Angels and Demons - the movie

As you know, I read the novel Angels and Demons last year and really enjoyed it so I was really looking forward to watching the movie. I went to see it last week and, despite what some of the film critics have said, I thought it was a good movie. I wasn't disappointed at all and I think Ron Howard has done a good job (again). I think the movie does a great job of capturing the spirit and suspense of the novel.

Also, can you believe that I had no idea Ewan McGregor was playing the part of the Camerlengo? I guess it goes to show the star power of Tom Hanks that all the promotional material shows and mentions Tom Hanks while Ewan McGregor, who is also a famous actor in his own right now, is completely ignored.


By the way, massive spoilers ahead so don't read on if you haven't watched the movie AND read the book yet.




*****************************************

Still here? Good - hope you enjoyed the book and movie!

I had a friend who went to see this movie before I did. She hadn't read the book and was able to see the movie with a completely fresh mind. Her comment was that she really enjoyed it until she found out that the Camerlengo was the bad guy. At that point, she was so caught by surprise that she had difficulty adjusting to the new reality (or should that be new moviety?) particularly as he acts completely different (her words - not mine).

Other than being a testament to Ewan McGregors acting ability, now that I've seen the film, this statement does surprise me a bit. Although the Camerlengo is revealed to be the bad guy in the video at the end, the way he acts is consistent with how he has acted all along. He doesn't suddenly become a menacing figure. All that changes is that he now tells you his true feelings - but the style of delivery (ie the acting) is consistent with how the Camerlengo has acted all along.


Also, isn't the whole point of a plot twist to catch you by surprise? Granted, the best plot twist should have some clues so that when it happens, you go "ooh, that's why he did that earlier!" which the film didn't really have (or at least, I didn't spot them) but still. And this actually ties in with my main regret with the film (note I said regret and not disappointment).


The film version doesn't really take any time to explain why the Camerlengo became so radical. It's left to the audience to accept that the Camerlengo was a radical (even though he was a favourite of the Pope) simply because he was a radical and disagreed with the Popes view on the ideological implications of the God particle. Granted, there was a throwaway line in the film about how his parents died as a result of a bomb incident which led to the Pope adopting him (this was before the Pope became the Pope) - but as I said, it was a throwaway line in the film and its significance wasn't really touched upon (Yes, I am aware of Chekov's Gun - but I don't think it applies in this case as the significance doesn't really become clear at the end either).


The advantage of the novel in this respect is that it does explain the events that led to the Camerlengo snapping. It goes into a lot more detail about his strict mother ("Never break a promise to God" or something like that), about the impact to him as a result of the bombing (antimatter being a potentially huge bomb has implications to the Camerlengo) and critically, how he believed that the Pope had broken his vow of chastity (ie the Pope broke a promise to God) which was a critical moment in him becoming radical (or at least, that was my interpretation of it).


Of course, its possible to do this in a book but extremely hard to do well in a movie (you run the risk of bogging down the movie with details) hence why I said regret instead of disappointment. Overall, a definite thumbs up for this movie.