MovieChat Forums > Angels & Demons (2009) Discussion > This movie was NOTHING like the book

This movie was NOTHING like the book

posted 15 years ago by chinawhite252
55 replies | jump to latest

This movie was real real bad. Hanks does a awful job playing Langdon. Also did anyone notice that they left the CERN boss in the wheelchair completely out of the movie? The killer was a Assassin in the book, and they gave him a sick back story, that was also left out. Ron Howard is useless, not only should he not make movies, he shouldn't even be allowed near a television. The book, next to The Godfather, was the best one i've ever read. I don't know how they messed up the story that bad.

Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking

[–] bunny6988 15 years ago

This adaptation was absolutely horrid. I too understand that you can't fit a whole book into a couple hour movie, so some editing is necessary. However this movie took far too many liberties with both plot and character.

I found some of the changes they made quite superfluous, like character names and their back-stories. And like many other poor adaptations, the time it spent embellishing the plot, could have been used to effectively communicate the essence of the story told by Dan Brown.

It's rare that a film adaptation really does a book justice. The movie may have been more entertaining had I not spent the whole time calling BS on the changes that were unnecessarily made. There were some moments that made no logical sense, like why the hell the police would take Robert and Vittoria into the Castel San Angelo with them? It made more sense in the book that Robert would chase the Hassassin there to save Vittoria because he couldn't get through to the Vatican because the phone lines were jammed.

I could go on and on about the films short comings. Suffice it to say, if you enjoyed the movie, then you should read the book and it will much better illustrate the story that is Angels & Demons.

[–] willard86 14 years ago

I agree, even though I've only watched about five minutes of the movie so far. Netflix is down...but I was thinking, What's this? They could have easily opened with Langdon getting the middle-of-the-night call and the gruesome fax instead of having a Vatican official show him a boring xerox, and they could have had Vittoria's father be the one who was murdered (her only motivation for going to Rome), and had the wheelchair-bound head of the lab as a major character, and *not* had Vittoria find the body...all this in five minutes. The book's beginning was muuuch better. If the rest of the movie goes along these misplaced lines, I don't even know if I want to watch it.

[–] michael-colan 14 years ago

guys this isn't a book this a movie, its surposse to be different

[–] widios 14 years ago

I read the book first and then last night watched the DVC (never read the book) and tonight A&D the movie. I was quite disappointed by it.

The first obvious thing was the CERN victim just being a co-worker. Huh! Vittoria's whole obsession in the book is one of retribution.

I noticed several things in the movie that were directly from the book but, without the back story, made zero sense and should not even have been added.

We all know that compromises need to be made in movies but many of the changes were not compromises at all.

Langdon in the movie totally sucked. He was aggressive and cocky right from the start, well before he encountered resistance from the authorities. If anything, the way he played Langdon in DVC was more like the Langdon I read in the book of A&D. It's almost like the director cut his hair shorter and told him to be ballsy in this one, I think it was intentional as they wanted Hanks to be the hero with the race against time. I think they screwed up on that one as an "accidental hero" makes for a better story.

The camerlengo, apart from the final revelation, they also totally screwed up. They made him up to be totally belittled by the rest of the papal clergy which contributed to his motivations to possibly become pope. But in the book, I'm not sure if he planned to ride the heli (I suppose he probably did) but he was more of a leader very quickly into the book and his word was respected rather than constantly rejected.

http://www.socialfreegifts.com

[–] jekyllhj7 13 years ago

I agree with you about the major plot points being changed. It really ruined the film. Surprising because The DaVinci Code (with much of the same production staff) was MUCH more faithful to the original novel.

Of course no film can be completely faithful... ie I have no problem with the Carmelango's nationality being changed due to the actor, or little things like that. But to COMPLETELY change the ending... [spoiler/] The fourth Cardinal dies in the book that that really old one in charge of things in the chapel becomes pope.... as well as the lack of Kohler from CERN... [spoiler/] just to name a couple.

I think it is a great film on its own, and if I hadn't read the book I'd say it was amazing. But since I actually preferred this novel to the Davinci Code, I was really looking forward to it, and found myself quite dissapointed.

Glad to see other people feel the same way.

[–] shonoffilm 13 years ago

I haven't cared for Ron Howard since I watched the tragedy that was the Da Vinci Code. Loved the book, disliked the movie greatly. I just finished watching this movie and I actually liked it. After reading the boards, I'm, sure the book was amazing and Howard once again didn't do the book justice. But even with that said, he has improved since the Da Vince Code and I still like this movie.

[–] leeney_b 12 years ago

Ive attempted to watch this movie 4-5 times....and I always end up sleeping.

...w/c is a shame since the book is one of my favorite novels EVER.

[–] Enigmanic1 12 years ago

I agree. I love the book and the movie doesn't do it justice.

Here are the three biggest things that bother me because they take away from character development:

The pope had indeed adopted the carmelengo, but he was also his biological father.

The relationship between Vittoria and the lead scientist on the project was changed. In the book, he was Vittoria's uncle.

In the movie, the "assassin" was a white guy. In the book, the "Hassassin" was middle-eastern; in fact he was a blood descendant of hassassins dating back to the Crusades.

[–] RomeoInDespair 12 years ago

What I hated most was the fact they took out the huge speech on religon vs science. And most of the comments on religon was lost. What could have been a great religous film turned into a genric action thriller.

[–] chinawhite252 11 years ago

Thank you Enigmanic1. That is what i'm talking about. They left all that out.

Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking

[–] velcronewsletter 12 years ago

it was ok for what it was but it wasn't the book. i agree with the OP on this one, they messed it up big time

-------------------------------------------------------
OCOE - obsessive compulsive olive eater

[–] chinawhite252 12 years ago

Just telling it like it is people.

Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking

[–] !!!deleted!!! (6571724) 12 years ago

I agree. The book was NON STOP and the movie had NO urgency whatsoever.

Not to mention Vittoria was a vengeful Italian fireball with deep ties to the main plot, when she was just plain boring in the movie with almost no back story.

[–] elegoo 11 years ago

I've not read the book in a long time but what I remember of it it would have made a really dull film. They jazzed it up to make "better" cinema.

It doesn't matter how you feel about the film or the book but people need to remember that what makes a good book doesn't always make a good film.

”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.