Angels And Demons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Angels And Demons (6/5/2009 2:27:10 PM)

Post your comments on this article




alpat24 -> I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 2:27:10 PM)

I know a review is one presons opinion and all, blah, blah, blah....
But didn't Empire give the Da Vinci Code two stars ? In the review they say this film is better than that film (which was boring and badly shot), so how can they rate it two stars ? Even if it was only marginally better, three stars should be awarded.

Also, God knows how can they give Outlander three stars and this only two under the justification that it is utter tosh, as outlander was uber tosh.




Super Hans -> RE: Angels And Demons (6/5/2009 2:50:17 PM)

Oh dear.... from what I read of the book though I'm not surprised that it's looking to be quite shit!  Curiously Total Film have given it 4 stars though.

And Alpat24, I think its pretty reasonable to say the film is marginally better than The Da Vinci Code but still be just a 2 star film - they just probably felt it wasn't improved quite enough to warrant a 3 star rating.




Deviation -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 3:18:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alpat24


Also, God knows how can they give Outlander three stars and this only two under the justification that it is utter tosh, as outlander was uber tosh.


That is fun and has imagination, this is a complete piece of trash. Hopefully it flops and never see Dan Brown or anything involving him infront of my face.




elab49 -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 3:33:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alpat24

I know a review is one presons opinion and all, blah, blah, blah....
But didn't Empire give the Da Vinci Code two stars ? In the review they say this film is better than that film (which was boring and badly shot), so how can they rate it two stars ? Even if it was only marginally better, three stars should be awarded.

Also, God knows how can they give Outlander three stars and this only two under the justification that it is utter tosh, as outlander was uber tosh.


Because one can have a 31% rating and another 49%. Big Big difference - both probably round to 2 stars.




rancorpuppet -> (6/5/2009 3:47:57 PM)

'Total Film' is unreliable - a Hollywood brochure of a trumped up foyer magazine, the UCI's 'Flicks' was Pulitzer prize material compared to it. Someone has to do a film about the real - and deeply odd - Berenger Sauniere case, a film, like 'Quiz Show' that could chart how a trivil pursuit, in the Sauniere case a prank, claimed lives and careers.




jimibadboi7 -> who cares what kim newman thinks?! (6/5/2009 3:52:28 PM)

I don't put too much stock in empire reviews thesedays.....though having said that Wolverine was definately a two star movie! Praps i just don't put too much stock in what Kim Newman thinks. He doesn't get out much. The da vinci code film sucked...and was a major bore.....but after having seen the trailer for angels and demons and read the total film review....i'm excited to see it.....it sounds a lot like an Indiana Jones adventure....and let's face it...it's gonna be better than Indy 4 regardless....(incidentally this mag gave indy 4...4 stars, which was a joke).....i haven't read the book...but have my tickets booked....here's hoping hanks and howard got it right this time!




jimibadboi7 -> (6/5/2009 4:23:19 PM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8035441.stm

looks like everyone else seems to like it!




jimibadboi7 -> (6/5/2009 4:23:20 PM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8035441.stm

looks like everyone else seems to like it!




sinaplenty -> RE: (6/5/2009 4:35:09 PM)

"Everyone else" does include Variety and Hollywood Reporter...with these knowledgeable and balanced movie reviewers you are really spoiling us. Also while Kim Newman is a highly respected film journalist and writer, you...are posting on a web forum. I think I know who I'll trust with my 8.




alpat24 -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 5:11:54 PM)

31% and 49% rating on what ? As it does make a difference, 11% can easily equate to a different grade.....




Super Hans -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 5:26:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alpat24

31% and 49% rating on what ? As it does make a difference, 11% can easily equate to a different grade.....


I don't think those percentages were to be taken literally, just an general numeric example.  I don't really see where the confusion is  - they obviously didn't like Angels & Demons.  They thought it was a little better than The Da Vinci Code but still only a 2 star film.  In terms of their star reviews, 3 stars means 'Good'.  If they didn't think it was a particularly good film, it's not going to get 3 stars.




Ali Baba -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 7:16:28 PM)

Just posted my review. I quite liked it, definitely better than Da Vinci but still the same brand of pompous tripe - Hanks still comes off as the smuggest history teacher you ever had.
http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/review/angels--demons.php




Jasper -> RE: I don't get it ?!??! (6/5/2009 7:33:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alpat24

I know a review is one presons opinion and all, blah, blah, blah....
But didn't Empire give the Da Vinci Code two stars ? In the review they say this film is better than that film (which was boring and badly shot), so how can they rate it two stars ? Even if it was only marginally better, three stars should be awarded.



Just because it's a little better than the worthless tosh known as The Da Vinci Code, that doesn't automatically mean it's worth seeing in its own right. This looks like a shameless attempt from Columbia to make a couple of hundred million dollars. Not that I blame 'em, but Mr. Hanks -- you really should know better.

As for the 'undeserved' Oscar Akiva Goldsman collected for A Beautiful Mind -- why, because the writing for Fellowship of the Ring was so fucking spectacular?




dani112 -> (6/5/2009 8:15:53 PM)

i could handle the fact they changed the nationality of the camberlengo and for their own reasons, didnt include Maximilian Kohler in the movie plot. But why are they leaving out a major story shock (the pope's son) ??

they are changing way to much for it to be like the book...it may as well be a movie with bits and pieces taken form the book......not happy at all!!!




steveg66 -> (7/5/2009 9:16:15 AM)

I liked Da Vinci Code it would have got 3 stars from me, thought it was quite a good adaption of the book. Hank's Langdon character's realisation of the location of Mary Magdalene, I thought, was very well filmed. Have yet to see thids yet but also like the look of it from trailers.




Drone -> RE: (7/5/2009 10:44:54 AM)

The snobbery surrounding Dan Brown is pathetic; I would love to see Michael Bay adapt one of his books.  I'll bet it would send some "forumites" into epic tear filled outrage.

Looking forward to seeing this, and the fallout from all the amateur journos throwing their toys out of their prams, and stealing quotes from all the respectable "critics".

Maybe it will be dreadful... but I'll be judging that for myself, and on it's own merits.





Deviation -> RE: RE: (7/5/2009 11:40:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drone

The snobbery surrounding Dan Brown is pathetic; I would love to see Michael Bay adapt one of his books.  I'll bet it would send some "forumites" into epic tear filled outrage.

Looking forward to seeing this, and the fallout from all the amateur journos throwing their toys out of their prams, and stealing quotes from all the respectable "critics".

Maybe it will be dreadful... but I'll be judging that for myself, and on it's own merits.




What saying that he is a rubbish writer is snobbery now? Saying that he never wrote something good and original is snoobish, and that his works are a piece of stupidity is snobbery? You know, Micheal Bay would be perfect to match the idiocy on show so maybe yeah, he should direct, and Howard would go and do something decent.




Concise_Statement -> Who the hell wants to SAVE the Catholic Church?! (8/5/2009 2:55:46 AM)

Fuck seeing the film, I'm giving this one star on principle.




ryecatcher -> Prequel not Sequel (8/5/2009 3:38:50 PM)

Audrey Tautou couldn't be in this film as the book is before and was written before Davinci Code, so this a prequel. Plus Angels and Demons is a far superior book and story to Davinci, hoping it will be better




Moviebabe -> RE: Prequel not Sequel (9/5/2009 7:09:55 PM)

Think i may be in the minority, but i really enjoyed Da Vinci Code.........and am really lokking forward to seeing this film!!!!!!!!!




Cinema_Junkie -> RE: Prequel not Sequel (10/5/2009 12:11:31 AM)

The trailer for this was in front of Star trek for me last night. I spent the whole time going "Ewan McGregor is in this?!?!?!" then I started going "is Ewan McGregor evil in this?".

Incidently, is Ewan McGregor evil in this?




Jezzman -> Tosh review (11/5/2009 11:05:45 AM)

This review is simply lazy and this magazine is becoming even more inconsistent. You recently included a rambling review for 'Star Trek,' that frankly read like a blog entry from a fan that couldn't quite make up his mind and now include this uninspired, underlength and frankly rubbish review from someone who cleary couldn't care less about the act of reviewing. Just because the material is believed to be insane, doesn't mean you shouldn't take the job of giving a critical response seriously.




tallaght24 -> Whatever Empire! (11/5/2009 1:06:25 PM)

You know I've realized something about Kim Newman. If it's not Lobster Men From Mars or some other obscure horror wank then he's not interested!




Mr Grizzly -> Surprisingly enjoyable (12/5/2009 1:20:00 PM)

The film makes up for a majority of Da Vinci's mistakes - it has a much quicker pace and jettisons the ludicrous ending of the novel. However the script doesn't give Hanks much of a character to work with (in my opinion he's miscast anyway) but Mcgregor gets his teeth into his Irish camerlengo (?).




PerfectlyFlawed -> RE: Surprisingly enjoyable (13/5/2009 5:20:48 PM)

Managed to see a test screening this morning and thought it was dreadful.

Very slow and the boredom kicked in within half an hour.

It's at least 40 minutes too long.




onetwo -> Book was bollocks anyway........... (13/5/2009 10:32:31 PM)

It was going ok until he jumped from the helicopter with a postage stamp sized parachute and dropped vertically for a mile without a scratch..... bollocks of the highest order.




bigbadbeasty -> RE: Book was bollocks anyway........... (14/5/2009 12:54:27 PM)

As long as its better than The Da Vinci Code I will be happy (the girlfriend will want to go anyway).

I will still check it out at the cinema regardless of Empire's review, sadly after they gave King Kong 5 stars I have always tended to take their reviews with a pinch of salt. 5 FUDGING STARS!!! -What the hell were they thinking!!!




johncarrelson -> Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys (14/5/2009 5:42:52 PM)

I went and saw it this lunch time and thought it was very enjoyable. Much more than Da Vinci, but saying that I thought Angels was a far better book than Da Vinci.

Critics really need to just take a chill pill and relax. It's a movie from a Dan Brown book for goodness sake, not some Orson Welles Citizen Kane masterpiece.

The beginning was slow but once Langdon arrived in Rome it flashed by. I thought the movie was on the whole pretty faithful to the book in "spirit" and "energy". I would, however, have liked to have seen the same book ending. Also, I was a little disappointed in the way they drastically changed the assassin. I thought he was far more intimidating and terrifying in the book.

On the whole, pretty good




Canarius -> RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys (14/5/2009 6:58:52 PM)

Avoid this movie!
Went to see it to pass a couple of hours by this afternoon. I've read the book and although I read some mixed reviews - including this one on Empire, I thought I'd go check it out. Where should I start? Ok - the beginning, it's dull. Really really dull. It took a good 40 minutes before any sense of a story began to emerge, and even when the main story did I'd gone past caring. The acting was poor, Hanks is wet, McGregor flicks in and out of an Oirish soft subtle accent to his familiar Scottish twang, the female lead (whoever she is) is drippy, the Assassin guy wasn't anything like the book - and just wasn't evil enough (if that makes sense).

The ending was, quite simply awful. Not only in the pure stupidity of it all, but in the sense that it should have been wrapped up and put to bed a good half an hour before it did. Putting it simply - you'll be ready to leave - possibly dying for a fag - and then Ron Howard inflicts a good 30 minutes more of pain.

Take some Red Bull, or some gum, and enjoy the disappointment rollercoaster. All in all you'll be sorry you wasted your time (and your money).

Rant over!






Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125