Movie review: Angels and Demons

I Last night I went to see Angels and Demons. I will start with the inevitable comparison; it was better than the Da Vinci Code. I even got over my reservations about Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. I love Tom Hanks, but in the first film I couldn’t get myself to see him as sexy Robert Langdon. However, in this movie he is much more likeable. The awkward “aha” moment pauses of the Da Vinci Code, when Langdon would stare intensely for effect after solving some clue or another, have, for the most part, been cut out and the action moves along much more quickly. In spite of the fact that everyone in the film is by necessity operating in crisis mode there were a few moments in which the mood was lighter. My personal favorite was the look on Langdon’s face when he was finally allowed access to the Vatican archives; despite the dire circumstances he still managed pure academic excitement. There were no slow parts, as is to be expected from a movie that takes place over a few hour period. There is a lot more action in this film, and a lot more violence. But overall it was the science verses religion debate that interested me most.

As the interfaith Examiner, I often write about the dialogues or similarities between various religions, but the dialogue between religion and science is perhaps even more important in today’s world. With the reliance of modern society on science and technology some people have come to place the same amount of faith in science that most of the previous generations of the world had placed in religion. This kind of reliance has often led to what has been called “the God of the gaps,” meaning that God is relegated to whatever holes in explanation science leaves behind. With science advancing forward everyday, this philosophy does not bode well for God. A solution more conducive to both science and religion would be to coexist, rather than compete and cancel each other. If each is understood as answering questions in a fundamentally different way, we can find that the answers don’t always have to be opposing. The big debate in the film, without giving too much away, is about a group of scientist trying to recreate the big bang. Arguments exist both for this scientific discovery paradoxically both validating and invalidating the idea that God created the World.

This is hinted at in the film, and Angels and Demons handled this volatile subject well. None of the technical information detracted from the action (mostly because hardly any was given: yes this is antimatter, its going to explode and that’s all you need to know!) and ultimately The Catholic Church didn’t come off looking too badly. Despite negative references to Catholicism’s treatment of Galileo and other men of science over the years, some church members were portrayed in a sympathetic light, and overall The Church escaped looking as backwards as some of its actions have been in the past. Because of this I anticipate much less controversy than was stirred by the Da Vinci Code. Although doubtless there will be detractors, their voices will not be heard on the same scale.

It has been years since I have read the book, and so the difference between the novel and the movie are a little hard for me to point out, but die-hard fans will figure them out on their own anyway. The main difference, and I think it works quite well, is that in the movie version Angels and Demons is a sequel rather than a prequel to the Da Vinci Code. Because most people read the books in that order anyway I think that it was a wise move. Overall the film was engaging, well caste and remained true to the spirit of the novel, even while not following all of the plot points. I would highly recommend seeing it, as long as you can handle few jabs at The Church, are able to stomach a few truly grisly scenes, and have a healthy capacity for the suspension of disbelief.