Hollywood hues
Damp squib

The plot of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons lacks any real cerebral
suspense, writes Ervell E. Menezes

AFTER the hu-ha of pre-release publicity, Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons comes across as a sort of damp squib, too physical and not half as absorbing as its predecessor The Da Vinci Code. The second half of chasing the Illuminati clues is needlessly stretched out and there are not enough pauses to become more cerebral. May be the last twist comes as a relief but it hardly compensates for its inordinate 140 minutes duration.

The Vatican scenes are beautifully shot, both close-up and aerial shots by night by cinematographer Salvatore Totino that give it the right ambience. The establishing shots are effective and the story begins promisingly with the secret society (like the Opus Dei in the earlier film) and its nefarious activities craftily exposed. Then we have American symbologist Robert Langdon’s (Tom Hanks) entry in staccato style, summoned by the Vatican after the death of the Pope in a world-shattering crisis (that’s nothing new). Simultaneously shown is the conclave to elect the new Pope (black smoke, black smoke, till the final whiter smoke) and the presence of beautiful Italian scientist Dr Vittorio Vatna (Aylet Zurer) and the duo will be in your face right through the film.

The screenplay by David Koep and Akiva Goldman is event-ridden, more in the style of a James Bond movie. It could have done with some pauses for the clues to sink in. One needs to exercise the brain at times like this. It has a few good lines but they are few and far between like for example "the Catholic Church derives its power from the 200 million lost and frightened souls." But if you think the film is anti-Catholic, think again. In fact, it is pro-Catholic but then the Church is known to overreact at times like these.

But the accent is on drama, great visuals like Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) going up in a helicopter in the climactic scene and the stern faces of the cameos help create an aura for suspense. The prospective candidates for the next Pope, the college of Cardinals, is almost hand-picked to depict these over-70 years fuddy-duddies in whose hands rest the future of the Church. Their blind faith in rituals and inability to think afresh also comes through. But then, most relations do not allow anyone to think for themselves, do they?

May be the success of The Da Vinci Code has led director Ron Howard to become more ambitious and even flashy and he clearly misses the ideal amalgam of form and content.

Besides, the whole Illuminati issue is too simple for comfort. It’s like they have the answers well in advance. Tom Hanks has the disadvantage of being in the frame right through and though he tries hard, credibility seems to elude him. In that respect comparative newcomer Aylet Zurer is more successful Ewan McGregor does an excellent job. The assassin with rimless glasses, shades of Rahul Gandhi, is effectively played by Nikolag Lie Kaas but as much credit goes to director Howard for that. Stellan Skarsgard gives Commander Richter enough body to heighten the plot, which by and large is vastly devoid of any real cerebral suspense. See it, but don’t expect too much.

HOME