| Overall Grade: |
B+ |
|
| Story: |
A+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B |
|
|
| Direction: |
B |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A- |
|
|
Pleasant Surprise
by Alex (movies profile)
May 15, 2009
26
of
30 people found this review helpful
As a major fan of the novel, I expected to be disappointed by the movie adaptation. The Da Vinci Code was mediocre, and it was my least favorite role that Tom Hanks assumed because his acting was very wooden as compared to classics like Forrest Gump. However, this movie corrected many of the mistakes of the first movie. Tom's acting was better, the visuals were incredible (especially the antimatter explosion), and their seemed to be a greater sense of urgency than there ever was in the first movie. Even though I have read the book several times, I managed to stay engaged in the movie, and I was satisfied. However, there were several things that should have been better. The Hassassin was not convincing enough. He should have been more of a psychopath whose hobbies are rape are murder. The movie portrayed him as more of a Jason Bourne-like Treadstone Operative. His heart didn't seem to be in it, and it was evident that he was in it solely for the money. Also, there was little evidence of any chemistry between Vittoria and Robert, which became a fairly major subplot in the novels. Cardinal Baggia should have died, and Mortati (I think his name was Strauss in the film) shold have become the next Pope. I don't know how they were able to avoid using Kohler in the movie, as he became one of the focal points of the novel. The only other grievances I have are the change in the Camerlengo's name and the replacement of Leonardo Vetra with some older colleague of Vittoria's. Those grievances aside, it was a well-executed movie that did a great job of undertaking the impossible task of creating a movie as good as the novel, Angels and Demons. Congratulations to Ron Howard and Tom Hanks for doing a commendable job this time around. |
My Public Profile 
