that I didn't like was it almost seemed like the Catholic Church sponsored the movie, and me not being catholic it was hard to follow along with some of the traditions. There were so many twist and turns and just not expecting what was going to happen next.

and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein

is that of science: science does not aim at the truth because the truth is not rational. Science only aims at discovering some natural processes, trying to understand and reproduce them into a model of some kind, or even producing some natural element artificially. But that is not the truth about the existence of this world because, big band or not, the beginning of things has either to be negated and then we live in something that has no origin and will have no end. Question: Where does it come from? Or it has to be stated and then the question is: How did nothing produce something? This of course gives that nothing an existence and even an essence since that nothing has produced the present universe in which we are living, and us men at the same time. The second stake is about the human species. Is the ever-developing science of our world the result of an evolution of our species, hence of its capabilities that would be growing, or is it the cause of an evolution, that is selected by natural and social selection, of the human species that would grow new possibilities along with the new scientific knowledge and power it accumulates. That stake is far from being solved with some who want to believe that the intellectual and mental powers of man are inbred, are inborn, meaning then that homo sapiens has always had these capabilities; and those who see an evolution and explain the ever-growing capabilities of man as the result of his adaptability and flexibility, i.e. his purely material potential in the number of cells and the organization of these cells into organs, especially the brain, is always better used and more used than before, each step in his knowledge pushing him into restructuring his own use of his own cells, of his own organs, of his own body. What is inbred in him is in no way one particular capability in any field at all, even walking, but the potential to develop capabilities from the flexible organism he is. He did not have the inborn capability to use a language, but he had the structural ability to invent a language on the basis of the material need to communicate in order to rationalize the life of his social order based on transmitting knowledge to younger generations. The third stake that appears very clearly in the film is the nature of religion. The film manages to get away from the easy and superficial exposing denunciation of the anti-scientific obsession of the Catholic church. It shows how the "purga", the crackdown onto scientists in the sixteenth century from the church gave birth to a terrorist order that aimed at destroying the church. Here the film is short because it also produced the free mason movement, or at least gave it a new momentum and that movement is the ferment of the democratic development of history, not the terroristic destruction and negation of the church and even religion. The film shows very well that the reactionary trend in the church does not come so much from the top of its hierarchy as from some middle men who more or less infiltrated into the hierarchy and try to defend their privileges and their narrow-minded conceptions against the hierarchy itself. Note along this line protestant churches not having any hierarchy gives the whole power of the church to the middle men and some are extremely active in the anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-evolution, not to speak of their anti-freedom campaigns. The vision advocated by the film is that religion is – at least – a human invention necessary to organize and guide millions if not billions of people who need guidance in the narrow straits of life. That guidance can only be enlightened if it comes from a distant enough top of a hierarchy that is able to hear, listen to and feed on what the various levels of it can say, think, produce, advocate too. And that is the best part of it. The future of humanity is in the alliance of three different trends in our world: religious wisdom provided it accepts debates; academic and intellectual knowledge and research provided they accept the concept of relative-ness; and science s provided they accept they do not control the universe but only use it to produce the better-off future of humanity. And they all have to unite against two dangers: the criminals who want to appropriate inventions and knowledge for their own profit and politicians who are always trying to hijack the power this knowledge represents and provides in order to impose their own sectarian and fundamentalistic absolute and unethical power. In one word, this film is outstanding.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

pointing to an outstanding performance by Ewan Mcgregor.Tom hanks is Tom Hanks,it seems like he is Prof Langdon after all..no one can do it better than him.Ron Howard on the director seat however did an amazing job that exceeds his previous work in TDC .Anyways..go see it..and don't be fired down by the negative reviews.. total summer blockbuster.Bravo

amazing. Just as I thought the film was ending, there was a twist, and another. Who would have predicted the ending? "Angels & Demons" excels in delivering two hours of pure intellectual adrenaline. I can safely say it is much better than "The Da Vinci Code". "Angels & Demons" is one of the best thrillers I have seen in years.

chocking to see, but not that much. The story is also pretty nice, mostly because it's including many original monuments in Rome and in the Vatican Area. I would not expect too much critics as it was the case for Da Vincci even if I think that this time the issue is as important as the other one when it comes to questioning the Church faith. The final shot is amazing, It let me think for a while about the judgment day !!!

Armin Mueller-Stahl was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna Ewan McGregor , you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past there have been quite a few has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.

return.Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci

tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.