ANGELS & DEMONS (Blu-ray; Columbia/Sony)

Mike LoManaco

Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures/Imagine Entertainment)
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Disc/Transfer Information:1080p High Definition; 2.40:1
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (tested at core DTS)
Director: Ron Howard
Starring Cast: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgard


SYNOPSIS:

Tom Hanks returns as “expert symbologist” and professor Robert Langdon in this Ron Howard exceedingly anticipated followup to The Da Vinci Code. As usual, the teaser trailers for Angels & Demons suggested something a bit different from what Howard actually delivered; there was a relatively ominous “supernatural” flair to the trailers which indeed may have included actual demons – at the end, it becomes an almost genuine sequel to Da Vinci Code and falls into the follow-the-endless-confusing-clues trappings of the National Treasure “franchise.”

Again based on the novel by Dan Brown, Angels & Demons attempts to tell the story of the age-old fight between church and scientific explanation for all that is and happens – it manifests in the form of a plot revolving around four holy Cardinals who have been kidnapped by a secret organization known as the “Illuminati” and who have apparently been driven into an underground society centuries ago by the Vatican itself for their “radical” beliefs that seem to been condemned by the church. The film opens with shots of Vatican City, where a recent pope has passed away, and groups from the “Papal College” are carrying his body for all to see in St. Peter’s Square. A newscaster is narrating the events of the pope’s passing, explaining how the papal ring must be destroyed so a new pope can take reign, and we witness these actions through Ewan McGregor’s character, who is a “Camerlengo” or a holy priest who is acting as a temporary stopgap for His Holiness until a new pope can be elected. McGregor plays the Camerlengo spot-on, with a charming, yet strong and almost na

Mike LoManaco

ANGELS & DEMONS REVIEW CONTINUED...

As I said, there are some interesting plot twists at the end that involve a couple of the film’s characters that you wouldn’t guess would be “turned” – one is a bit more predictable than another, but that’s all I will say on that. How many kidnappers are there actually holding the Cardinals hostage? How will Langdon, the female scientist and the Swiss Guard stop this antimatter bomb from blowing up before midnight? What do the Illuminati essentially want? How many people are actually “in” on this seemingly mystery-ridden conspiracy? What do they have to gain from it? What connection does McGregor’s priestly character have to the late pope that died in the beginning of the film?

All the answers to these questions await – sometimes confusingly – in Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel of Angels & Demons.


VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?

Angels & Demons comes from Columbia/Sony on Blu-ray in a 2.40:1 widescreen 1080p transfer that, for the most part, gets the job done. This wasn’t a standout title in terms of video quality in any one specific way; some early scenes are bit softer than the remainder of the transfer, but in general, this was a clean, debris and grain-free Blu-ray that exhibited everything we’ve come to expect from the format.

Moments of clarity come during sequences involving Hanks speaking with the Vatican police official early on in the outer halls of Harvard University; this sequence was crisp and well-defined, able to bring out details in the gardens behind the two men as they walk, along with clothing and facial elements. The beginning antimatter particle lab shots looked shockingly real and crisp, with pipes and machinery looking almost animated in their eye-popping realism. Some later scenes lost a bit of impact and tactile punch in terms of dynamic detail, such as when Hanks is in church where one of the Illuminati victims are burning to death over the altar; some of these darker sequences fell into a bit of softness which brought the overall impact and contrast down, but it did not in any way make this a “poor transfer.”

AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?

Again running a core DTS extraction from a DTS-HD Master Audio track, I was pleased with Angels & Demons’ audio mix; not mixed as “hot” or aggressively as other Columbia releases as of “late” such as, say, Quantum of Solace, the DTS core extraction proved to be all-encompassing when it needed to be, with bullets and effects flying around the antimatter lab finding their way into every channel in a 5.1 array. While center channel information ultimately came off sounding a bit soft and hushed, the remainder of the soundstage came to life when action heated up – much more so than the last Columbia disc I reviewed, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

Standout moments in the audio were gunfight sequences between the “head” Illuminati hostage keeper and Vatican cops in a church, where bullets aggressively hit the back channels in a maddening, tactile fashion and which created a realistic soundscape, making you feel as if you were in that echoing church with them….also, during the aforementioned antimatter particle harnessing sequence, which sent effects as the camera followed the pipes and antimatter through the chambers all through the channels. Additionally, one of the final sequences of the film depicting McGregor’s character and the way in which he “saves” Vatican City from the explosion exhibits a unique sound design that isn’t as much aggressive and bombarding as it is quietly effective – much like the “sonic silent blasts” of the bombs set off on the craters in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.


SUMMARY:

With The Da Vinci Code under his belt and warranting much fanfare, Ron Howard’s Angels & Demons makes for nonstop action thrills with city car chases along the lines of Vantage Point, Taken and the National Treasure films, but it somehow just falls flat as a film in its entirety. It does explore the notions of church and science, and how the two never saw eye to eye, in a rather interesting fashion, and the setpieces of the inner workings of Vatican City and the Swiss Guard were eye-opening. But what ultimately happens is what I said in the meat of the review – that is, it falls into the formula already established by Disney’s National Treasures in that Hanks ends up spending most of the running time chasing clue after clue and practically begging the Vatican for access to more files and convincing the authorities that his suspicions are warranted – and it gets confusing and downright boring after awhile.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Fans of The Da Vinci Code won’t hesitate to buy or rent this; it’s an interesting rental indeed, but I personally won’t be putting this into my library as I don’t ever see taking it out on a regular basis to rewatch. My better half, interestingly, absolutely loved the National Treasure films (I didn’t really) and thus we have both films on Blu-ray…but she didn’t quite get or enjoy Angels & Demons. If motion pictures involving characters desperately trying to figure out a barrage of endless clues that may lead nowhere don’t drive you nuts, give you a headache or push you to reach for a sledgehammer to smash your beloved Onkyo or Denon receiver, this makes for a decent rental.

F1nut

Wow, this is the first time I've actually read one of your reviews from beginning to end. I have to say that what you've written is more than a simple review, you basically gave the entire movie away and that does not make for a good review, sorry.

I also disagree with your summary and recommendation, you are completing off base. And this coming from someone that finds most movies to be pure crap. Maybe not enough blood, guts and bombs for you, eh!?!

kawizx9r

Hey Mike, no disrespect to your reviews but they're awfully long and I just skip down to your recommendations.

I read this book when it first came out, and enjoyed it very much. However, I also read The Da Vinci Code but hated the movie when it came out.

Would like to hear some more opinions from those that have both read the book and watched the movie.

Midnite Mick

My eyes get blurry and tired when I try to read long posts.

LessisNevermore

F1nut wrote: »

Wow, this is the first time I've actually read one of your reviews from beginning to end. I have to say that what you've written is more than a simple review, you basically gave the entire movie away and that does not make for a good review, sorry.

I also disagree with your summary and recommendation, you are completing off base. And this coming from someone that finds most movies to be pure crap. Maybe not enough blood, guts and bombs for you, eh!?!

I agree completely.

at the end, it becomes an almost genuine sequel to Da Vinci Code and falls into the follow-the-endless-confusing-clues trappings of the National Treasure “franchise.”

This shows a complete ignorance of the subject matter, which for most action movies, is ok. But this is more of an intellectual thriller, and those confusing clues, are vital to the story. Some folks actually enjoy a mental challenge, instead of watching the same rehash of dumb-down to the lowest common denominator fluff.

Reducing actual technologies such as retinal scanners and anti-matter, down to comparisons to Star Trek, and Demolition man was laughable.

If you enjoy a story that you can't carry a conversation through, and not be lost, or have more of an attention span than a gnat, you will probably like this movie. If not, then stick to Transformer movies.

hearingimpared

Based on F1nut's recommendation and a two-hour History Channel show on Angels & Demons, I put this movie at the top of my Netflix queue.

LessisNevermore

Keiko wrote: »

I thought it was a bit better than The Da Vinci Code.

I did too, which is the opposite order of my preference of the two books. I just finished Brown's newest Langdon book. IMO, it was right on par with A&D and DC.

bobman1235

LessisNevermore wrote: »

I did too, which is the opposite order of my preference of the two books. I just finished Brown's newest Langdon book. IMO, it was right on par with A&D and DC.

I agree with this. I liked this movie better but liked the book DaVinici code better.

kuntasensei

Keiko wrote: »

We rented the DVD last week. Wife and I liked it. I thought it was a bit better than The Da Vinci Code. Regardless, Tom Hanks always delivers a stellar performance. 3.5 out of 5 from me.

I agree with this completely. The DaVinci Code was really weak to me, whereas A&D was a fairly competent thriller. Worth a watch.

cstmar01

I read both books and saw both movies after I had read the books. Da Vinci was good, however I felt it was rather lacking in some parts. The book was a great read and I found myself never wanting to put it down, the movie on the other hand wasn't the same. It was good, but not the same.
A&D was also a great read and this time I enjoyed the movie a bit more. I found that it was a lot more engaging for me, and I found myself not wanting to leave to see how it all played out.
I would say that A&D was a better movie but still, I like the books better in the end.

cnh

All I can say is that I saw the DVD here in China on a 20" Haier TV with my Dell as the DVD player--even with this truly LOWest of end systems....I liked it better than the first film. Can't comment on the sound...or picture quality--I assume they're pretty good...or at least I "imagine' that they are when I think about how this will play when I return to the U.S.

cnh

concealer404

I liked this movie. A lot.

reeltrouble1

minor spoiler---

I liked the movie. As I might of done a bit of investigative work once or twice along the way I can say I did not see it coming even fairly late into the movie. YOur individual experience with what you see or hear will be dependent upon your room and gear and should be taken into account regarding the review, although nothing wrong, reference is entry level for many of this gang.

RT1

Demiurge

Keiko wrote: »

I liked Bachelor Party better.

No personal attack ever fed a hungry child.

Knucklehead

I found this movie rather predictable after the first murder, I like Tom Hanks, without him this movie would have gone down like a **** on nickle night. Mike/Peter, whatever your name is, the reviews are too long bro, give us the condensed version.

shepx2

If anything, Angels & Demons by Ron Howard is an interesting observation on church and the way it feels about science – something that hasn’t really been explored in Hollywood.

Hey Mike. I hate to break this to you...... but....... this is a fictional movie, not a Michael Moore pseudo documentary. Any observations on the truth are only delusions you are implying for your own benefit.

It blows me away when people watch a movie/read a book that is explicitly fictional and try and make it real.


Haven't seen the movie, but after reading the review, I'm not sure I need to. I read the book and really enjoyed it, but it sounds like you just gave away all the differences between the two.

kuntasensei

Knucklehead wrote: »

I found this movie rather predictable after the first murder, I like Tom Hanks, without him this movie would have gone down like a **** on nickle night. Mike/Peter, whatever your name is, the reviews are too long bro, give us the condensed version.

Wait... when is nickel night?

Mike LoManaco

kawizx9r wrote: »

Hey Mike, no disrespect to your reviews but they're awfully long and I just skip down to your recommendations

That's fine.

Mike LoManaco

LessisNevermore wrote: »

I agree completely.



This shows a complete ignorance of the subject matter, which for most action movies, is ok. But this is more of an intellectual thriller, and those confusing clues, are vital to the story. Some folks actually enjoy a mental challenge, instead of watching the same rehash of dumb-down to the lowest common denominator fluff.

Reducing actual technologies such as retinal scanners and anti-matter, down to comparisons to Star Trek, and Demolition man was laughable.

If you enjoy a story that you can't carry a conversation through, and not be lost, or have more of an attention span than a gnat, you will probably like this movie. If not, then stick to Transformer movies.

I see now. Thank you for clearing that up for me -- I am "completely off base" because I provide my opinion on a film and my viewoints, as everyone else here is, and I'm suddenly off base according to F1 and you agree with that. Okay.

Moving on, your references of my statements being "laughable" with regard to Trek and Demolition Man are not even warranted; I know that antimatter experiments take place in the real world, and that wasn't my point -- the references to Demoltion Man and Star Trek weren't really meant to be taken "uber-seriously" so take it easy...I was merely referring to Trek because of all the antimatter backstories used in the series.

Furthermore, do not accuse me of liking mindless, brainless strict action type flicks only because that's absolutely not true -- I am not saying that this film was bad because of the clue elements, I was merely pointing out that they became tedious after awhile -- in my opinion only -- and the film began to feel very much like the National Treasures in that way. I am the first to point out when a dumb, mindless action film arrives and the ways in which only imbecilic tweenagers would get any entertainment out of it -- I'm not saying that's the case here.

Mike LoManaco

shepx2 wrote: »

Hey Mike. I hate to break this to you...... but....... this is a fictional movie, not a Michael Moore pseudo documentary. Any observations on the truth are only delusions you are implying for your own benefit.

It blows me away when people watch a movie/read a book that is explicitly fictional and try and make it real.


Haven't seen the movie, but after reading the review, I'm not sure I need to. I read the book and really enjoyed it, but it sounds like you just gave away all the differences between the two.

This is one of the more laughable replies I've had the pleasure to read in this thread -- I am implying that these observations on truth are for my own benefit? You HONESTLY think that I posted that comment for my own beneft for some reason? That's just ridiculous. And I NEVER stated that this was expected to be some psuedo Michael Moore drama or serious take on subject matter -- what I was projecting in the review was my own analysis of the subject matter in the film.

Another problem I have with your post is this: It seems in your "anger" to join everyone else in the bashing of the post because it seems "the thing to do" here as soon as my name pops up, you went ahead and accused me of something I didn't even do -- that is, make too many comparisons between the book and the film. I merely mentioned the film was based on Brown's book, and never made direct comparisons to them -- further, I don't really see where I gave too much away...I left a great deal of the plot open for personal analysis and interpretation upon you watching the film. Ever visit sites that provide reviews of DVDs and Blu-rays? The authors use the same method -- that is, thoroughly breaking down the plot and discussing it almost scene by scene sometimes before getting to the technical specs. Sure, there are sites that don't appear this way, but most of them do.

Look, it seems I am in the minority in terms of liking or "getting" this film, and that's fine -- but we can all express our opinions in a more un-hostile, civilized fashion, can't we? I respect the fact that most enjoyed this film and that they disagree with my assertions on it -- that is absolutely fine. There's no need for mud-slinging though; as for the physical specs on the disc, sure mileage will vary based on equipment setups, but I really don't think I am too far off with my video and audio breakdowns.

Jstas

BAH! The movies are full of nothing but blasphemy!

dorokusai

I fell asleep watching it....must've been awesome.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

This is one of the more laughable replies I've had the pleasure to read in this thread -- I am implying that these observations on truth are for my own benefit? You HONESTLY think that I posted that comment for my own beneft for some reason? That's just ridiculous. And I NEVER stated that this was expected to be some psuedo Michael Moore drama or serious take on subject matter -- what I was projecting in the review was my own analysis of the subject matter in the film.

Another problem I have with your post is this: It seems in your "anger" to join everyone else in the bashing of the post because it seems "the thing to do" here as soon as my name pops up, you went ahead and accused me of something I didn't even do -- that is, make too many comparisons between the book and the film. I merely mentioned the film was based on Brown's book, and never made direct comparisons to them -- further, I don't really see where I gave too much away...I left a great deal of the plot open for personal analysis and interpretation upon you watching the film. Ever visit sites that provide reviews of DVDs and Blu-rays? The authors use the same method -- that is, thoroughly breaking down the plot and discussing it almost scene by scene sometimes before getting to the technical specs. Sure, there are sites that don't appear this way, but most of them do.

Look, it seems I am in the minority in terms of liking or "getting" this film, and that's fine -- but we can all express our opinions in a more un-hostile, civilized fashion, can't we? I respect the fact that most enjoyed this film and that they disagree with my assertions on it -- that is absolutely fine. There's no need for mud-slinging though; as for the physical specs on the disc, sure mileage will vary based on equipment setups, but I really don't think I am too far off with my video and audio breakdowns.

Reported. Shep wasn't being hostile at all, and neither was Lessisnevermore - they just stated their opinions. And yet, both of your lengthy responses to them are fairly typical of how you react any time someone disagrees with you.

cnh

I suggest we cool down a bit here. It's all good and it's a website; so it's a free space....and some people write 'more' than others....as someone said above, if it's too long skip down. But I haven't seen any 'word limit' signs on Club Polk yet!

I'm used to reading a lot more than the length of these reviews and writing more as well...perhaps not here...but certainly online.

I think both sides should get over it. It's just one guy's opinion. And as you see above you are free to express your own here as well.

And Milke...get some 'thicker' skin. Man, if you do this professionally the last thing YOU should care about is people who 'disagree' with you because that's par for the course in that profession!

cnh

Demiurge

Hmmm......nah.

MrNightly

Oh look... another ****...



Nothing to see here folks... move along.... like to the thread that was started months ago on this very same movie, and currently is 3 or 4 spaces below this thread.... novel idea here folks... novel idea.

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

I suggest we cool down a bit here. It's all good and it's a website; so it's a free space....and some people write 'more' than others....as someone said above, if it's too long skip down. But I haven't seen any 'word limit' signs on Club Polk yet!

I'm used to reading a lot more than the length of these reviews and writing more as well...perhaps not here...but certainly online.

I think both sides should get over it. It's just one guy's opinion. And as you see above you are free to express your own here as well.

And Milke...get some 'thicker' skin. Man, if you do this professionally the last thing YOU should care about is people who 'disagree' with you because that's par for the course in that profession!

cnh

That's not the point, man.

The issue is that even though there was already a thread about this movie. Mike LoM decided to post a new thread with his review. He has deemed himself more important and feels we should prostrate ourselves to him for gracing us with his presence...even though no one asked him to come here.

He's fulfilling a personal agenda and purports himself to be a "professional". If such is the case, why is he continually allowed to post this stuff here when other people of a "professional" sort, like vendors, spammers and the like, are not?

On top of that, he exhibits severe personality disorders that he should probably be seeking REAL professional help for as evidenced in this thread as well as every other thread.

I understand what you are trying to say and do here but this childishness Mike LoM puts us all through is tiresome at best at this point.


I think he might have been received differently is EVERY movie he has reviewed and raved about didn't actually suck donkey parts in reality.