Angels & Demons

[sauronsfinger]

Saw ANGELS & DEMONS on Saturday and would give it an enthusiastic thumbs up. It was much better than the previous DAVINCI CODE and you do not need to have seen that film to enjoy this one. It does a good job as a stand alone film. It works as a thriller and detective story plus you have the bonus of all the Rome and Vatican scenes which are really something to see. Hanks does his usual good job and Ron Howard turns in a solid directorial effort.

[Lurker]

Angels and Demons was never filmed in Rome nor at the Vatican. Having been to both I think they did a good job of "reconstructing" the scenes wherever they did that in the US.

[sauronsfinger]

Yes Lurker, I read where the Catholic church refused to give the producer permission to film. So they did the best they could and most of it looks pretty darn good.

Some of it was filmed in Rome..... this from Wikipedia

Shooting began on June 4, 2008 in Rome under the fake working title "Obelisk".[8] The filmmakers scheduled three weeks of exterior location filming because of a predicted 2008 Screen Actors Guild strike on June 30. The rest of the film would be shot at Sony Pictures Studios in Los Angeles, California, to allow for this halt.[9] Roman Catholic Church officials found The Da Vinci Code offensive and forbade filming in their churches, so these scenes were shot at Sony.[8] The Caserta Palace doubled for the inside of the Vatican,[8] and the Biblioteca Angelica was used for the Vatican Library.[10] Filming took place at the University of California, Los Angeles in July.[11] Sony and Imagine Entertainment organized an eco-friendly shoot, selecting when to shoot locations based on how much time and fuel it would save, using cargo containers to support set walls or greenscreens, as well as storing props for future productions or donating them to charity.

[

[Elentári]

Just seen it this afternoon with my eldest boys. I've read the book, they haven't. They enjoyed the storyline very much, and didn't guess the true villain before he was revealed. For me, knowing the plot was a disadvantage because it meant I spent most of the film playing spot the difference from the book. Most of the changes were probably for the best, but removing the extra twist re: the dead pope and the Camerlengo, presumably due to it stretching credibility, I felt lessened the intensity of the Camerlengo's personality and reason for his actions.

I don't know why, but I did find the switching of the Camerlengo's character to Irish annoying - probably because he appeared to be the sole Irishman in the Vatican!! Also, in the book we are given more time to start to believe that he has been sent by God to save the church, etc, before the final denouement The fast pace of the film meant all the hands were revealed far too quickly, IMO.

Overall I thought the film was fairly sympathetic towards the Catholic church, and I very much enjoyed the performance of Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss. He added a welcome gravitas.

I particularly enjoyed the cinematic aspects, the locations were incredibly believable - I hadn't realized so little of it was filmed in Rome. Visual effects were very good, and I loved the John Martinesque touches for the sky after the explosion !

Overall it gets a

[sauronsfinger]

Yes, very good point Elen about the acting performance of Armin Mueller-Stahl. He was most excellent. The sky at the end did have the touch of a John Martin biblical epic painting. Great eye!!!