Angels & Demons

Let's get a couple things clear. I enjoy Dan Brown's books. They are complete throwaway novels - they can be read on a single airplane or bus trip, they are perfectly engaging when you read them and absolutely forgettable after the fact. I think Angels & Demons and The Davinci Code, from a commercial literature standpoint, are just about perfect. There's a lot of people who will find a lot of things wrong with the books, but just about everyone will read them, and from a straight entertainment standpoint, millions will enjoy them.

I also hated, hated, hated The Davinci Code film. I think Tom Hanks is completely wrong for the character - he's too old, he doesn't possess nearly the amount of charm that Robert Langdon is supposed to have. This was supposed to be a slightly - slightly more bookish Indiana Jones. I think Audrey Tatou was even MORE wrong for her character, and I could have told you that without ever seeing her onscreen. The film came off much more like a scavenger hunt than a mystery. There's no doubt that there's a scavenger hunt aspect to the story, but it really felt like the pair didn't have to work for too much of what they found.

Since the day The Davinci Code film was announced, I was very, very worried about the inevitable Angels & Demons follow-up. The fact that it's a prequel and they're using an older Tom Hanks to play a younger Langdon is painful. There's any number of late 30-mid 40's guys who could pull this off. Tone Robert Downey, Jr. down a little bit and squeeze this in before Iron Man 2. It still worries me.

All that being said... I don't hate this. I'm not overly psyched by it, but I expected a lot worse. The tone seems a bit darker, which is necessary, and... I just really hope they pull this one off a lot better.