Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim and the Infinite Playlist

This 2010 action comedy is adapted from the 6-issue graphic novel of the same name created by Bryan Lee O'Malley and is written and directed by Edgar Wright (of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame). It's easy to summarize this movie, but truly difficult to convey the absolute brilliant geek righteousness of it all. Basically Michael "Emo" Cera stars as Scott Pilgrim, a listless 20-something who is the bassist for the not very good indie rock band, Sex Bomb-omb. One day he meets the woman of his dreams in Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), an aloof 20-something package delivery girl. Just as things start to blossom, Scott finds out that in order to continue dating Ramona, he must battle and defeat her 7-evil ex's. Battle after battle, can Scott survive and win the true affections of Ramona, or in the end is all love doomed with the eternal question, "continue?"

As the days have gone on since I intially first watched, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, there's been a huge and continued backlash towards the star of the film, Michael Cera. No other actor in recent memory calls forth such vitriol from movie goers everywhere as the eternal man-child, the emo-epicness that is Michael Cera. His detractors cry out that he's the same in every movie, just always slightly moving his face, pouting and generally being an overall wimp. Frankly I'm stunned by this. Not only because I can't understand why so many hate the guy, I mean truly from-the-bottom-of-their-heart hate the guy, but also because I've always liked his style. So with all the hate in the forefront of my mind, I decided to rewatch his Scott Pilgrim-ish turn as Nick in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. While my initial observations still hold true, it's more a soundtrack than movie (and the soundtrack isn't very good), a more documentary of NY music culture that indie-love story, and yeah I'm still way to old for the movie (where no adult appears to exist in the Logan's Run style that is NY of the movie), I have to say that I enjoyed it on my third watch. Perhaps after 2 repeat viewings I've just grown accustomed to it's mediocre character and plot development, but the movie and it's culture, it's panache washed over me on my third viewing and damn if I didn't enjoy it. I even went on ebay looking to buy a Yugo, but then again, I don't have a death wish.

Going back to Scott Pilgrim, this role is the ultimate Michael Cera-type role. I mean he's still the same nebbish, emo loser in a band, who's still reeling from a heartbreaking break-up (I mean this is the exact same character from Nick and Norah), but here he's more assured of himself, an almost oddly defined "playa" who can fight and will physically fight for the woman of his dreams. Here is Cera writ large, defined as the modern geek culture hero, a skinny guy with no muscle definition that can kick the butts of Superman and the Human Torch. Preach on Cera, preach on. But that's just Michael Cera's performance, what about the rest of the movie?

If you're a fan of the original graphic novels you won't be disappointed. It changes a lot of the story, the relationships, the battles, but all for the better for an adaption to the silver screen. The movie never let's up once, as the story moves from battle to battle, a hyper-imaginary world where video game fighting in "real" life is all part of the norm, and extra lives exist, where a geek who's pick-up line starts with, "do you know that "Pac-Man was originally called Puck-Man", can get the hottest girl in the room- very true to life- as music video-like cuts edit by at breakneck speed, and rhythm consistently pounds the screen with notes a la "Rock Band", a world where Superman got his superpowers from being a Vegan. Brilliant.

Sure there are some flaws to the movie- since it movies from battle to battle there is very little character development, and sure there's just a little too much going on the screen from time to time, an adrenaline pump for the ADD generation, and yes I get that people hate Michael Cera and this whole movie is Cera being Cera x10- but the jokes come a mile a minute, the comedy never feels forced or flat, playing for both the high-intellectual to the slapstick, and while there is very little character development, the characters are endearing, and unlike in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist here the soundtrack is absolutely fantastic.

The casting and acting are also pitch-perfect. Michael Cera embodies the spirit of Scott Pilgrim to the T and Mary Elizabeth Winstead really feels as if she was just born from the page to the screen. But the two actors that stole the movie for me were Kieran Culkin as Scott's gay-roommate Wallace Wells and newcomer Ellen Wong as Scott's jail-bait former girlfriend Knives Chau. Kieran Culkin is just brilliant and hilarious and the best of the comedy in the movie comes from his character. Ellen Wong is just the most honest, endearing and heartbreaking character in the movie, and while you may think Scott is an ass and Ramona is at times a mean spirited woman, you only ever want the best for Ellen's Knives Chau. Out of all the characters in the movie, Knives is the most honest and true character in the movie, a girl we all know or knew at one point in our lives, a reminder on what it means to be young.

I must admit that while watching the movie, I never thought it was too "geeky", too niche, as my friends cried out with joy as the music from Final Fantasy, Zelda, Seinfeld and Mario Brothers played in the background of the movie. As the credits rolled and I smiled to myself thinking, "damn that was one amazing movie" and one that while not based on a video game, was the best video-game movie I have ever seen, I turned to my "Ramona" and asked what did she think. She went on to lament that she didn't get a lot of the jokes, and pressed asking "why did the words, 'bam, ring, vroom and zip' keep appearing on the screen", words that I never thought twice about always thinking they belonged. As she continued to reiterate her hatred for Michael Cera, I began to wonder if this movie was too "geeky", too niche for the general mainstream public. And then when the boxoffice results came out and the movie came in 5th, with a measly 10 mil take, I began to come to grips that my love for this movie may not really translate for everyone.

Still with that said, I enjoyed the hell out of Scott Pilgrim vs. the
World and give it a "bring your lunch from home because you do not want to miss this one." I cannot wait until this hits dvd and blu-ray so I can watch it over and over again and marvel at what the tagline of the movie succinctly puts, "it's epic epicness."

Movie Review: Inception (2010)

First things first, I started my review of "Blind Side" the other day and meant to finish it today. But unfortunately, my mind cannot focus on any film except Inception. I went to see the film last night and it still blows my mind. *WARNING* This may be an incoherent rant / review but please stay with me.

Let's try to start from the top. I've been waiting for this film to come out ALL year. When I saw the trailer in IMAX a couple months ago, I was giddy with joy and started my wait patiently. So yesterday, we went to the movies and caught an early showing as I got out of work early. The only problem, in hindsight, was that we didn't go see it in IMAX.

Christopher Nolan is the writer, the producer, the director, and the genius behind Inception. It's really hard to explain the premise but it's a story of a world similar to ours with the only exception is that there is a machine/technique that can put individuals in someone's dream, when people are most vulnerable and extract information from that someone. The story focuses on going one step further and instead of extracting information, they want to create an idea in a form of a dream, inception. This is when the fun begins, in order to accomplish inception, you have to go inside a dream within a dream, within a dream. OK I know it sounds like I'm giving away a lot but trust me, in order to truly understand this, you need to watch the film and what I'm telling you is superficial.

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) assembles a team, his right hand man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the dream architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), the thief/muscle/transformer, Eames (Tom Hardy), the potion mixer, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and lastly the backer/boss, Saito (Ken Watanabe). Their target for inception is Robert Fischer, Jr.(Cillian Murphy). The levels of dreams and the depths of the subconscious is so intricate that it's the type of film that not only stimulates you visually but intellectually. I know it may sound Matrix-y but it's much better and still very different. It truly is mind blowing. It's a smart film that I found a smirk on my face when it was all said and done. I go to the movies a lot and I rarely will watch a film more than once (especially in the theater) and this is a movie that I want to see again, in the theater, in IMAX, full price.

Prior to Inception, I would have said that Christopher Nolan is a good director, who I've only see a few films, Memento, which was also another intellectually stimulating film, and the two Batman movies, which I really enjoyed. But with Inception, he has cemented himself into god-like status for me.

The all-star cast did a phenomenal job. As much as I'm not a huge DiCaprio fan, I do love his movies and I find him to be such a great actor. If (500) Days of Summer didn't win me over, Inception made me crave for more JGL. He, with DiCaprio, is another child actor, who has really rose into stardom and not with tabloids and partying but with their talent. Now who is this Tom Hardy? I have not heard of him before but he is easy on the eyes and definitely stole the scene on a couple of occasions. Cillian Murphy is great, as always, and Ellen Page delivered. Marion Cotillard, who plays Cobb's wife, also makes an appearance in this dream sequence. And lastly, Ken Watanabe was superb but my only complaint is that there were a few words that I didn't catch with his accent. Obviously that is not his fault as I am the worst in understanding English with thick accents but this did not occur often.

With the great writing, directing, and acting in this film, it truly had it all. It's not another blockbuster film with a weak storyline. This is something not to be missed and I think it would be thoroughly enjoyed because it is different and utterly amazing.

Movie Review: Killers (2010)

This 2010 action romantic comedy is directed by Robert Luketic (of Legally Blond, Monster-in-Law, 21, and The Ugly Truth fame)- so yeah all winners- and is the story of Jen Kornfeldt (Katherine Heigl) recently left by her boyfriend for being overly cautious. On a trip to Nice, France with her parents she meets an enigmatic and sexy (god I can't believe I'm writing this) young man named Spencer (Ashton Kutcher), a CIA agent with a license to kill. The pair begin a whirlwind romance which quickly leads to marriage. However when old enemies begin looking for Spencer, Jen has two choices, leave Spencer, or save his life.

I'm a sucker for these kinds of movies- action comedies with a sexy cast and hints of romance. The only problem is, these types of moves tend to be pretty awful. Okay I'm lying. They tend to be godawful. I may be one of only a handful of people who thought the trailers looked fantastic and wanted to see it. Judging by the movies poor box office performance, maybe there were less than a handful of us. To my brothers and sisters in arms I say this, "Guess what? Everyone else was right and we were way off." This film doesn't even deserve my traditional format for movie reviews.

Nothing works in this film and I'm stunned that director Robert Luketic keeps getting work. His movies have been progressively getting worse and I never thought he could reach the lows of J-lo's Monster-in-Law, but this film makes that one look like Casablanca. He must have some dirt on some film execs because there is no good reason why he should ever be allowed to direct another movie.

To be fair some of the shots in this film were quite beautiful. But the action scenes, the scenes the whole movie is based around were bland and at times incomprehensible. However, I thought the cast was quite good. Heigl is just beautiful even if she can't act particularly well, and Kutcher is actually a pretty good actor. I can see him playing like a younger James Bond type, a kind who gets all the girls, travels the world killing, and yet also appears vulnerable. Film producers, get to making that script happen.

So yeah, sure the cast is hot, the locales beautiful, but there really isn't anything here besides a mind-numbingly ridiculous plot, some shaky directing, a worse script and some truly terrible dialogue. I give this film a definite, "sneak out/I want my money back rating." Like how in basketball, when players getting blow-out score, it's called "garbage time." Killers is the equivalent of that. This is just "garbage time", something to fill the time just because it needs to be done and sadly, someone has to do it?

Movie Review: Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

This is an early review but check out our podcast this weekend for the full review. The Lightning Thief is based on the popular young adult series by Rick Riordan of the same name. It is directed by Chris Columbus (not to be confused with Christopher Columbus the explorer) and stars young hottie by the name of Logan Lerman, who was the star the short lived WB show, Jack & Bobby. Well, Bobby grew up and he is HOT. Who knew? Who knew? OK, I'll move on.

So where was I? Oh yes, so the story is revolved around Percy Jackson (Lerman) who soon learns that the Greek mythologies and their gods and demigods that he's learned about in school are all real and exist in modern day. And to top it off, he himself is a demigod. Bad gods AKA monsters sent by Hades is after him and he finds safety at Camp Halfblood where he makes a few friends, two of which who join him on his journey seeking the stolen lightning bolt of Zeus. Grover (played by Brandon T. Jackson) is a satyr (half goat/half human) and Annabeth (played by Alexandra Daddario)is the daughter of Athena are his companions. Here they visit different cities to retrieve pearls that would help them escape the underworld.

That last part of the story is actually quite different from the book and even the characters themselves aren't quite portrayed the same. That's not a good or bad thing, but different. If you are a fan of the book(s), you will notice these differences and notice the huge omissions of certain characters. But as a casual movie-goer, it was still a decent/good movie to watch Percy's adventures and how they modernize Greek mythology. Also, I loved the part when they went to Vegas and Ke$ha's song, Tik Tok played in the background. If anyone knows me, they know I'm obsessed with that song (in a bad way). Overall, the movie was enjoyable but nothing I'd tell people to rush out for, wait for it on DVD.
-Penny

For now, here's the trailer:

Movie Review - Planet Hulk (animated)

This 2010 direct-to-dvd animated action film is based on the 2006 Incredible Hulk comicbook storyline of the same name that ran throughThe Incredible Hulk issues 88-95. Basically, all Bruce Banner (human alter-ego of the Hulk) ever wanted was to be left alone, alone with his thoughts and self-pity to what he had become. So a few of his "friends" decide to trick Banner when he's Hulk form and send him to an uninhabited planet where his rage and anger would no longer endanger people. However, when the Hulk discovers their lies, he destroys much of the spaceship he's in, altering it's course and sending him to the planet Sakaar, a type of alien gladiatorial Rome. For the first time in his life, the Hulk is no longer the strongest and is quickly made a slave. Along the way he meets some new warriors that battle alongside him and finally finds a place where he's no longer considered a monster but rather quite possibly, a savior.

Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, the Incredible Hulk character first appeared back in 1962 in The Incredible Hulk #1. The character has then appeared in numerous forms of media, from the 1970's television series, to the 1996 animated tv show, to the 2003 Hulk movie to it's 2008 reboot, The Incredible Hulk. However, this new animated movie is new because it's the first time one of Marvel's characters has portrayed in one of the characters modern comic storylines. From Spiderman to Batman, to the Fantastic Four and Superman, all those movies are based on the fundamental iconic comicbook storylines of the characters from the 80's, 70's even 40's. However, the Planet Hulk storyline is relatively new and was used to take the Hulk persona to new heights and character ramifications, an almost reinvention from the slow dumb unhappy Hulk, to the cunning, warrior-king Hulk who has found peace. How he got to that point is the storyline in this dvd.

I'm not a fan of many of the comicbook animated direct-to-dvd movies. They always feel catered to kids (which of course they are), with minimal blood and violence, even if the actual storylines have more mature themes. All that's fine for the target audience, but I've always felt left out from enjoying some of my favorite comicbook character storylines. However, everything changes with this film, which thanfully feels more PG-13 than PG. What I liked so much about the Planet Hulk animated movie is that while great for fans of the comic series, you don't have to have known any previous Hulk backstory to enjoy the movie. It's set up well enough that the movie stands on it's own, and yet it's an almost direct representation of the comic (with naturally, a few things taken out). There's epic battles, action, drama, death, destruction, redemption and did I mention death? Yeah, lots of that. Everything that makes a great comic is all represented here in it's animated glory. The animation is crisp, the dialogue terse yet fitting, everything just feels so fluid that I don't really have anything bad to say about it. It's at a perfect length, 81 minutes, and ends on such a perfect note, hinting at many more stories yet to comel.

While the film may not be for everyone, if you enjoy watching the live-action comicbook films, I do believe you'll really get a kick from watching the Planet Hulk movie. Since this a more modern storyline in the Hulk comicbook, many viewers have never seen a Hulk story like this. I know when I read it back in 2006, I was completly blown away by the new heights they took one of my favorite charcaters. Even better, this is pure Hulk, with his alter ego, Bruce Banner, never making an apperance. While I do enjoy Bruce Banner at times, since he can show some of the human moments (empathy, humanity, etc), what I like best about Hulk is when he smashes things, and damn if he doesn't smash things in Planet Hulk. If like me you thought the other recent animated comic book movies were bland, definitly check this one out because I can promise you, you've never seen Hulk like this before.

On a side note: The director of the film Sam Liu has stated that if this film sells well, there's hope for the Planet Hulk sequels being animated that include World War Hulk and the now ongoing storyline, Fall of the Hulks. Let's hope we can see some more animated Hulk goodness in the near future.

Movie Review: Give 'Em Hell Malone

I absolutely love the poster for this film, which is sadly the most entertaining aspect of the film. Give 'em Hell Malone is a direct-to-dvd crime noir where Thomas Jane plays a tough as nails PI (are there any other kind) who must dodge bullets and help save a damsel in distress (Elsa Pataky) who may be more trouble than she's worth.

Directed by Russell Mulcahy, who after directing 1986's Highlander, ruining 1991's Highlander sequel, Highlander 2: The Quickening and nearly ending the Resident Evil film franchise with 2007's Resident Evil: Extinction, now appears to be in the direct-to-dvd directing wasteland after coming out with this film and 2008's Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior. Poor, poor Russell Mulcahy, we hardly knew ye, but perhaps it's for the best.

I love crime noirs, which are probably my favorite types of films, along with early 20th century screwball comedies. So when I heard about this kind of comicbook homage to the old crime films with Thomas Jane in the lead role, I eagerly rushed out to see it. Sadly this is more parody/spoof than homage. It's not an overt spoof since it doesn't try to make fun of the genre conventions its mimicking, but it's cheesy dialogue, cardboard cutout characters, and lack of any real budget make it feel more a spoof than an homage. It's like the filmmakers took all the great stuff that make hardboiled crime noir's awesome (the beautiful femme fatale, the gun action and violence, the "hero" that walks in a gray world, rather than black and white) and strips them of all the fun, leaving the bare bones scraps behind that kinda have enough meat on it to make some soup (it tries even to enter the world of camp with a burn-victim henchman who keeps getting set on fire and a Japanese school girl who loves cutting things without theKill Bill cool).

Give 'em Hell Malone had some potential. Beautiful cast, a lot of great gore and violence, and a bluish-tinted cgi world reminiscent of Frank Miller's Sin City, but the screenwriters made a cardinal sin when writing the film, they made the characters boring and empty, and when playing around in a genre that's all about the characters since it's all about the hidden truths of humanity, then yeah, you got a very uninteresting movie. The screenwriters failed to realize that what makes a good crime noir is not the action, not the violence or even the world, but rather the people who inhabit the shadows.

It hurts me to say this since we genre lovers don't get enough crime noir films anymore, but don't bother renting Give 'em Hell Malone or even watching it for free on late night tv. There was potential here, potential for a film franchise even, but this is one world that's not worth visiting.

Movie Review - Love Happens (2009)

This 2009 romantic drama is written and directed by Brandon Camp (of tv show John Doe fame) and stars Aaron Eckhart as Burke Ryan, a successful self-help book author who tours speaking at sold out venues, doling out advice on coping with the loss of loved ones a la Tony Robbins style. Still coping with the loss of his own wife, Burke travels to Seattle and meets Eloise (Jennifer Aniston), a free spirit who works as a flourist. However, Burke, never having taken his own advice is unable to fully open up to Eloise even though she may be the one person who can save him.

So yeah, Love Happens is a by-the-numbers romantic drama, with twists and turns that the viewer will see coming from every corner. There's no new ground explored, or perceptions challenged. However, what you will find with this movie is an engaging look at a man who once lost everything, and now successful, can't move on or be happy. Burke and Eloise feel like real breathing people, real adults with real sets of problems that everyone can relate to. Sure the movie can be bit of a downer since it deals with coping and loss, and sure the payoff may want you to call for a refund, but Love Happens deserved to have done better than it did at the Box Office (Universal gave this movie with big stars a small indie release, or as many in the industry know it as "dumping").

However I will say this, if it was not for the standout performances and charm of the two leads (Eckhart and Aniston) there would be no reason to see this movie and it would have been a total mess. However because Eckhart and Aniston work so well together, you become invested in their charcater's lives and root for them to finally find happiness. The best recommendation I can say for this move is, "if you go in with low expectations you might be midly surprised", which is something I wish I could say for a lot of movies. Can a world exist where Two-Face finds happiness? Well in the world of Love Happens, hell, you root for heads all the way.

Movie Review - The Box (2009)

This 2009 sci-fi horror film is written and directed by Richard Kelly (of Donnie Darko and Southland Tales fame) and is based on the 1970 short story Button, Button by Richard Matheson (he of I Am Legend fame). The Box stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a married couple who are presented with a box and with a button by a stranger who offers them 1 million dollars if they press said button. The only drawback is that if they press the button someone they do not know will die. Is the price of a complete strangers life worth a million dollars, and once the button is pressed, is there a way back from the knowledge that you were the cause of someone’s death?

The question in all of the incarnations of Button, Button is, “what is it to know somebody?”, a universal question akin to what’s the meaning of life and why is South Park so funny. And this movie plays with that concept further, by tying it’s structure around the writing of French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, the thought that since there is no god, no creator, in Satre’s words, “we are left alone without excuse.” Basically since one cannot explain their own actions and behavior by referencing any specific human nature, they are necessarily fully responsible for those actions. Which is basically why I’ve always enjoyed all of Richard Kelly’s films, even his heavily flawed sophomoric effort Southland Tales- all his movies deal with some form of existentialistic thought.

Anyway, the original 1970 short story was first published in Playboy (see, people can really read Playboy for the stories) and was originally adapted for the 1985 reboot of the Twilight Zone television series. The Box even has a Twilight Zone type soundtrack, the sweeping horns, the striking violins, all to leave the viewer with a sense of paranoia and dread. I was wondering how they could drag out what has always been a short story and a 30 minute television show to a near 2 hour film. I needn’t have worried, because I absolutely loved this film, and it’s easily one of my favorite films of the year.

For a director with only 3 films under his belt, Kelly has an amazing eye. The tracking shots, the camera angles, watching this film, you can really tell that the man directing the film really lives and knows a lot about films. Every shot just seems to fall into place. The Box is a slow burn though, a very slow burn, with nearly 2 hours of set-up until the payoff, but anyone familiar with Kelly’s work already knows to expect that. But it’s because of it’s slow burn that makes The Box so compelling, so mesmerizing.

For me the weak point of the movie was Cameron Diaz. She really can’t act, and the choice to give her a soft spoken southern accent, akin to Anna Paquin’s X-Men, Rogue and Sookie Stackhouse from True Blood, is a really odd choice since it adds nothing to the story and makes her character seem at odds with the world around her. And hey, Cameron using an accent ain’t helping her acting. James Marsden is a passable Cyclops and Frank Langella (who many may know as Skeletor from the He-Man move) is absolutely fantastic as always as the man behind the box and movie, Arlington Steward.

For anyone that has seen the Twilight Zone adaptation, this film acts as almost an extension of that television episode. The first 30 minutes of the film are the Twilight Zone episode, and the film continues after the episode for those wondering about the consequences, the what happened after the episode ended to the characters. The remake ending was always inferior to the original story ending, but it was the only ending that Richard Kelly could follow that would have a necessary sequel. So basically the movie tries to add to the tv ending with more of a surreal Donnie Darko sci-fi bent that comes out of nowhere, and being a fan of the Button, Button and Donne Darko, I really really liked what Richard Kelly was going for here. Sadly this film has been out for over a month now and has only grossed 14 million domestically on its 30 million dollar budget.

So yeah, all in all, a definite, “bring your lunch from home because you do not want to miss this one” rating. A sadly overlooked gem of 2009, one that I hope will find a larger audience once it hits dvd.

Angels & Demons movie review

This 2009 thriller is adapted from the book of the same name by Dan Brown and is the sequel to the 2006 film Da Vinci Code, even though the book is a prequel. Confused yet? Better off not thinking about things too deeply. Directed by Ron “Richie Cunninghan” Howard and stars Tom Hanks reprising his role as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdom who is called on by the Vatican in order to uncover a conspiracy surrounding the kidnapping of four cardinals as well as the theft of an experimental antimatter device that could lead to the very destruction of Vatican city. Langdom discovers that the clues lead to the Illuminati, a secret organization that was persecuted by the Vatican hundreds of years ago and now is looking for revenge by seeking to kill off the kidnapped cardinals and activate the antimatter device. Can Langdom as well as Vittoria Vetra (the scientist who helped build the antimatter device) stop the Illuminati and save the very basis of Catholicism.

I wasn’t too excited to see this film. I really thought Da Vinci Code was quite boring and a new Dan Brown film well, didn’t leave my heart all a flutter. So when we sat down at the theater I had very low expectations. But yeah, it exceeded such low expectations. It’s a lot better than the first movie, but that’s really not saying much, but while an interesting premise with some fantastic execution by Ron Howard, I didn’t find the film all that enjoyable.

The main problem I had with Da Vinci Code is the same problem I had with Angels and Demons. Basically it’s a bunch of characters standing around while Langdom explains everything that’s going on in the film for the viewers that aren’t paying attention and then he goes on for 10 minutes about how all the clues lead to other clues. I mean we get visual cues on the clues and then Langdom repeats what we just saw. Also I know this is a mystery, but the only one figuring out anything is Langdom and everyone just stands around waiting for him to figure things out.

How about the acting? Tom Hanks as Robert Langdom is much better in this film, perhaps because he got rid of the mullet he had in the Da Vinci Code. Ayelet Zurer of Minich and Vantage Point fame plays Vittoria Vetra and she’s quite beautiful even if her character is completely waste din the film. All I’ll say is that she follows Langdom for one purpose and by the end she never even accomplishes anything. She’s not even a romantic lead or a foil for Langdom so I don’t get why her character was even part of the story. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, the main clergyman that everything seemingly revolves around. He’s quite good here, even though he’s not given much to do. You know as I’m talking about this, every character in this film is ancillary besides Langdom. It’s like the world revolves around him. He’s fighting for god, but I wonder if he in fact is god.

Like I said before, Angels and Demons is much better than Da Vinci Code. The story is tighter, and the movie got very intense, very thrilling as times, as the characters weave themselves through a historical mystery than had my nerd heart pounding with talk surrounding the intellegcia, Galileo true beliefs and Bernini sculptures. God I love that kind of stuff. So I give this a very mild dvd/matinee rating. You could do a lot worse than this film, god knows I have recently and while not wholly a great watch its always interesting.