About halfway through “Angels & Demons,” I started thinking about when it would end. Admittedly, that may have had something to do with the fact that the season finale of “Lost” was waiting for me on my DVR at home, but nevertheless, that’s a bad sign for any suspense movie.

“Angels & Demons” is director Ron Howard’s sequel to his earlier “The Da Vinci Code,” itself an adaptation of best-selling author Dan Brown’s second book featuring American symbologist Robert Langdon. Confused?
Of course not. You probably already know that Howard filmed the book series out of order because he wanted to start with the more popular title. And you probably already know that “The Da Vinci Code” was a dreary adaptation that was a lot harder to translate to the screen than most people thought.

“Angels & Demons” succeeds partly in that it’s faster paced than its filmic predecessor, but it suffers from many of the same problems. Tom Hanks plays Langdon with the required amount of reverence and confidence for a second Vatican scavenger hunt, but outside of a couple conversations about his lack of personal faith, there’s not a lot of time to get to know or care about anybody.

In a suspense thriller that uses the “ticking clock” device over and over again like “Angels & Demons” does, character development isn’t exactly the first thing you’re looking for, however. After the unexpected death of a beloved pope in the Vatican, an assassin is threatening to kill the four Preferiti—the cardinals most likely to take his place—one every hour until midnight, when an antimatter bomb (developed by fetching Italian scientist Vittoria Vetra) is scheduled to go off.

This format alone means that there will be more moments of tension than the first movie, and Howard keeps the pace brisk by having Langdon and Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer)explain the meaning behind various ancient books, statues, and other clues while walking feverishly under pressure of time. Each clue leads them to the murder sites, all strategically chosen by a fabled anti-church group of scientists known as the Illuminati.

It’s an unfortunate trade-off, though, because the film’s necessary fast pace robs the story of its most interesting element—the backstory of each old-world symbol. Remember, it’s not his prose that makes Brown’s novels such page-turners, it’s that mix of thrilling conflict and old-world mystery. Take out the backstory and you basically have an empty episode of “24.”

Ewan McGregor acquits himself admirably as young Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (changed to an Irishman from the Italian in the novel to suit the actor), but he’s stuck with two of the most laughable scenes of the movie. In one, he delivers a speech that sums up the movie’s ultimately non-confrontational view of the Catholic Church—essentially “It’s not a perfect church, but it’s all we got”—and in the other, he does some outrageous stunt work (although thankfully the ridiculousness of the book’s climax is toned down a bit by keeping the 52-year old Hanks out of the action mix).

The “church vs. science” debate that grounds the entire film is touched on, but ultimately glossed over in favor of quick thrills and lots of killing. As much action as there is, though, apart from one scene in the Vatican archives, Langdon never seems to be in any real danger. In fact, the killer actually salutes and pardons the Harvard professor more than once, and his reasoning is very convenient indeed.

Ultimately, “Angels & Demons” provides a better surface-view rollercoaster ride (“That statue points there! This statue points here! Let’s go!”) than its filmic predecessor does, but just barely. We don’t gain any more information about each clue other than the little we need to get to the next one, so, like “The Da Vinci Code,” when it comes to developing or unlocking any intriguing mystery about the past, it strikes out.

Brown’s material might better suited to a miniseries or TV show rather than a two-hour-or-so feature film. Like “Lost,” it could make detours and flash back in time, taking longer to explain its significance while retaining its inherent forward motion. His newest Langdon thriller, “The Lost Symbol,” is due out in September. Maybe Hanks and Howard could turn it into an HBO series (like they did with 1998’s “From the Earth to the Moon”).

Tags: Angels & Demons, Angels and Demons, film, hanks, howard, movie, review, Ron, tom

‘Tis the season for play adaptations, as the recent releases of “Doubt” and “Frost/Nixon” can attest to. Adapted from his own 2005 Tony-winning play, writer/director John Patrick Shanley’s “Doubt” is one of those movies that you come away from thinking mainly about the strength of the performances. For my review of “Doubt,” click here.

Peter Morgan’s Tony award-winning 2007 play “Frost/Nixon” has been adapted by the screenwriter into a movie by director Ron Howard, and although the performances are less showy than those in “Doubt,” the movie employs a talking-head interview style that made me wonder why I wasn’t watching a documentary about the original David Frost/Richard Nixon interviews.

In March of 1977, British talk show host David Frost got the only public apology out of Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal in a series of 12 days of interviews he conducted with the disgraced U.S. president. Morgan’s film fictionalizes some events (reducing the number of days to four and inventing an important late-night phone call Nixon makes to Frost) for drama’s sake and aptly makes the point that this unlikely event occurred only because the Nixon team underestimated his interviewer.

Unlike “Doubt,” the actors who starred in the Broadway production also appear in the movie. Frank Langella channels the drained but alert spirit of Nixon, while Michael Sheen (Tony Blair in Morgan’s “The Queen”) embodies TV personality and playboy Frost.

While Howard shows Frost jumping through hoops and virtually going broke to pay Nixon for the interviews, members of Frost’s political research team (played by Oliver Platt, Sam Rockwell, and Matthew Macfadyen) are shown sitting for direct-address interviews. Discussing their candid thoughts and the challenges that face the team in preparation, I wondered where the documentary is that shows the actual participants recounting their experiences. (The interview itself is available on DVD.)

What Morgan has done is wrap up the entire event into a nice little dramatic ball like any good piece of fiction. Each man is looking for a knockout, and the final interview is the really the title bout. Nixon wants to change his public image for the better, and Frost wants to back him into a corner and get an admission of guilt. It’s a formula that serves movies well, and Howard ramps up the suspense as well as can be expected from a situation of which the outcome is already known.

Howard’s close-ups allow us to get views of the movie interview that don’t exist in the real interview, and Morgan’s shaping of the events surrounding the interview give some interesting perspective. The play itself was all about the role of the media, featuring a stack of video monitors constant reminding the audience that the presentation was as important as the content.

Because of the flat, reality-style presentation of the movie, I still couldn’t help but wondering why I was watching a movie based on a play based on a TV interview. And while I normally don’t complain too much about facts getting distorted in movies for better drama, Howard’s format inherently seems like it’s trying to pass itself off as reality, and that really bugged me.

At its best, “Frost/Nixon” made me hope for a documentary covering the same topic with choice clips from the actual interview.

For part two of this article—my review of “Doubt,”—click here.

Tags: fil, frank, Frost/Nixon, Frost/Nixon movie review, howard, Langella, Michael, movie, review, Ron, Sheen

It is way to early to think about this (or maybe not, since Oliver Stone’s “W” dramatized the life of a sitting president), but I keep hearing the word “history” used over and over again today in the media. Barack Obama getting elected the 44th President of the United States is certainly historic. I even heard a caller on a talk show this morning talk about how tears were streaming down his face while he watched the TV last night.

“It was like the ending of ‘Ben-Hur’!” he said.

History being compared to movies. I think that’s a signal that now it’s time to think about who will play Obama in the eventual biopic of his life.

“Too soon!” you may say. And, technically, I might agree. But isn’t it fun to play the game?

It’s crazy how quickly current events are turned around into historical films these days. HBO’s recent “Recount” was about the fight over the 2000 election. Paul Greengrass’ amazing “United 93″ conveyed the immediacy and urgency of Sept. 11. On the less serious side of things, the usual turnaround of TV movies about sensational news stories like the Texas cheerleader scandal, the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan incident, or the baby caught in a well has been traditionally very fast. (And how many Amy Fisher/Joey Buttafuco movies were rushed into production?)

Especially in this lightning-fast communications age, we are also able to see history as it happens. What’s bizarre is how quickly an event can be registered as “history.” No doubt, yesterday was one of those days. And movies and TV played a huge part in the making of yesterday’s election results. Don’t think that they didn’t. Besides the fact that Americans had two full years to observe the way Obama carried himself as a public figure, we also had two years to get used to the idea of a black president. It wasn’t that hard; it’s something that has been out there in the culture for quite awhile.

It’s often said the Hollywood is extremely liberal, so black actors portraying the President in movies like “Deep Impact” (Morgan Freeman) or “Head of State” (Chris Rock) are no surprises. (Not to mention “The Fifth Element,” “Idiocracy,” “The Man,” although those weren’t necessarily game-changers). Probably the role with biggest cultural effect, however, was from Fox’s “24,” a TV show created, ironically, by a conservative writer/producer.

David Palmer (played by Dennis Haysbert, the reassuring presence from those Allstate commercials) was one of those tough presidents who tackled problems with an equal amount of smarts and morality. He was the kind of president you’d wish we could have in the White House one day, and his run on that popular TV show did a lot to get the country used to the idea of a black president, I believe. He was assassinated after he was out of office, and his brother Wayne Palmer (D.B. Woodside) was elected not long after that. Two black presidents. One show. Plus lots of sketchy, scheming white men swirling around them…

Now that the moment is upon us, let’s get hypothetical. What current actor has the range, gravity, and physical characteristics to play President-elect Barack Obama in a movie?

My top choice would be Jeffrey Wright, who was so good as the moral compass in “W.” He played Colin Powell as a character, not an impersonation. His conflict and conscience were guiding lights in a movie where virtually everyone else had their own agendas. He’s proven in tons of great supporting roles (Bill Murray’s loquacious best friend in “Broken Flowers” and the uber-confident villain in “Shaft” leap to mind) that he’s got the chops and I think he could portray Obama’s tenacity in all the key moments in his life.

Will Smith would obviously be any movie producer’s first choice due to his box office clout, and I think he could handle it. He made me forget he was Will Smith in Michael Mann’s flawed-but-interesting “Ali,” and would have the same uphill battle portraying another very famous face were he to tackle Obama.

Terrence Howard, recently let go as Jim Rhodes in the “Iron Man” series, might be a good choice. He was totally convincing in his Oscar-nominated role as the pimp-turned-rapper in “Hustle and Flow,” and that same year played a successful yuppie TV producer in “Crash.” (Though I hated the movie, his performance was quite good.)

Lastly, I think British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor is a true chameleon. Having appeared in everything from “Children of Men” down to “Love Actually,” he is probably the most versatile actor on this list. Plus, he is not a household name or a bankable actor yet, so his personality won’t get in the way of Obama. Right now, especially with his hard-to-pronounce name, he is still “that guy who’s always good in everything he does.” He also has a history of choosing really risky roles with great directors over more commercial work,

Now it’s time to hear from you all. It’s probably too early, but we all know it’s a great story, and Hollywood loves great stories, especially the against-all-odds “only in America” kind.

Who do you think should play President-elect Barack Obama in the inevitable movie biopic?

Tags: actor, barack, biopic, Chiwetel, dennis, Ejiofor, film, haysbert, hollywood, howard, jeffrey, life, movie, obama, play, president, should, smith, terrence, who, will, wright