, pace and urgency that its predecessor never had.
And also put the two of us near enough on the edge of our seats.
And had us both agreeing on one thing.
“Angels and Demons” can be summed up with the words ‘less’ and ‘more’.
Less hokey.
More entertaining.
And definitely worth buying!
∞∞∞∞∞
Tom Hanks … Robert Langdon
Ewan McGregor … Camerlengo Patrick McKenna
Ayelet Zurer … Vittoria Vetra
Stellan Skarsgård ... Commander Richter
Pierfrancesco Favino … Inspector Olivetti
Nikolaj Lie Kaas … Assassin
Armin Mueller-Stahl … Cardinal Strauss
Thure Lindhardt … Chartrand
David Pasquesi … Claudio Vincenzi
Victor Alfieri … Lieutenant Valenti
•••••
* Ok, Brown, Howard and company have possibly taken a bit of a liberty, there; I don’t think CERN’s managed to create enough antimatter to cover the head of a pin, let alone fill a battery powered, electro-magnetically charged, test tube. And — from the very little understanding I have of pop nuclear physics — the few anti-proton’s they have generated there, blew up, when they hit an electron.
And generated enough power to toast a bread-crumb.
Go figure.
I think the phrase Damp Squib’s the one to polish up and use, here …
No comments:
Post a Comment