Angels & Demons (2009)

4/5

I did not expect to like Angels & Demons, because I hate the work of both Ron Howard (Cinderella Man) and Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), but I ended up enjoying it very much. The plot follows symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and his female compatriot (Ayelet Zurer) in the Vatican as a potential Illuminati threat to destroy the city becomes a reality. The plot is wholly convoluted and unnecessarily complex to an obscene degree; but if you suspend your disbelief, it entertains.

Like it or not, the story is where the movie really excels. The mysteries, the clues, and the suspicion abound in perfect proportion. As the movie progresses, the fear, the tension, and the uncertainty buid up to a climactic finale. The constant twists and turns are unpredictable, and they work. Technically, the movie was nothing to write home about. The acting is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is average. Still, for its story and entertainment value, I cannot help but recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

Frost/Nixon (2008)

3/5

Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon is better than most of Ron Howard's recent movies (Cinderella Man, The Da Vinci Code), but it's still a Ron Howard movie, which means it's still not great. The movie overdramatizes a series of long-winded and forgettable interviews between British talk show host David Frost (Sheen) and former president Richard Nixon (Langella) surrounding Watergate. There's a lot of build-up without a satisfying climax or conclusion (it takes about 100 minutes before the unfulfilling, deflated admission of guilt). Interspersed throughout the film are a number of fake interviews with the characters at some unknown time looking back on the Frost/Nixon interviews and how they affected them; maybe it would have been better if they were interviews with the actual people instead of the actors. The sole purpose of their inclusion seemed to be to explain what was going on emotionally and cerebrally instead of leaving it up to the viewer to understand by themselves.

The best part of the movie was the characterization and acting. I was surprised by how well-rounded, human, and fair Howard allowed his characters. The actors did more than their fair share, fully infusing their characters with nuance, tragedy, and comedy. The cinematography was also crisp and sharp, although at times a bit overwrought. If only the writing and pacing were better, this might have been a much better movie on the whole. Still, though, I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who isn't already intrigued by the relevant events.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870111/

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

2/5

The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/