B (minus) is for Brown

Today, I saw the new film Angels and Demons, based on the Dan Brown book of the same name.

I wouldn't consider myself a "Dan Brown fan," but I have read all four of the books he's written. He's a real paradox of a writer. His stories, though elaborately researched, come off very shallow. The way in which he puts words together isn't particularly noteworthy, and yet he has a way to pull a reader through a book in a matter of hours -- you don't want to put it down.

Regardless of whatever talents or flaws Dan Brown may have, Angels and Demons is definitely his best book. Though it strains believability at times, it's never boring. And so, while I didn't think much of the film adaptation of his most popular book, The Da Vinci Code, I expected that a better job could be done with his better source material.

For the most part, it was. The movie benefits as the book does, from a "time sensitivity" that The Da Vinci Code lacks. Protagonist Robert Langdon has only a matter of hours to avert a major catastrophe, so there's no time to stop for languid lectures on history dressed up with a little fiction. There are also more moments of drama, tension, and action throughout Angels and Demons, with a series of murders amping the proceedings before the chance can come for things to bog down.

As with The Da Vinci Code, a number of talented actors aren't asked to do much. Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, and the rest of the cast all get the job done without ever really having the chance to shine. Ron Howard's direction is strong, but a bit indulgent at times. For example, an opening sequence involving the Large Hadron Collider lasts for far too long, heaping on silly techno jargon by scientists looking at ridiculously Hollywood-ized computer graphics.

But just moments before you can start to look on the movie as a really expensive Roger Corman film, things start to pick up. The movie does get interesting, and even exciting at times. The pace keeps up for most of two hours, until you reach a "why isn't the movie over yet?" coda whose very existence tips the audience on the "shocking plot twist" about to be revealed. Or perhaps I just felt it that obvious because, having read the book, I knew it was coming.

Though this is a far better adaptation of its book than The Da Vinci Code, I still think the story works better on the page, if for no other reason than you can pause while reading to reflect on how neat the ambigrams are, and how they really are identical right-side-up and upside-down. (That comment probably means nothing to you if you haven't read the book or seen the film.) In any case, it's a modestly entertaining trip to the movies. I rate it a B-.