Brown's Fictional Conspiracy Illuminates Only a Formulaic Plot

This weekend, Hollywood once again proved that Dan Brown and Ron Howard just should not mix. Or perhaps, Brown and the big screen should never happen.

An adaptation of the Brown novel of the same name, "Angels & Demons," prequel to the 2006 film "The DaVinci Code," is merely entertaining at best and unimaginative at worst. Like the previous film, it falls into the dreaded realm of decent and unmemorable movies, and a year from now, people will probably forget this movie entirely, like some moviegoers have just hours after seeing it.

The story begins with the stolen "God atom," the death of the Pope, the kidnapping of the four Preferiti, and an ambigram presumably sent by the Illuminati. And with a start like that, one might expect the movie to proceed in spectacular fashion. Of course, when the Papacy is on the line and Renaissance symbols are involved, there is only one man up to the challenge: Robert Langdon, professor of religious iconology and symbology who must have his PhD in talking fast while busting crimes hundreds of years old. Not so unlike "The DaVinci Code."

Brown's writing is never really impressive, but in book form, he is able to give readers the false impression of something unique and well crafted. He should, at least, be given credit for having done a lot of research on art and Christian history. It does, after all, confuse people into thinking that he's actually been innovative with his writing. Of course, anyone with the interest and time to do the research could have come up with a conspiracy theory story based on preexisting symbols and ideas, and it might have been done with less clichés.

The illusion of creativity is lost in translation from book to film, though. In the book, the twists and red-herring clues coincide almost exactly with the beginnings and endings of chapters, making the timing between each twist almost the same. With those intervals, "Angels & Demons" winds up being a bit too much like an episode of "Scooby-Doo." Just when you think meddling Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) has figured out the secret, there's a secret behind the secret, and I probably wouldn't have been entirely shocked to hear Hanks say "jinkies."

It's regretful that Hanks even attached himself to the first film, let alone a second one. Neither film really requires much out of the actor playing Robert, probably one of the reasons Hanks just doesn't fit the role well. Hanks took on a role beneath his skills and, unfortunately, didn't rise to the challenge of making Robert into a worthy character. I was more annoyed than impressed by any conclusion coming out of Robert's mouth. Also, as well as he can act, Hanks isn't that believable as a fast-talking Harvard professor, because he doesn't quite look the part described in Brown's books.

As Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, Ewan McGregor is one of the best among the cast (although that may not say much for his performance) for the first 90 percent of the movie. His role as the priest is wonderfully done when intentionally endearing, but the turnabout of his character leaves much to be desired in the already unsatisfying conclusion of the film. Stellan Starsgard and Ayelet Zurer as Commander Richter and Vittoria Vetra are both, like the film, decent but very forgettable, rounding out a cast that was neither terrible nor exceptional.

"Angels & Demons" is, at least, better than "The DaVinci Code." Up until the last twenty minutes, it is certainly more entertaining. Unfortunately, like its predecessor, it falls short of the expectations of misguided Dan Brown fans.