Angels & Demons ** (rant)

So, I finally got around to seeing Angels & Demons today and I thought I'd write about it now before I forgot about it tomorrow. It was truly, a forgettable film.

As a fan of the Dan Brown books, I was once again disappointed to see that an attempt to translate another one of his stories onto film had failed. I wasn't expecting much; I'd heard about poor reviews. But I'd hoped that because this story was a fast-paced, page turner it was going to be an improvement on "The DaVinci Code" movie. Boy, was I wrong.

In this film, Tom Hanks reprises his role as Professor Robert Langdon. This time he is called to Rome in a time of crisis: The Pope has just died and four Cardinals (the front-runners to take the Pope's place) have been kidnapped by a secret brotherhood (a 400 year old enemy of the Catholic Church) called the"Illuminati". Langdon, with the help of a Priest, played by Ewan McGregor, and a physicist, played by Ayelet Zurer, must follow clues throughout the Vatican in the hopes of preventing the Cardinals' deaths and the impending detonation of an anti-matter bomb.

As each hour passes, a different Cardinal's life is at risk. Time is of the essence! Langdon must try to figure out different clues in time to make it to various destinations in the hopes of saving each of them and saving Rome.

Sounds like it could be good right?

So, what went wrong?

Well... although I was happy to see Tom Hanks without the weird hair from the first movie, he still played the 'religious symbologist expert' as the most boring person in the world. As the Langdon character, Hanks, with monotone voice and permanent grave expression, once again stopped in front of every statue and symbol he came across and told whoever was standing beside him what it meant (regardless of whether or not they were interested).

For me, all the religious history and conspiracy theories, worked in the Dan Brown books: It's what made his novels both entertaining and informative. On screen, however, it just didn't work in either film. I know Brown didn't create an 'Indiana Jones' kind of professor character in his stories, but Hanks and the screen writers of "Angels & Demons" could have at least made Langdon seem a little bit excited about his life's passion. Instead, they had the audience listen to, and follow, a guy who probably puts his class to sleep with each lecture. -I'm not a huge Nick Cage fan, but I would rather watch "National Treasure 2" again (and it was painful the first time) than see Professor Langdon solve a puzzle or try to save anyone ever again.

I'm not going to blame everything on Tom Hanks. (I actually love Hanks and I own a lot of his movies). The whole movie was slow and boring. And this is what I didn't get...Here's a movie that has constant time pressure: lives depend on reaching certain destinations by a certain time. And yet even the way the film was shot was slow. Several times in the film, as Langdon and others are driving around to save a life, the camera drifts away from the action of the chase and slowly floats off, up over the sky, to show us the roof of a church or a crowd of people protesting something. Who cares! Keep us in the car and make them drive faster! (And, of course, Langdon could always find the time to painfully describe the origins of some clue he held in his hands while sitting in the passenger's seat).

The movie also had a lot of continuity issues for me. Somehow within each hour, Langdon would have the time to go somewhere, research something and still make it to his destination. And as the film goes on he's getting shot at and at one location almost set on fire (you would think that would make the film more exciting -but trust me, it doesn't). All of these scenes are in Brown's book and while reading them, they were somewhat believable. But on film, it just didn't make sense. At one point, Langdon is trapped somewhere (I don't want to tell you everything in case you're actually going to see the movie after reading this) and yet once freed, he has seven minutes remaining to get to the newly discovered location. While watching this scene, I thought "hasn't he been stuck in there for at least an hour?". But in hindsight, maybe it just felt like hours because everything he did or said seemed to take forever.

Another complaint I have about both films (don't worry, I'm almost done) is about the female co-stars. In each movie, Hanks shares scenes with pretty brunettes who have no personality nor seem capable of making any kind of facial expression. They're serious and boring and don't make any impression with the small screen time they inhabit.

Finally, I have to say I preferred "The DaVinci Code" to "Angels & Demons" for one reason: "The DaVinci Code" had a really good bad guy. Paul Bettany did a superb job playing a creepy, albino monk in that film. Watching him flog himself made me feel sick, but at least it made me feel something.

In "Angels & Demons" there's no such sensational guy to hate. Without telling you who the villain is, I will tell you that once he's found out, a room full of Cardinals stand together and stare him down with no dialogue. I guess Ron Howard, the director of the film, was hoping that scene of silence would be tense enough for the audience to go "oooohhh". Instead, I rolled my eyes and muttered under my breathe "you've got to be kidding".

In case there's any doubt, I do not recommend this movie. But I am still a Tom Hanks/Ron Howard fan. So I would suggest that instead of going to the theater to see "Angels & Demons", spend a night in and rent "Apollo 13". They both did a great job with that one. And even though I'm not sure why one of the co-stars, Ed Harris, got nominated for an Oscar for simply wearing a beret in "The Truman Show", he definitely deserved the nomination for his work in "Apollo 13".( As the "lucky vest" wearing optimist, you can't help but cheer for him. He's one of the many elements of the movie that make it enjoyable).

My three favourite "sleeper" crime films

This week, because I couldn't make it to the theater to see either "Terminator" or "Angels and Demons" (and now I'm not sure I want to spend the money to see either film), I decided instead to recommend my top three "sleeper" movies to rent.

Anytime I meet a fellow movie lover, I ask them if they've seen any of these films and if the answer is "no", I quickly dig them out from my vast DVD collection and place them in their hands. I enjoy sharing a good movie with someone just as much as a book I love. And, as with books, I'm curious to see if the recipients of these found treasures of mine will appreciate the stories and characters, as I did, or if they'll return them, somewhat dissatisfied. Either way, it always leads to an interesting conversation. I'm a little disheartened, of course, if they didn't like a film I recommended but I do get to know the person a little bit better when I find out why. And on occasion, the answer is they simply don't know their movies. If for example, I recommend a great classic like "All the president's men" and the person returns it with a shrug stating they'd rather see a film that has a monkey playing hockey in it, I know not to take their critique to heart. And since I don't own any movies starring monkeys, I stop lending films to them.

My three picks for this week are all crime genre films. I know this doesn't appeal to everyone but for some reason (perhaps I was a detective in a past life) I'm really drawn to them. I love to see how the good guy catches the bad guy, what makes a bad person "bad" and all the tangled webs that are weaved in the process. If you too are a fan of this genre, you should definitely check these film out...

Citizen X (1995)

This HBO film is based on a true story and stars Stephen Rea as police detective, Viktor Burakov who, while living in communist Soviet Union, spends ten years tracking down a serial killer. Donald Sutherland plays his superior and while you have to get use to both of them doing their best Russian accents, their on screen chemistry and acting (especially Rea's, as the tormented sleuth) make up for that. The story takes places mainly throughout the 1980s and not only does it depict the painstaking efforts it takes to collect viable evidence, it also shows how frustrating it must have been then to acquire the resources needed from a communist government, when they firmly believed serial killers were a "western phenomenon".

Because the killer, Chikatilo, took the lives of over 50 people (most of whom were children) in a very savage way, this film is not for the more sensitive viewers. The movie does depict some of these killings and I would highly recommend that you prepare yourself: A little desensitization could come in handy.

Max von Sydow plays the psychiatrist who constructs the first "psychological profile" ever offered to the field of detective work in The Soviet Union. His on screen time is short but profound.

This movie is tense, well -acted and gives the audience a glimpse into the "psychology of a killer"

If you like detective stories (and can handle some disturbing images); you'll like this one.

Auto Focus (2002)

In this film, (also based on a true story) Greg Kinnear plays Bob Crane the star of "Hogan's Heroes" a popular TV show which ran through the 1960's and 70's. Kinnear does an excellent job portraying Crane as the "all american guy" whose affliction as a sex addict, lead to his eventual unemployment, divorce and possibly his murder. ( I don't believe I'm giving away a spoiler here, as it is a true story).

Willem Dafoe co-stars as Crane's friend "John Carpenter" and (surprise, surprise) convincingly depicts a creepy guy who likes to capture naked girls on video. Kinnear and Dafoe, in their 60's garb, inhabit these characters and show the audience how an interest can turn into an obsession which can cause a downward spiral. (One that the characters are unaware of and yet are incapacitated by).

The sets are great in this film and the re-enactments of the "Hogan's Heroes" show are light and entertaining. A juxtaposition as you watch the deconstruction of Crane's life. Here's the story of a guy who "had it all" but just couldn't stop taking pictures of women's breasts.

Although the film doesn't delve into the investigation of Crane's murder, I include this one as a crime film because it shows the progression of "bad thoughts" turning someone into a "bad person".

Would this "bad person" from the 60's be deemed "bad" now? Watch it and decide for yourself.

Zero Effect (1998)

Here's my comedy/crime pick. A light hearted, with twists and turns, private detective story. Why this movie didn't do better at the box office is beyond me.

Bill Pullman plays " Daryl Zero" an eccentric private detective who doesn't know how to function in the real world. He never meets his clients face to face and instead has his assistant, played by Ben Stiller, fill in for him.

For this particular case, Zero is hired to help a man, played by Ryan O'Neal, find his keys. The search for such keys leads Zero to the discovery of a blackmailer who is up to the task of not getting caught.

Pullman's wacky portrayal of "Zero" is hilarious. Even his hair gets funnier with each scene. Stiller plays the Stiller you'd expect, but the two of them have got some great scenes together. I can't tell you a lot about the plot, without ruining it for you but I can tell you, what a joy it was to find this movie, many years ago. It's original, it's funny and it's well written.

And if you start the night with the first two heavy-duty films I recommended, you'll be due for some comedic relief.

This movie will gladly give that to you.

Star Trek ****1/2 (Rave)


I loved this movie! Finally a sci-fi/action film that didn't spend all it's focus or money on special effects, but actually took the time to cast it superbly, give us characters that would make us laugh and give us a plot. An honest to God story line with a beginning, middle and an end. And it kept me entertained all the way through. People like George Lucas could learn a thing or two from J.J. Abrams.- Just because characters have been around and loved for years, doesn't mean you can simply put them in costume, place them in front of a blue screen and hope for the best. You need human interaction and you need a good story!

J.J. Abrams knew this and took the beloved Star Trek characters and made them all new and delightful to me again. I've never been a die-hard Trekkie but I've seen enough of the shows and movies to know about the characters and I found myself getting more and more excited to see who would be playing what role and getting more and more elated when each actor nailed the character, bang on. Karl Urban playing "McCoy" and Simon Pegg playing "Scotty" were the highlights for me. Suddenly, I was a little kid again and full of glee while hearing lines like, "I'm giving her all she's got captain!" and "Damn it man! I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"

The other beauty of this film is you don't have to be a fan of Star Trek to enjoy it. It's got all the ingredients of any well made sci-fi/action film. The effects are great: There's plenty of crisis, monsters and fast-paced action for everyone who's a fan of this genre of film. But be warned; you may not go in as a Star Trek fan, but you may very well leave as one. The characters with their "campy" humour and on-screen chemistry would make it tough for even the biggest cynic not to care about them. (Unless, of course, you're a nasty, bitter Romulan).

This one is definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go out, pay the twelve dollars and fifty cents and live long and prosper...




~ Rent the documentary "Trekkies" if you want to delve deeper into the minds of the die-hard fans. You'll visit the wacky Star Trek conventions, see interviews with the original cast members, and see just how far some of the fans will go to become "Vulcan" and "Klingon". Definitely entertaining and brings a whole new meaning to being "out there".