Sequels always start behind the eight-ball; they have huge expectations to meet if the first movie is a success. While not quite as good as the first film, this is still a good film that keeps you entertained. This movie is fiction, but it definitely helps to be interested in history and religion. Strong acting performances all around. An interesting plot, but you do need to take a leap of faith for at least a part of it. If you do not like violence, I suggest this film is not for you. There was a much higher amount of violence in this film compared to its predecessor. The cinematography was rather strong in this film, capturing the suspense and horror of the moment quite often, along with the beauty of history.

Not a fan of the Da Vinci series this one is the rare exception. Tom Hanks returns as the Symbolist Robert Langdon to investigate a murder mystery kept secret by the Vatican. This movie delves into the history of Reformation era Europe. The film is a political critic so to speak of Vatican responses or rather reactions to reform and secularism over the centuries. We get to see Langdon working with Dr Victoria Vetra, a CERN scientist traversing the beautiful city ruins of Rome figuring out yet another disturbing mystery that jeopardizes all of Christianity. We learn of a secret conspiracy in the high echelons of the Catholic Church. The Anti-Christ Papacy is before us and Langdon and Vetra must learn from the texts how to interpret what is playing out in front of them. Great scenery and it was brilliant to have access to Vatican archives and seeing what the Vatican looks like from all angles. Langdon goes through a Damascene conversion of sorts as he too is no fool to political intriguing that is going on within the Catholic Church and the need for guidance. Guidance offered by Ewan McGregor's role in the film as the caretaker Pope during a period of unease within the Vatican.

This is being unfairly maligned by critics. This is at once more thrilling and more involving than The Da Vinci Code was, and Ron Howard's direction is more surefooted and fast-paced here. Visually gorgeous. By streamlining the novel's narrative, the film loses much (but not all) of the science vs. faith dichotomy that gave the book its weight. As it is, the film version ofAngels and Demons makes for a very entertaining thriller.Some of the dialogue is poor, you have to suspend disbelief the way you would for a James Bond or Indiana Jones movie, and keep in mind that this is historical fiction (emphasis on fiction). If you can do that, this is a blast. Ewan McGregor rocks. Be warned, it is violent and intense, and pushes that PG-13 boundary. My grade: B+

While it was a long way from perfect, or even great, 'The Da Vinci Code' was better than expected, considering its less than great reputation.Despite being a box office success, 'Angels and Demons' received mixed to negative reviews, and it's not hard to see why. As an adaptation of the book, which also had some imperfections but was an engrossing and intriguing read, 'Angels and Demons' is extremely poor, with much being cut out or dumbed down, giving the film an over-simplified and over-complicated feel. On its own terms, it's just as problematic and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, inferior to 'The Da Vinci Code', sharing some of the same flaws but amplified while making more on the way.'Angels and Demons' to its credit is a great-looking film, being beautifully shot with breath-taking locations that could have been utilised more. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting and accentuates the thriller mood of the film. Tom Hanks gives his role an easy-going charm, while Ewan McGregor has an earnestness while also trying very hard to give his character plausibility (though the character has too much of the opposite for him to properly succeed).Stellan Skarsgård is similarly strong, as are Victor Alferi and a chilling Nikolaj Lie Kaas.On the other hand, Ayelet Zurer is a charmless and bland substitute for Audrey Tautou, with little to do and giving her worthless dialogue far too much weight. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl's very over-acted villain and Pierfrancesco Favino who spends the whole of his screen time looking hopelessly lost.The cast are not helped by their (interesting) characters being reduced to mostly simplistic caricatures, and even those not quite as badly affected are underdeveloped. Nor with a truly corny and clunky script, muddled direction by Ron Howard and a story that feels convoluted, to the point of incomprehensibility in places, and childish with plot twists too obvious.People have said that 'Angels and Demons' had brisker pacing than 'The Da Vinci Code'. Personally, it was partly yes (it is in a way) but largely no. To me the pacing was all over the place, with so many convolutions and parts that feel jumpy it did feel rushed, while the middle act especially lacked urgency and instead dragged like mad.Overall, not without dishonour, and with enough to prevent it from being completely demonic, but very lacklustre and disappointing, with it also falling far short of being angelic. 4/10 Bethany Cox