The assassin in the book was completely different than that of the movie. The book version had the best character development in a villain, it would have been gold to translate him to the movie, but since he was Middle Eastern, they 'couldn't.' These books do not make good movies, when you cut out the details, it all moves too fast, but when you include them it moves too slow.

I enjoyed it!! Good yarn, well acted - very good music score - good actors doing good work combined with top professionals in their fields --- that's a good film!

This has got to be one of the most unfaithful adaptations I think I've ever seen. They made so many changes that the story was crippled to such a point, that the major plot turns just seemed whimsical and co-incidentental, whereas in the book they make perfect sense.

The bits of the book that would have made the best sequences in the movie were completely left out! Where was the helicopter sequence and the twist that came with it?

This movie was a complete butchering of the book and definitly not something i'd recommend!

These are hard books to adapt to movies but I felt the adaptation was awful, especially right after reading the book. Poor movie

This movie was horrendus... Stiff acting and a really lame plot.
All the religious people in this movie had a high and mighty air about themselves and some of the most clever scientists in the world are made to look like children who don't know what they are doing. Just awful movie.
Oh and i love Ewan, but what the hell happened in this movie, he looked like he was made to act in this movie with a gun to his head...

I liked it better than da vinci code but that's not saying a whole lot. These are difficult books to translate into film and although A & D was more action based in this movie I felt like it didn't represent the book well b/c of it. DVC was more true to book but flat as a film. Conundrum. Ewan Mcgregor was AWESOME though!!! High marks there!

I thought it was really good. I didn't leave the theatre thinking I wasted $7.50. It was really fun and It is worth a watch. I thought the ending was really cool. I started think it was this cheesy over the top ending but then it completely flips you! It didn't drag like I thought the Davinci Code did, and it was put together alot better than the last one.
It goes sort of fast but you have to remember it all takes place in one night. So it has to.
I thought it had some very cool effects too.

Of course...I had extremely low expectations coming into the movie.

You'd think Ron Howard understood the meaning of, "Jumping the Shark", considering he was driving the f*cking boat. But no, he had to have a priest miraculously (no pun intended) fly a helicopter, almost to heaven, and parachute away from a cataclysmic explosion which in essence was the creation of a tiny universe. I thought I was watching National Treasure 3: Battle Pope vs. Vatican City

prtty good for what it is, 10 tiimes better then the davinci code, better pacing, a little darker in tone, essentially motr fun, acting actually prtty good from the cast, tom hanks felt livelier and more cammanding than the 1st go around, ewan mcgregor reminds us that he can still be up to par and actually proves to be a hard character to peg, very shifty charcater, also always love Stellan Skarsgård as well, such a grt actor, anyways that being said i dont rlly plan to rlly watch this again any time, soon, but i dont regret seeing it either .. its entertaining ..

I really liked it! Thought it had great action and i really dug the setting. The story was good too.

The biggest problem with this movie is that Robert Langdon has no character. He's an asshole know-it-all whose only purpose is to guide us through the mystery. His only personality trait is that he wears a mickey mouse watch.

I enjoyed it. It had good suspense and held me on the edge of my seat. I've never read the books and I never saw Da Vinci Code. this was an enjoyable movie-- but not a masterpiece film.

I really liked it. The scenery is beutiful. There really were no slow sections to the movie. I did not read the book, but thought I had it figured out fairly quickly, but you know what they say, its not so much the end of the trip that counts, but getting there is half the fun.

The beginning was aweful. Wtih terrible acting and wasn't true to the book. But as the movie progressed it got better. It was okay, but not a total flop.

I will put this simply: This movie is not good. It is disposable.

Good movie. Don't have time to go into details, but a high B/low B+ in my opinion. Not great, but it doesn't need to be.

Here's what to do- have a NEW adventure in the sequel and set up Khan by marooning him during it. Then #3 is about another adventure, with Khan showing up at the end, and #4 is about Khan's vengeance. Then, of course, someone has to die in #4- either Spock or maybe Kirk, as a twist to the original series. #5 and beyond can be about bringing that person back and other adventures.

Dave from the improv duo TJ and Dave was one of the Vatican inspectors?

Also, I really wish Langdon had gotten in the helicopter like in the book and jumped out using his coat as a parachute. That would have been incredible to see on screen.

Booooooooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnnngggggg!!

I thought little of Da Vinci Code, so i'm not sure if I want to see this or not.

I thought it was really silly but I enjoyed it. The plot holes, coincidences, and leaps of faith that the story requires are just too many to say it's a good film, but with my suspension of disbelief-o-meter set on MAXIMUM I still enjoyed it.

Soundmix fucked up, 1 scene you could se thru the actor and actress sides.

Angels and Demons 2009's Vantage Point

It’s almost as if he’s punishing us for thinking he is again capable of making competent, enjoyable movies (Frost/Nixon) and then getting mad that it didn’t make big money. So it’s like he is thinking “good movie, bad grossings. Shitty movie, excellent grossings . It wasn’t even like they really gave a shat, it’s like they knew the average moviegoer would think, “Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Ewan McGregor, this must be a great movie and anything I see on screen is unquestionably amazing”.

The pacing was excruciatingly long, making it feel like the movie lasted at least four and a half hours. It seemed like it would take 30 minutes to get to some important clue and it wouldn’t be like “oh my gosh, aahhh”, but more like “oh, your still watching” then it would zoom in on 1 of 4 looks of puzzlement on Tom Hanks face. There didn’t seem to be any urgency, as if everything was a normal day at work and there was nothing to get excited about and you never have sense that anything is at stake. The character were highly uninteresting and went about there ways as much, so that when something happened to one of them there was little reason to care. The irritatingly dumb dialogue didn’t help, “that completely obvious clue that was mentioned 4 times, not just 5 mins ago, I am now able to comprehend, do you also comprehend that rational clue. Now that you mention it I do". Early on it appeared that McGregor might be the bright spot of the whole ordeal, only to have that wane and culminate into the hilariously saddening climax. Plot holes and implausibility’s were thrown around like a key to good film making. For whatever reason don’t stop to ask questions, just shoot the guy, and doors connecting secret passageways, should always have the keys in them waiting to be turned. The musical score was all “oh my god, super suspenseful action/ultra revelatory shit going on” magnifying the absence of suspense.

Overall learned that Ron Howard had an utter lack of contempt for the audience’s intelligence; in that the only way an average person could enjoy a movie, was for him to make them an average movie (which he failed to do). That sad part about that is that he will be vindicated with big grossings. Tom Hanks/Ewan McGregor need the money/don't give a shit any more Camerlengo's have loads of free time

Better than "Wolverine" - no question about it. The film is flawed, yes, but it's mainly due to Dan Brown's completely cliche, contrived storytelling. Some of the dialogue (more notably the humorous bits) fell flat.

I've never experienced such a long film that felt so rushed - and for what? They show up late to every scene or spot on the path. Still, definitely better than "The Da Vinci Code"

It boggles my mind how Ron Howard can go from "Frost/Nixon" to this, though - I suppose his next film will be a more thoughtful drama.

boring. here is the movie in a nutshell.

Ohh I figured shit out!

(Run to next scene)

Oh shit That is crazy!! Lets go!

More running.

Repeat 4 times. End with twist that anyone with a brain figured out awhile ago.

BOO YA! Angels and Demons.

Considering the source material....its B movie (based on over hyped D grade thriller books.) Howard and the writing crew did their best to back fill, Spackle or otherwise patch the basic flaws of the D.B. original and managed to resurrect a generic scavenger hunt flick with the most faint sizzle (literally.)

I thought it was terrible. (Spoiler Free)

First of all, it was extremely predictable. The dialogue was boring and at some parts even cheesy. There were many huge plot holes, the more i thought about this movie the more it made no sense. It lacked any sort of of character development or Arcs to make me care about any of the characters. It was very sluggish, slow, and repetitive for the first hour or so..... It seemed that the main point of the novel ...the "science vs religion" argument,... was thrown into the movie very badly, to the point where it seemed out of place. All of the performances were very dry.... This book just could not be shoved into a enjoyable movie, it was just to rushed...H onestly i didn't even have fun, usually when i see a bad movie i can still enjoy it while I'm watching it. That wasn't the case for me in this movie.

Awful. Just terrible. Please don't see this.

I thought it was pretty bad, and inexcusable considering the budget, actors and director. It was overly long, wouldn't end, and incredibly boring. I had to walk into the lobby and get a milkshake to avoid falling asleep once night fell in the movie.

ooops that didnt even make any sense.

wasn't so bad, but not all bad....

It was decent, but these book don't really make the best movies. Ewan McGregor was definently the best part of the movie imo.

It's not like the books are well written - they are massively popular but the writing itself is fairly elementary, comparable to Nicholas Sparks. The films are fairly solid adaptations and maybe that's the problem to most people, they showcase the glaring problems with the writing and storytelling in Dan Brown's novels.

But I will agree with poster Nate G. who said: "Dan Brown's books read like movies, but Ron Howard's adaptations feel like watching books."

Very true, unfortunately, reading a Dan Brown book is like watching a Uwe Boll movie to me.

i agree wholeheartedly about A&D being far better than Da Vinci Code. Though, that said, it still isn't any good. There were a few solid suspense sequences but overall it was like watching someone cook a meal with no enthusiasm.

now i pre-heat the oven. now i chop the onions. now i cut the steak. see how entertaining this is!

like that.

typical summer movie, doesn't come close to giving justice to the book which just can't really be paced in a movie form. Dan Brown's books read like movies, but Ron Howard's adaptations feel like watching books.

I would never normally recommend anyone to go to the site, but some of the comments over at rightwing site BigHollywood are just so sad they're hilarious. So many people acting all righteous and condemning Ron Howard to hell... it's just so unintentionally hilarious.

I saw it right after I watched 'Star Trek'...bad mistake, all I could think of was the coolness of ST, but overall 'Angels and Demons' was good, not bad, not great, but just plain good...

Ha, I love how there are no comments for this movie. Compare this /film entry to that of Star Trek and it just goes to show that know one is interested in Tom Hank's toupee and another mediocre conspiracy plot. I saw Star Trek tonight, for the second time, at an early evening showing and it was sold out. Star Trek is gonna make bank this weekend.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE git rid of the stupid talking ad!

I don't pick the advertising, and while I give our ad provides a set of rules, some ads that don't fit my requirements eek through. This is one of those cases. I have emailed my ad partner and hopefully the interactive talking ad will be removed today. Believe me, I have no plan to annoy readers with that kind of advertising.

Garbage. Complete garbage. McGregor is the one shining light in this piece of shit. Hanks was fine as well, but he always is. There are at least 10 characters that could have been omitted from the screenplay. I will say, Howard did a good job keeping me guessing.

I thought it was pretty good defiantly better then The Da Vinci Code. We've seen Hanks better but he certainly doesn't ruin it as some people here seem to suggest, he's just kind of there. Ewan McGregor was excellent and it was really well shot. I wouldn't say it is a must see but it didn't feel like a waist of my time.

It wasn't very good. I actually think The Da Vinci Code was a better movie and that's saying something. Ewan McGregor was solid as always, but I still can't decide if Tom Hanks is miscast. The whole movie was him finding symbols and then running around. I haven't read either of the books, but I don't think it matters. Both movies are average and are good for one viewing, but that's about it.

The post for Lost Season's Finale has almost ten times more responses than for this lackluster looking film.

The book was better. Period.

Having read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, Ron Howard's film adaptations of both of these great reads don't do the stories justice at all. Matter of fact, in Angles and Demons, Howard and his team totally change the beginning of the story, tweaks things here and there and changed the plot line. We know that with The Da Vinci Code, it was rushed to be made because of all the hype and the end result was a half-assed end product. With all the negative reviews, especially from readers of the book, I would have thought Mr. Howard would have stayed true to the story of Angels and Demons. But he threw out the book and followed a Cliff Notes version of the story while adding his own ideas here and there. How Dan Brown (being executive producer of this film) stand by and let him rape his story is beyond my understanding.

Many books have been made into great movies (Fight Club, High Fidelity) that stay true to the original story. It may be because American for the most part don't read, but to totally change plot lines and story structures in a film adaptation of a novel is unexceptionable. Why Ron Howard can't get his, I don't know...

I do know that if you dug the novel, you will find the film disappointing...much like in the case with The Da Vinci Code...

"Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice, shame on me"

i was expecting much less of it after reading quite bad reviews of it. so it sorta came off a little better than i had expected. it's not too bad, but the science vs religion thing still failed to transcend through the film.

Wow thats bitter, I like the books, how can they do that like this? I look it when it hits the theater here! I think ist to, Tom Hanks is no Robert Langdon.

Ewan McGregor and Armin Mueller-Stahl are the movie's only saving grace. Tom Hanks is godawful, I do like him, but Tom Hanks is just not suited to the character of Robert Langdon.

It could have been so much better if it didn't have so many parts that dragged. Ewan McGregor pretty much stole the movie imo, I enjoyed his presence on the screen. It was beautifully shot and the score fit pretty well with the movie. I don't know if I would recommend it though.