Angles & Demons

At first I thought I hated Angels & Demons--and when I say "hated it," I mean that literally--because I read the book several years ago and really enjoyed the read. As much as a guy who rarely reads fiction can enjoy it, anyway. But I've often hated movies that were produced from books I enjoyed. The Firm comes to mind, (and damn it, I wished it hadn't), what with its alternate ending and all.

I digress. My complaint was about this Ron Howard flick.

After thinking about this movie for a few days, I've come to realize just why I hated it. It's because 15 minutes into the flick, Mrs. Film Geek announced: "The [title of a specific character] did it." Nothing more, just a simple proclamation as to who really killed the Pope.

And she was right.

She figured it out for the same reason I hated this movie: all the characters were obvious, and many were stereotypes! Like in any nameless Lifetime movie, the audience knows when a well known actor is hired to play a supporting role, that actor is gonna be the killer. It's understood he's gonna get a meatier role later in the flick, as a psycho sociopath, or a sociopathic psycho. Whatever the phrase is, it's a formula that keeps on being used, even though it's tired.

And the formula played out in this Hanks' movie. It played out big time. Angels & Demons wasn't great literature, but the book was far better than the movie.

Far better.