This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The only thing I like about this movie is it serves as the perfect example of what's wrong with contemporary Hollywood movie-making. The story is so completely ridiculous and implausible and yet is played with such deadly earnestness that I didn't know whether to laugh or throw up. From beginning to end the audience is treated with such disdain and contempt that it's obvious Ron Howard and crew assume American moviegoers are the stupidest people on the planet (which, unfortunately is probably true given this film's rating on IMDb). SPOILER: a dead eyeball will not clear a retina scanner! And the fact that all these inane goings-on so obviously cost millions and millions of dollars to create just highlights the vacuity and pointlessness of the whole adventure. Sadly depressing.

great movie one of my favorite actors victor alfieri is on angels and demons,, sadly the IMDb took the message boards off and now i have to write a review,, not fair, IMDb should put the message boards back on,, and i have no idea what IMDb meant with if you write a spoiler without warning reads your name will be added to the blacklist,, sorry but im angry and have no respect for what IMDb done to our messages boards,, bring the message boards back,,

While it was a long way from perfect, or even great, 'The Da Vinci Code' was better than expected, considering its less than great reputation.Despite being a box office success, 'Angels and Demons' received mixed to negative reviews, and it's not hard to see why. As an adaptation of the book, which also had some imperfections but was an engrossing and intriguing read, 'Angels and Demons' is extremely poor, with much being cut out or dumbed down, giving the film an over-simplified and over-complicated feel. On its own terms, it's just as problematic and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, inferior to 'The Da Vinci Code', sharing some of the same flaws but amplified while making more on the way.'Angels and Demons' to its credit is a great-looking film, being beautifully shot with breath-taking locations that could have been utilised more. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting and accentuates the thriller mood of the film. Tom Hanks gives his role an easy-going charm, while Ewan McGregor has an earnestness while also trying very hard to give his character plausibility (though the character has too much of the opposite for him to properly succeed).Stellan Skarsgård is similarly strong, as are Victor Alferi and a chilling Nikolaj Lie Kaas.On the other hand, Ayelet Zurer is a charmless and bland substitute for Audrey Tautou, with little to do and giving her worthless dialogue far too much weight. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl's very over-acted villain and Pierfrancesco Favino who spends the whole of his screen time looking hopelessly lost.The cast are not helped by their (interesting) characters being reduced to mostly simplistic caricatures, and even those not quite as badly affected are underdeveloped. Nor with a truly corny and clunky script, muddled direction by Ron Howard and a story that feels convoluted, to the point of incomprehensibility in places, and childish with plot twists too obvious.People have said that 'Angels and Demons' had brisker pacing than 'The Da Vinci Code'. Personally, it was partly yes (it is in a way) but largely no. To me the pacing was all over the place, with so many convolutions and parts that feel jumpy it did feel rushed, while the middle act especially lacked urgency and instead dragged like mad.Overall, not without dishonour, and with enough to prevent it from being completely demonic, but very lacklustre and disappointing, with it also falling far short of being angelic. 4/10 Bethany Cox

adaptation of one of his novels.nothing new. answer to success of a bestseller series. but... . the charm of style is lost. the story is real confuse. the joy to discover a decent film remains unrealistic. because it has the gift to be a collections of runs, mysteries, theories without any support. a film who has not the advantage of cast because Tom Hanks is far to be part of his character and Ewan McGregor seems do a work without purpose. sure, Vatican. sure, the clash between police and science. but all at the most unrealistic level. without the desire to give a story to the public. only few action moments. but each could be better in another genre product.