No way, after all, having read novels, it is impossible for me not to associate and compare the two.
From a certain point of view, I have always felt that the original work of "Angels and Demons" is more exciting than "The Da Vinci Code", not only the characters are more glorious, but also the tragic fate, the core opposition conflict and the philosophy of revelation are all impactful . If it can be perfectly presented on the big screen, it is estimated to be extremely provocative. And I can't help but think that if the film was made a little more extreme and dangerous, and it caused controversy, it might also lead to a better box office.
It is a pity that Ron Howard is not here. In the spirit of carefully sailing the ship for ten thousand years, he kept making subtractions in the adaptation: the sensational religious disclosure is offended by the Vatican, so delete it; questioning the omnipotence and fearlessness of science is the trigger. Dangerous topics of debate, leave; historical, religious, and cultural textual explanations are difficult to explain quickly and clearly in film language, minus. As a result, most of the most seductive elements of Dan Brown's novels have been lost, and the film has turned into a standard entertainment film with scenery, scenes and excitement. Of course the movie is still good, but not as enjoyable as I expected. It's like eating a Big Mac for the first time in your life. When you find that the burger you get is not as big and colorful as you thought, I am afraid that disappointment is inevitable.
But the adaptation is not useless, at least it does a good job of correcting the excessive dramatic exaggeration of the original. For example, the very outrageous Langdon escape from the air in the original book was completely abandoned, otherwise it would be really bloody.
Just like "The Da Vinci Code", the ending part of this film is relatively full of color. The Pope's chamberlain took the antimatter and drove the helicopter away alone. Below the magnificent St. Peter's Square, everyone looked up, the vast night sky above, the plane went straight, the scene opened, the music played, the tension of the plot was completely released for the first time, and the effect was very shocking. Ron Howard's overall grasp can only be said to be so-so, but this kind of inflammatory scene is handled quite brilliantly.
******
Because of the sensory foreshadowing of the previous edition, I have not paid attention to Hanks being old or bloated, and I even think his hair seems to be thicker than before. It's a pity that although Tom Hanks occupies the core position of the poster alone this time, his face in the movie is more blurred, and he plays the role of solving puzzles throughout the whole process. In the original book, Langdon's pedantic performance often makes me smile suddenly in a tense atmosphere. But the movie is all busy, tense, suspenseful, and doesn't bother to leave any room for humor.
Although the female lead is not well-known, she has a capable temperament and an appropriate age, which is more reliable than the previous version of Audrey Tautou. I would also like to thank the director for continuing to keep the hero and heroine in their fine tradition of not falling in love.
The most outstanding role is, of course, the Pope's Chamberlain. When I read the novel, I was very fascinated by this character. Not only was the appearance extremely handsome, but also very charming. The dramatic tension of angels and demons was most fully reflected in this character.
Ivan looks handsome and lovable, but he is not absolutely handsome. As soon as he appeared on the stage, looking at the lines in the corners of his eyes, I sighed inwardly: Ivan is old. But the brilliance cannot be concealed by wrinkles, gentle and elegant and hidden in the needles, the whole play is on him. I can't help but sigh, if this character's original astonishing life experience and his last crazy and powerful words can be reproduced on the screen, I don't know what the situation will be.
View more about Angels & Demons reviews
