RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys - 20/5/2009 3:18:25 PM

howskeith

Posts: 1
Joined: 20/5/2009

on the whole a bit of enjoyable crap!

i didnt mind the WFT moments, they made it enjoyable!

(in reply to Canarius)

Post #: 61

RE: Why are critics such crashing bore killjoys - 20/5/2009 9:28:51 PM

Dr Lenera

Posts: 3450
Joined: 19/10/2005

Dan Brown's stuff either only works well in book form or is pretty rubbish generally-I can't answer that question as I haven't read either The Da Vinci Code or Angels And Demons. Nevertheless,the film of Angels And Demons is definately better than it's predecessor-it's more entertaining and at least has a climax-but is still not much good. Once again Tom Hanks runs around churches and the like following stupid coincidences and laughable clues,while another lone assassin does all the villain's dirty work and everyone behaves really stupidly. There is some action this time round,some of it with Ron Howard badly trying to do the fast cutting,shaky cam thing,but there's still very little tension. Tom Hanks again delivers a truly dull performance whilst Ewan Macgregor battles with an Irish accent and loses. At times enjoyable though.

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 20/5/2009 9:36:05 PM >

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to howskeith)

Post #: 62

An entertaining thriller....just not the great one it c... - 20/5/2009 11:38:16 PM

stephenhinton

Posts: 18
Joined: 22/2/2009

First and foremost Angels & Demons has lots missing from the book where
pages upon pages seem to have been left on the script floor and for
good reason otherwise it would have stretched into a 4 hour movie! And
soon becomes apparent this where director Ron Howard seems to have
changed tactics from the first offering of the Dan Brown franchise in
that the Da Vinci code left you constantly confused at times as this
doesn't and he serves up an action paced average thriller. The story
centres around Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) who is
summoned by the Vatican (after the sudden death of the pope) to solve a
new threat involving a small problem of anti-matter which gets stolen
from the infamous CERN by an ancient secret brotherhood known as the
Illuminati who along the way have kidnapped four cardinals.

Teaming up with Langdon to play this cat and mouse game is CERN
scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer) who thought would have been a bit of a
love interest for Langdon...but no thankfully Howard doesn't allow for
this.

The other main character in the film is Irish speaking Patrick Mckenna
played by Ewan McGregor who appears as the villain from a long way off
but McGregor does giving a convincing performance in this role.

So as Langdon and Vetra rush from cathedral to cathedral solving the
puzzles in the eight hour timeframe before the anti-matter explodes
wiping out the entire city and it is here that Ron Howard gives the
film its best bits with stunning sets of Rome and it is quite easily to
see that this is where most of the budget as been spent.

There are two problems with the end of the film which appear very
unbelievable as you will see for yourself if you choose to watch it.

I think Ron Howard sold stick to make first rate films such as Apollo
Thirteen and Frost\Nixon and next time leave the Dan Brown novels at
home because it is to clear to see it hasn't worked with the first two
outings.

To summarise then if you want be entertained for two and a bit hours by an average thriller then please go and watch A&D but don't expect the book version and remember as with all great novels....they do not always make great films

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 63

RE: An entertaining thriller....just not the great one ... - 21/5/2009 1:18:46 AM

Spider

Posts: 2076
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: stephenhinton

First and foremost Angels & Demons has lots missing from the book where
pages upon pages seem to have been left on the script floor and for
good reason otherwise it would have stretched into a 4 hour movie! And
soon becomes apparent this where director Ron Howard seems to have
changed tactics from the first offering of the Dan Brown franchise in
that the Da Vinci code left you constantly confused at times as this
doesn't and he serves up an action paced average thriller. The story
centres around Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) who is
summoned by the Vatican (after the sudden death of the pope) to solve a
new threat involving a small problem of anti-matter which gets stolen
from the infamous CERN by an ancient secret brotherhood known as the
Illuminati who along the way have kidnapped four cardinals.

Teaming up with Langdon to play this cat and mouse game is CERN
scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer) who thought would have been a bit of a
love interest for Langdon...but no thankfully Howard doesn't allow for
this.

The other main character in the film is Irish speaking Patrick Mckenna
played by Ewan McGregor who appears as the villain from a long way off
but McGregor does giving a convincing performance in this role.

So as Langdon and Vetra rush from cathedral to cathedral solving the
puzzles in the eight hour timeframe before the anti-matter explodes
wiping out the entire city and it is here that Ron Howard gives the
film its best bits with stunning sets of Rome and it is quite easily to
see that this is where most of the budget as been spent.

There are two problems with the end of the film which appear very
unbelievable as you will see for yourself if you choose to watch it.

I think Ron Howard sold stick to make first rate films such as Apollo
Thirteen and Frost\Nixon and next time leave the Dan Brown novels at
home because it is to clear to see it hasn't worked with the first two
outings.

To summarise then if you

Do you always present your posts in poetry form?

A&D doesn't really deserve a long review. I think it's worse than The Da Vinci Code, with a laughable plot, a similar level of painful exposition and a terrible pacing problem. The first hour is mind-numbingly dull, the chases around Rome are quite fun, then we reach the climax which derails the film with its preposterous nature, and just when you think you can finally escape this dirge another 20 minutes is tacked on with a silly twist which could only be guessed by those who have a knowledge of the author's history of one-upmanship.

There are some nice scenes - the death sequences are suprisingly grim and tense, and although the end is poor the relative simplicity of the plot is refreshing (if you ignore the concept of anti-matter which Brown clearly included to stoke the fires of controversy). Unfortunately it's just all so shabbily thrown in with poorly drawn characters, unconvincing revelations and a general sense of disinterest which is only relieved by previously mentioned gruesomeness and the sheer absurdity of the whole venture.

Suffice to say I don't have much anticipation for the third installment of this turgid franchise!

_____________________________

Rudi Manchego's Simple Rustic Wisdom:
If you look at a pebble, you will see your own face

Howard Moon: Fusion Minstrel Vince Noir: Gothic Fairy. The Boosh is Loose and it's coming at you like a shark with knees!

(in reply to stephenhinton)

Post #: 64

Angles and Demons - 21/5/2009 3:46:37 PM

cluesy

Posts: 164
Joined: 11/10/2005

This film is getting some harsh reviews, which is unfair because whilst a lot of this is over-the-top the pacing is pretty good and the plot fairly interesting. Okay, so the clues are outlandish and coincidental but it's nice to see the effort has been put in to create them anyway. My main gripe really is that the film is far too long. I think this film is best viewed with an open mind and as a piece of science-fiction otherwise you'll dilute the entertainment, because if you go in ready to hate the film, why even bother watching it?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 65

Well worth seeing...... - 21/5/2009 10:35:01 PM

n13roy

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/10/2005

Well, we managed to eventually see this Film today, and were pleasantly suprised how enetertaining it is. Certainly a LOT better than the Da Vinci Code. O.K. its easy to criticise the whole plot, but at the end of the Film we came out very happy. So that is good enough for me !!!!!!.......

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 66

RE: - 22/5/2009 3:20:39 PM

queen_sheba

Posts: 1
Joined: 22/5/2009

Moody - perfectly acceptable to lust after a priest. I cite Gabriel Bryne in Stigmata and Joaquin Phoenix in Quills as perfect examples. Both I had impure thoughts about. teehee

Anyway as the camerlengo - Ewan was pretty good - he's a good enough actor to carry it off and he did embody much of the traits I imagined the camerlengo to have - passionate, good looking, bonkers underneath. He wouldn't have been my first choice but he did the job of filling the eye candy position too - Da Vinci was too much Hanks and not enough talent. Although shoddy excuse for a belfast accent though. Although the story did say he was brought up in Rome so likely lost much of it. But Ewan isn't really known for doing accents well (TPM ??)

Hanks was more watchable this time as he wasn't droning on too much. Rubbish chemistry with Vettra (as in the book he shags her at the end)

Liked the majority of the support cast...specially the blonde swiss guard boy.

Helicopter bit was of course, rather silly (i quite liked it though - quite dramatic) and at least it wasn't as silly as the description in the book.

Glad it was chopped down, dan brown has a tendancy to drone on for pages - but agree with other comments it was a bit repetative chasing each of the markers and having a history lesson in each one.

and the assasin was rubbish. Best bit was Ewan branding himself as the madness took over...

i'll go for 3 stars. watchable, would watch it again, better than DVC but not as good as Trek.

(in reply to Moody)

Post #: 67

RE: RE: - 22/5/2009 8:12:20 PM

dhowdy

Posts: 967
Joined: 29/8/2008
From: London

how was this better than Da vinci code? to me it was equally tedious. at least da vinci code had audrey tatou....

saw this the other night. really, i have nothing to say about it...it was there and then..it wasn't and i went home....

EDIT: Oh no..i will say one thing...when the camera pans up to see Michelangelo's Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel...made me tingle...made me want to go to Rome right then and there....and be in awe of such genius as the work of Michelangelo.... end edit..

< Message edited by dhowdy -- 22/5/2009 9:38:32 PM >

(in reply to queen_sheba)

Post #: 68

Angels And Demons - 22/5/2009 9:08:49 PM

moviemaniac2

Posts: 525
Joined: 17/9/2006

this instalment hangs together better as a movie than its precursor; that is until things get silly, then ridiculous and then, just before the climax, downright absurd.

For the first hour-and-a-half, Angels And Demons rights the wrongs that damned The Da Vinci Code. Gone are the heavy exposition scenes, where everything slowed down to tell the audience what is going on.

But now the bad. Forgetting that one man could not perform such elaborate executions in under an hour in various parts of the city and in full view of everyone; Angels And Demons pushes the suspension of disbelief too far for anyone to stay on board with. It's the last half hour, though, that really makes a mockery of the story and the audience's intelligence. The film falls on its arse and shatters into a thousand pieces with increasingly improbable twists

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 69

MUCH BETTER EFFORT - 23/5/2009 5:18:55 AM

johnwhelan85

Posts: 8
Joined: 4/5/2008

I've read both Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons and loved both books. But I, like a lot of people I know, preferred the latter. While Da Vinci Code had the controversy, the explosive start was let down by the predictable ending. That book was always going to be hard to turn in to a film (It may have been better had it been treated like a series of 24). But Angels and Demons was different. After a slow start to the book (which the film, gratefully, leaves out), it then went at breakneck speed. Whilst the ending in the film is quite predictable, in the book you didn't have a clue. I always thought they should have made this before Da Vinci Code to start off with, but when the Da Vinci sells nearly twice as many copies of a book that sold an amazing 40 million copies, that was always the way the film studio would go. But one thing I can promise you, this film is very entertaining. I refused to read a review of it until I had seen it, which I'm glad. The film has flaws, and misses out huge chunks of the books. Some things they did well to leave out i.e. The stupid plane at the beginning, but how could they leave out a major character like Vohler, and why was the Hassasin white when in the book he's a terrifying Arabic assasin who was a serial rapist(Naveen Andrews would have been perfect). But I enjoyed this film very much, it's entertaining and I feel Empire, for once, got this wrong as I feel people made their minds up about this after watching the first film. I just wish the film was given to a better director, as Tom Hanks is great in this film. He was wooden and boring in the Da Vinci Code. And the film is much better without Tautao, who could barely speak English. It's not the masterpiece it should have been, but the film should be a sucess and trust me, you'll enjoy the film.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 70

Not that bad - 25/5/2009 12:29:04 PM

dutchSith

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2008

I have read both Robert Langdon books and I thought Angels and Demon's was by far the better. It's an interresting story with some good thrills and chills but towards the end it all becomes a bit unbelievable. Same goes for the movie. Tom hanks is much better in this than in The Da Vinci Code. It all looks gorgeous and I was entertained. No more , no less.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 71

Not that bad - 25/5/2009 12:29:05 PM

dutchSith

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2008

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 72

Rome Travelogue - 26/5/2009 1:55:20 PM

peterelson

Posts: 11
Joined: 31/7/2007
From: London

Now, I was surprised at this. I thought that Angels and Demons was a much better book than the Da Vinci Code, but that the DVC film was better. Possibly because A&D film took so many liberties with the text of the book, and because the female lead role was so diminished that it became all but superfluous. Still an enjoyable couple of hours of 'film of the airport page turner novel' nonsense, and it reinforced my determination to return to Rome.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 73

Rome Travelogue - 26/5/2009 1:55:21 PM

peterelson

Posts: 11
Joined: 31/7/2007
From: London

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 74

- 27/5/2009 3:31:58 PM

mitchski88

Posts: 1
Joined: 6/8/2008

it looks like there have been many opinions about this film, bouncing up and down but i think 2 stars probably is a bit generous...having read the book countless times and fresh from experiencing the direness of the da vinci code movie i was expecting a more meaty installment. i wasnt disappointed in that sense, it was the fact that so many things were changed, actual facts of the book were changed. an example is the casting agency opted for a scottish man to play an irish camerlengo, who in the book is quite italian...i mean..what?! also *spoiler alert* the way that the last victim survived left me looking around the cinema to see the faces of many other obvious readers contorted and sneering "the screwed that up!" i felt many of the characters were not played as they were portrayed in the novel, the assassin was simply terrible, more of a hitman than the vengful hassassin encountered in the novel. i can see how it would be difficult to follow if i had never read the book and it would not really enlighten me to go out and buy it. thankfully i did read the book and i had to quickly re-read it in order to wash the disappointment of the film away. it is a pretty film which captures the essence of rome and to some extent catholicism, but its fatal flaws are its dedication to big star names like ewan mcgregor and not to the story.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 75

It could just be me, but... - 27/5/2009 6:33:53 PM

The Real Alex Young

Posts: 5
Joined: 23/5/2009

Are Ron Howard's adaptations getting slated because there is an ongoing consensus that Dan Brown's books were badly written and incoherent? Yes, it does overtly explain everything throughout the film, but the film never comes to a standstill. Yes, it is far fetched at times. But to strip it bare, Angels & Demons is a conspiracy theory/murder mystery film which I found quite intriguing throughout. Have films like The Dark Knight (the best cinematic experience I've had) set the bar too high, leaving recently maligned films like this and Wolverine with too much of a mountain of expectation to climb? Granted, they're not going to be clearing up at the Oscars, but they're decent entertainment in their own right.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 76

RE: It could just be me, but... - 29/5/2009 7:52:30 PM

Kazuya

Posts: 7953
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai

Saw this a couple of days ago with a friend of mine who managed to convince me to go, I haven't read any of the books and I thought The DaVinci Code film was dull as fuck, but he was enthusiastic and in my weakened, hangover-plagued state due to heavy partying the night before, I caved. But, surprise, surprise, it was fucking shit too. A ludicrous premise, dumbly directed, acted, written and designed.

_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to The Real Alex Young)

Post #: 77

- 29/5/2009 9:00:20 PM

Pepsi99

Posts: 36
Joined: 18/4/2008
From: Liverpool, UK

Two stars? That's not fair. Compared to the Da Vinci Code, this is Oscar-worthy. I thought this was hugely enjoyable, though a bit slow at first. It was extremely close to the book, with actors better suited to the parts. At this rate, The Lost Symbol should be incredible..

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 78

As dull as Da Vinci - 30/5/2009 9:50:17 PM

Gold Digger

Posts: 143
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Outside London

Religious mumbo jumbo, Tom Hanks holding hands or being driven leisurely around Rome is not exciting. The fountain sequence was almost tense.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 79

Better than National Treasure - 31/5/2009 9:48:42 AM

IanGraham

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: Chester

Sa this movie last night, having never read any of the books, and it kept my attention of the whole running time, partly due to the pace of the movie, and the ( attempted ) twists - but not that hard to predict. Feel the ~Empire 2 stars is a bit harsh, as it is just summer blockbuster lite history, but entertaining non the less. Much better than Knowing, and deserves a better score than that pile of turd.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 80

Meh. - 8/6/2009 10:11:27 PM

Nakatomi

Posts: 90
Joined: 14/1/2006

Entertaining, if nonsensical, 2 hours. Ron Howard still misses the point of these films though - they're *detective* stories at heart, so for the love of God (or whatever you believe in) can't you just let the audience *in*? Give us a chance to do some working out of something, at some point. We're supposed to be there WITH Langdon, but Howard insists on having us be LED by him (plus bonus clunky dialogue!). Meh.

"Robert Langdon and The Kingdom of the 3rd Religious Debate", or whatever, had better not drag us along again

< Message edited by Nakatomi -- 8/6/2009 10:12:43 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 81

erm... - 11/6/2009 8:43:31 PM

Jenzy

Posts: 79
Joined: 28/10/2005

It's better than Da Vinci Code but I can't help but think that if it wasn't written by Dan Brown, it might get better reviews? Against by better judgment, I actually enjoyed this film and found it rather intriguing. Yes, it does require suspending (huge amounts of) disbelief but since when is that a bad thing?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 82

RE: Angels And Demons - 26/6/2009 11:51:38 AM

Gamba

Posts: 173
Joined: 17/3/2009
From: West Midlands

Maybe it's because I've read the book so I know the story, but I didn't find Angels & Demons had enough suspense or thrills. Maybe the kind of mystery / detective style story works better in a book, as you get more of the history and detail as the story grows and you feel more involved, but the screenplay had to cut a lot of detail out, and make a lot of changes, leaving me feeling like I just wasn't drawn into the action. The story felt a little rushed, but still not exciting.

Tom Hanks is more likeable in this than the first. His female co-star has pretty much nothing to do. There's nothing intelligent about the film, and it's not even thrilling enough to be a dumb but fun action movie. I actually enjoyed the book more.

1/5

_____________________________

Sometimes I look up and think, "Why is that frisbee getting bigger?"....

.... and then it hits me...

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 83

the most boring movie of the most fastest movies - 8/7/2009 1:19:38 AM

ARmy2510

Posts: 107
Joined: 21/4/2008

This is an art made a 2 hours movie looks like 10 hours. I didn't read a book but this movie is totally bad - Tom Hanks is talking and running, Ayelet Zurer is just walking and looks like a background with tits. Plot? Well- talking, walking, running, killing... Boring.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 84

Entertaining but Ridiculous - 8/9/2009 12:39:31 PM

THE DALTONATOR

Posts: 80
Joined: 17/2/2008

this film is reasonably entertaining but obviously stupid. The twist at the end is hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 85

RE: Entertaining but Ridiculous - 14/9/2009 7:25:07 AM

Drone

Posts: 959
Joined: 30/9/2005

Vastly underrated, unlike Da Vinci Code I hadn't read the novel beforehand, and watching with an open mind (and not a mind for criticism of misplaced facts like many) found I thorughly enjoyed it.

Fairly surprised with a few characters as well,I thought the twist was decent - not with the revelation of the villain, but more the identities of the good guys.

(in reply to THE DALTONATOR)

Post #: 86

Entertaining But Over The Top. - 20/9/2009 9:27:11 AM

joanna likes films

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill

Never read the books or seen The Da Vinci Code but my sister's husband told us we had to see Angels And Demons. So I rented it out on Blu-Ray and watched it last night, yes it's entertaining and better than some movies that have been relased lately. But it's over the top, far fetched and too long to make things sense in a numb bumming two hours and twenty minutes. Sure, the cast do a good job and the settings are beautiful to look at but it's not one to keep and watch again and again.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 87

Why all the bad press for these films?! - 21/9/2009 12:11:09 PM

Lycan

Posts: 5
Joined: 30/5/2007

I have to say I don't understand the harsh words these filsm get. I absolutley loved The Da Vinci Code, especially the extended version. Saw Angels & Demons last night and throroughly enjoyed it. Agree that the books were better in both cases (apart from the 'James Bond' style helicopter escape by Langdon which I am delighted to say was left out of A & D movie!!) but I will give thumbs up to Ron Howard and team for both movies. Bring on The Lost Symbol......

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 88

Ok...but The Da Vinci Code was better - 22/9/2009 3:42:38 PM

Jimlovesfilm

Posts: 1
Joined: 22/9/2009
From: London

I watched Angels and Demons at the weekend after buying it from HMV. After reading negative reviews all over the place, I thought I'd give it a chance. I've read the book, and thought with a few exceptions, it kept pretty true to the novel.

Tom Hanks was ok this time round as Robert Langdon, but I felt he needed to inject a bit more life into the character. I got the feeling that he was frustrated and at some points, bored of having to provide the expostition of the film. If thats how LAngdon is supposed to be, than fair enough, but you dont get that feeling from the books. Ewan Mcgregors Irish accent needed some work too. It switched from Irish, to Scottish, to English, to American, back to Irish. Dont get me wrong, I love Hanks and Mcgregor, but something was...missing.

The film itself also felt a bit rushed, like Ron Howard just wanted to bag it and move on. There was little meat to it. The Da Vinci Code had more explanation, more detail. This film played more like a documentary tour of The Vatican.

This is my first review, so it may not be great, but hopefully I'll get better at it. Overall, the film was ok, but I preferred The Da Vinci Code.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 89

brilliant - 13/10/2009 2:58:52 PM

phil blakeman

Posts: 47
Joined: 11/9/2008

it's over the top sure but come on this is really entertaining. i thought the book was good untill the rubbish revelation, but had a sneaking suspicion it would work as a film. well what do you know. brilliant. this is coming from someone who hated the adaptation of the da vinci code by the way.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 90