Anges et démons

Après la première heure, de manière répétitive, le spectateur perd son intérêt pour suivre l'histoire de détective, aussi dynamique soit-elle. Il faudrait plus d'idées. Mais un final impressionnant sauve beaucoup les apparences. Et certainement un meilleur travail avec les acteurs (et leurs coupes de cheveux) que dans The Da Vinci Code. Ce qui me fascine le plus dans cette saga, c'est avec quelle expression sérieuse, une équipe de cinéma de premier ordre, des acteurs solides et des sujets controversés ne parviennent à être rien de plus qu'un blockbuster simpliste pour les masses. Ces masses qui ne réalisent même pas que 50% de leur expérience est le résultat de quelqu'un comme Hans Zimmer. (13/05/2009)

Brown’s books are undemanding and intellectually shallow, but bloody good page-turners, ideal to relax in summer by the sea. With the films it’s worse because they drag quite a bit, are too talkative and the lack of logic that the books can hide between the lines (or have at least plenty of space to explain in some way) floats to the surface, making it almost impossible to ignore. Angels and Demons suffers from the same problems as The Da Vinci Code, though perhaps it’s more tense. The result, however, is still a not very interesting thriller that might surprise a few people with a couple of rather brutal scenes, but that will bore most due to its chaste asexuality and correctness. 6/10 (29/06/2009)

Howard has the craft down pat like few others. In a way, I admire him for how he managed to turn such a simple script (I preferred to skip the book) into a stylish chase after various symbols, statues, paintings, and crazy conspiracy theories which, despite the constant chatter, isn’t boring whatsoever. Compared to The Da Vinci Code, here we don’t get all that babbling that arouses resentment of the Vatican, which means that while the marketing controversy has been reduced, at least the film has avoided outright stupidity. That doesn’t mean that it’s particularly amazing - Brown is still too cheap a storyteller for that - but as a thriller whose aim is to entertain rather than dumbly lecture, it works surprisingly well. The actors in particular are a treat, and the charisma of Hanks, Skarsgård, and Mueller-Stahl and Zimmer's fantastic choruses alone make me want to watch it again sometime. PS: If I were a woman, I would get wet at the sight of Ewan McGregor in the movie theater. He’s never been this sexy on screen. ;-) 3 ½. (19/05/2009)

It’s the opposite of the book: the filmmakers replaced the excellent exposition with a lifeless tour of Roman monuments in the company of the haughty pawn Tom Hanks, whilst the ridiculous finale in Brown's book was a replaced by a rather solid and visually interesting climax. Undoubtedly positive is the performance of Ewan McGregor, and negative the fact that the mysterious and thrilling pursuit of symbols lacked decent acting and directing, and was without a hint of invention and emotion. Langdon simply has a big problem in books and movies in that he still doesn't know if he's more of an action hero or an academic windbag. In literature, this can be somewhat tolerated, but in film it leaves a very bad impression. I round up the score given the last few final minutes. However, I consider Tom Hanks' involvement to be a historical mistake. In the next film, the poor gay will not even fall through the eyepiece of the Pantheon. There’s no way he swam those 50 laps in the morning. Well, maybe with a motor up his ass. (04/10/2009)

Howard's kiss-ass apology to the Vatican after The DaVinci Code. In the first half it's still a pretty solid conspiracy routine, in the second half it becomes a gala performance of artlessly silly scenes, whose total zaniness is further enhanced by the fatality of Zimmer's music. Soundtrack rating: 4/5 (20/06/2009)