Angels & Demons – SPOILER DISCUSSION, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 08:33 AM by Dave Rabbit
Dave Rabbit Review

This movie really caught me off guard. And nothing caught me more off guard than Camerlengo Patrick McKenna as portrayed by Ewan McGregor. It is not often that I get so swept up in the story line that I miss subtle hints along the way of something “rotten in Denmark”..... but this one went completely over my head. Of course, like the old Mission Impossible slight of hand story lines, once they started showing the chain of events from the flashback scenario.... I went Duh!

I really think that this one character really made the movie for me. The other characters did pretty much what I had expected and nothing caught me off guard, other than this one.

What about YOU?

Dave


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 08:45 AM by spellbound
reply to post by Dave Rabbit


I had a think about seeing it - then I said to myself do not see it, it is too predictable.

So I didn't.


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 08:51 AM by blupblup
reply to post by Dave Rabbit




I thought the movie was a bit o a let down myself.
Was good.... but not as good as i expected.

As soon as Ewan McGregor's character came on screen.... you just KNEW he was the baddie....

But then..... a few moments made you doubt yourself....but ultimately....ya just knew.

Effects and scenery were excellent but.... there was just something about it, good have been better.


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 09:00 AM by whaaa
reply to post by blupblup


I can't put my finger on it but there was something lacking from that movie.

Oh, I know now. I could care less about any of the characters. They were just actors playing a part and didn't generate any empathy from me.

Sorry, Forest Gump playing a high falutin academic never flew. I can't help it....my mind has type cast Tom Hanks.


reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 02:37 PM by machinegun_go_go
To be honest, I feel that the film was dumbed down. The central themes of the book were how much a scientific community - in this case CERN - which most of us here at ATS are more than familiar with - is infiltrated by a secret society, in this case the illuminati. Dan Brown played an excellent card by linking CERN to the initial aims of the illuminati - but the film chooses to ignore this angle to a point.

Furthermore, why did the producers find it neccessary to remove so many of the subplots such as the whole 'pope with a kid' angle. That again, made the Camerlengo character more rounded than that presented in the film. Or, for that matter - the kidnapping of Vittoria or the importance of her 'father' in the plot...

And why, oh why, did the final cardinal have to survive? I loved the bleak aspect of the book in the way that all of the preferiti died despite Langdon's valient efforts. Why try to appease the catholic church?

One or two other things bugged me. What was with the role reversal within the Swiss Guard characters? Made no sense, again.

Why make Vittoria such a weak character when she is so strong in the book? I thought representation of women on film was becoming more positive...shame on you, Ron Howard.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but it could have been so, so much more...

The book is so much deeper and works on so many more levels. I urge anyone who hasn't read the book before seeing the film to do so. You will be astounded at the difference.
Peace,

MGGG

[edit on 26-5-2009 by machinegun_go_go]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^