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.

Creating a New Fan Base at Warp Speed

I've never been into anything "Star Trek." I don't mean to say that there's anything wrong with it, but watching a guy with pointy ears and a bad bowl cut travel through space in a spaceship that somewhat resembles a large pizza cutter just isn't my thing. While they did bring me out to see the film on its early Thursday release, the previews for the reboot didn't have me expecting much more than a decent "Star Trek" with more action and better special effects than I'd expect in the others.

J.J. Abrams proved me wrong. And despite the numerous Trekkies returning Spock's Vulcan Salute at the end of the film, I couldn't help but think that "Star Trek" is really cool. The time travel plot is cool. The black holes are cool. The characters are cool. Everything is just so cool.

But, beyond being cool and easily appealing to the masses, "Star Trek" is just a good film. It starts out with one of the saddest opening scenes ever to appear in a movie, but even that scene is fast-paced and exciting like the rest of the film.

The film mostly follows James Kirk as a cadet on his first trip aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise during its maiden voyage. What should be a rescue mission at Vulcan turns into a fight for the United Federation of Planets against the insane Romulans that appeared mysteriously and attacked a Federation ship decades before. And thus the adventure begins.

The time travel plot allows "Star Trek" to be one of the smartest reboots ever made. Most rebooted films completely disregard all events of any previous films or television shows, and the only references made to them are typically reference gags for the audience members who remember them. But "Star Trek" goes beyond the basic function of a reboot.

The black hole that sends the Romulans back in time creates an alternate universe and allows the old material to coexist with it. Because of this, new audiences don't need to know anything about previous "Star Trek" films and television series. By recognizing the existence of both time lines, the film creates a synthesis of the old material and the new film that allows a new fan base to join the old one.

Of course, the casting directors deserve credit for a job done brilliantly. Few of the lead cast members are entirely recognizable, but almost all of them are great in their roles.

Chris Pine, really only known for his role in the forgettable "The Princes Diaries 2," makes the film. His Kirk is a complete smart alack, a role that he plays extremely well. About 80% of the film's laughs are owed to him, and he's proven that he may be the next great action hero.

Zachary Quinto is great at maintaining the calm, collected attitude of the half Vulcan Spock, as well as delivering the one emotional outburst he has in the film. Some of his best scenes include the ones in which his character is in opposition to Kirk. Quinto and Pine play well off of one another and complement each other.

Simon Pegg and Karl Urban also give memorable performances as Scotty and McCoy, respectively. That extra 20% of the humor comes from their characters, both of whom serve as some sort of sidekick to Kirk at different points in the movie. Scotty is a lovable goof and a bit out there in personality, a perfect role for Pegg. Urban's McCoy, on the other hand, is a bit grouchier, but his cynicism and exasperation with his friend and his appointed captain lead to some hilarious lines.

The only expectantly bad performance of the film is Eric Bana's as the villain Nero. In his first scene, Bana isn't too awful, but the next scenes featuring his character prove that his silence in the first is the only reason he manages to look menacing at all. Each time he speaks, Bana's Nero looks almost tame as a villain. Crazy, but tame.

Needless to say, the special effects and costumes were great, with the exclusion of one badly-painted green alien that was a throwback to the old "Star Trek" series. Outerspace looked beautiful and the pizza-cutter ship called the Enterprise wasn't too shabby-looking either. Plenty of ugly aliens and monsters make their appearances in the film as well, and don't be surprised if a few of them make you jump out of your seat.

My one qualm with the film is the lack of strong female characters. Only Uhuru (Zoe Saldana) has a big role in the film, but aside from her linguistic skills, she served only as eye candy in a short skirt. Other characters, like the mothers (Jennifer Morrison and Winona Ryder) of Kirk and Spock, make very few appearances in the film, and none of them are ever really involved in saving Earth from the Romulans. Hopefully, there will be a bigger role for a female character in the sequel.

With its epic feel and its non-stop action, "Star Trek" is certainly an enjoyable film. So forget preconceptions about the previous movies and television shows. The new film is a great in its own right and can stand alone from its predecessors.

Hello!

So I have enjoyed my comic book blog so much that I have decided to create an extra blog for film reviewing! It all started out as a class project, but I really love reviewing. And now that I have summer to see a lot of movies and read plenty of comics, I plan to keep up with both on each of my blogs!

Happy reading,
L.C. Colby