Despite its poor rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Marci and I decided to go see Angels & Demons this weekend. I had read the book a few years ago, but she hadn’t. Long story short? We enjoyed the movie.
I was somewhat concerned that it was too confusing if you hadn’t read the book, but Marci said that she didn’t have a problem with that. I do think there is an issue with the culmination of events toward the end in that the original scheme is never very clearly revealed.
Wondering why the reviews were so poor, I spent a few minutes reading through some of the negative reviews. One thing I found interesting was that several of the reviews actually mentioned that it was better than the first movie (The DaVinci Code). Given the success of that film, I certainly discount a reviewer who so clearly doesn’t match popular sentiment. Also, much of the criticism seemed to be aimed at historical (or scientific) inaccuracies. It never really occurred to me to consider these movies as history lessons. The are, after all, fiction.
In fact, the Rotten Tomatoes consensus for the 37% rating reads:
Consensus: Angels and Demons is a fast-paced thrill ride, and an improvement on the last Dan Brown adaptation, but the storyline too often wavers between implausible and ridiculous, and does not translate effectively to the big screen.
Checking the rating for The DaVinci Code, it all starts to make a little more sense: 24%. Clearly, I need a better source for deciding whether or not to see a movie.