Angels & Demons

OPENING: 05/15/2009

STUDIO: Colmbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 138 min

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
The holiest event of our time. Perfect for their return.

Opening Statement
Director Ron Howard’s The Da Vinci Code stirred up a good deal of controversy back in 2006, leading to enormous buzz that earned the film a great deal of money at the box office (despite generally poor reviews from critics). I didn’t think too much of The Da Vinci Code, an impressive spectacle but whose plot was both silly and tedious. The sequel, Angels & Demons, is not any less silly than its predecessor, but a good deal more entertaining.

Facts of the Case
Controversial symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is going about a normal day, enjoying a nice swim in the pool, when approached by a member of the Vatican police force who insists Langdon come with him on a matter of urgent business. Langdon is surprised by the request, as during his previous adventure he claimed he had discovered a descendant of Jesus Christ. This obviously did not make the Catholic Church particularly happy, but the intellectual cleverness demonstrated by Langdon during that series of events caused the church to regard him as a "formidable" expert. It seems there is trouble in Vatican City which the church believes Langdon can help solve. The Vatican is in the process of attempting to select a new leader, following the death of the pope, and their four leading candidates for the job have all been kidnapped by an ancient enemy of the church: The Illuminati.

Since The Illuminati have always relied heavily on vague symbols, Langdon is asked to examine the riddles which must be deciphered, if the four kidnapped cardinals are to be saved. Beginning at 8 PM on the day of the kidnapping, one cardinal will be executed each hour until all four cardinals are dead. Worse yet, The Illuminati have stolen some potentially deadly anti-matter from a science lab in Switzerland. At midnight, the battery on the container holding the anti-matter will run out, causing the anti-matter to come into contact with matter, creating a massive explosion that would destroy all of Vatican City. It’s up to Langdon and scientist sidekick Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) to solve the clues and save the day!



The Evidence
Angels & Demons is every bit as preposterous as it sounds, if not more so. It is a ridiculous movie, in many ways, but I found it considerably more satisfying than The Da Vinci Code thanks to Ron Howard bringing his A-game. The previous film took itself very seriously, moving along at a solemn and stately pace which made the less believable plot elements seem all the more nonsensical. Angels & Demons wisely doesn’t slow down long enough to give the viewer time to think, providing a very engaging and well-crafted thriller. Sure, pick it apart mercilessly afterwards, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a lot of fun while you’re watching.

The action/suspense quotient is raised drastically this time, turning the plot into a Vatican City version of 24. The race-against-the-clock gimmick gives the movie a reason to keep moving forward with great speed, as Langdon must rush from one place to the next. Yes, we get the same constant stream of historical tidbits and symbology trivia we received in The Da Vinci Code, but this time the movie doesn’t pause to allow such banalities to overtake the proceedings. There are several impressive suspense set pieces, particularly one in which Langdon and a security guard are trapped inside a room running out of oxygen. Howard really seems to be into it, his scenes crackling with the sort of energy that The Da Vinci Code so desperately needed.



Tom Hanks is an effective lead for this sort of film, melding the on-the-spot quick thinking of Jack Bauer with the endless (though sometimes flawed) knowledge of Wikipedia. Hanks’ acting skills are not employed in the service of carrying big dramatic scenes, but rather to a much less glorious cause. Here he is constantly asked to say things which people around him already know, in order to convey information to the audience. That sort of thing happens in movies a lot and it usually annoys me, but Hanks manages to play such material with a natural ease helping to mask the fact that real people don’t speak in such a manner. It must be incredibly challenging to pull off a line like, "They’ve kidnapped your four preferred choices, also known as the preferati," but Hanks does it with aplomb.

The supporting cast get to do a bit more actual acting. Stellan Skarsgard brings a world-weary grumpiness to the role of the Vatican police chief which I quite liked. When Langdon arrives in Vatican City, Skarsgard mutters, "Oh thank heavens, the symbologist is here." Armin Mueller-Stahl is a tremendously talented actor with a knack for seeming suspicious, and he employs that to a very strong degree here. Perhaps his shiftiness is a bit too blatant, as his bright red cardinal outfit Mueller-Stahl already makes him look like a red herring. Ewan McGregor brings his patented brand of open-faced earnestness to his role as a gentle priest attempting to keep things under control. Only Zurer doesn’t have a lot to do. Her character exists primarily to give Hanks someone to exchange trivia with.



Angels & Demons generally avoids the sort of controversial items that made the Catholic Church so unhappy with The Da Vinci Code, sticking mostly to action while avoiding examination of spiritual issues. The film does make an attempt to address the never-ending antagonistic relationship between religion and science (a topic complex and fascinating enough to be examined in-depth in a feature film), but it’s really more of a side item offering a condensed version of the final scene from Inherit the Wind: "Hey, golly gee, it sure would be great if science and religion could understand that they can live together in harmony."

Closing Statement
Despite the film’s spiritually-charged title, you will find little in the way of supernatural elements here, just a good old-fashioned thriller which happens to involve the Catholic Church. It’s good fun, and I recommend it as a reasonably satisfying popcorn flick.

The Verdict
7/10

Frost/Nixon

OPENING: 12/05/2008

STUDIO: Universal

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
400 million people were waiting for the truth.

Opening Statement
There is a scene in Frost/Nixon that stands out as a memorable moment. It is late at night, and David Frost is sitting alone in his hotel room. The phone rings. Frost answers, and is surprised to hear Richard Nixon’s voice on the other line. Nixon has been drinking, and seems to be in a reflective mood. “We’re both looked down on, you know,” he muses. “No matter how many awards you win, no matter how powerful the office I hold is, we’re always looked down upon and laughed at.” While no such phone call ever actually occurred (there is an unwritten rule that every film about Nixon must take creative liberties), such a statement would have been true at the time. Nixon was probably the most-mocked politician of his day, and Frost was regarded as a buffoon with, “no discernible talent.”

Facts of the Case
The year is 1977, several years after former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon resigned from his most-esteemed office. At least, the office was most-esteemed before Nixon got his hands on it. Corruption had tainted Nixon’s tenure and the public had understandably begun to develop a deep-rooted cynicism that remains in place to this day. However, the bitter public never received any real catharsis when it came to Nixon. “Tricky Dick” was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, essentially preventing Nixon from ever being charged for his crimes.

Enter British talk show host, comedian, and casual journalist David Frost. Many had wanted to score a substantial interview with Nixon after his resignation, but Nixon was not particularly interested in being chewed apart. However, he was intrigued by the idea of an interview with Frost. Not only was Frost a lightweight who would probably toss easy questions, he was willing to pay considerably more than any of the news networks were. So, after some brief negotiations, it was agreed that Richard Nixon and David Frost would conduct a series of lengthy interviews over the course of twelve different days. When the interviews were aired, they drew hundreds of millions of viewers and broke records. Ron Howard’s new film recreates the verbal duels that occurred during those interviews, and tells the compelling story of how a lightweight journalist successfully went head-to-head with a disgraced former President.

The Evidence
It’s kind of astonishing to consider such a thing, particularly when one looks at the kind of politicians and journalists we have today. Yes, Nixon was a corrupt man, but doesn’t he look just a bit less awful when contrasted with the likes of Elliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, Mark Foley, and others? From what we see of Frost, he was certainly no Walter Cronkite, but he seems more professional and competent than a large percentage of network news anchors on television today. Ron Howard’s portrait of the battle between David Frost and Richard Nixon has taken on an unexpected nobility and class. In 1977, Frost and Nixon were perhaps perceived as two nobodies fighting to gain an ounce of respect. In 2008, they seem like two rather intelligent men attempting to outfox one another. It’s rather interesting this story is being told now. One might suspect a film like this would attempt to offer parallels to current political situations, but no, not really. Frost/Nixon simply gives modern viewers a chance to witness these events through the lens of today’s culture.

Rather, I should say it gives them an opportunity to witness a fictionalized version of these events. Frost/Nixon is a good film, but it’s not a particularly useful history lesson. Things are made up, sliced up, spliced up, spiced up, tweaked, adjusted, and re-arranged until we have something accurately resembling history without actually portraying it to any degree of genuine accuracy. The film is best used to inspire discussions and motivate thoughts, not to teach children about David Frost and Richard Nixon. Surprisingly, such historical liberties permit the film to reach considerable heights. The aforementioned phone conversation is probably the high point of the film, and many of the most “revealing” moments are typically the ones that didn’t actually happen.

As you might expect, Nixon is the magnetic force that drives the movie. Actor Frank Langella offers a terrific performance, and his Richard Nixon is a great character. However, I would not say Langella makes a great Richard Nixon. We aren’t exactly getting Nixon here, but a Shakespearean alternate version of Nixon. Langella is bold, eloquent, commanding, and intense. When the real Nixon appeared on television, he seemed sweaty, nervous, and uncomfortable. Langella’s Nixon has the swagger and poise of a king. Part of this comes from Langella’s unique natural screen presence. Langella’s Dracula didn’t seem much like Dracula, and his Perry White didn’t seem much like Perry White, but they were great characters nonetheless. The other part of it comes from Howard’s desire to frame Frost/Nixon as a David and Goliath tale. For the majority of the film, Michael Sheen plays Frost as if he were a grinning deer stuck in the headlights, which only amplifies the effect. Again, I sound as if I’m being negative. If I were a historian, all of this would bother me a great deal. As a film critic, I’m just fine with what we get. It isn’t good history, but it’s excellent cinema. Believe me when I tell you that the Frost/Nixon interviews presented here are even more compelling than the interviews that actually exist. As he did in Cinderalla Man and A Beautiful Mind, Howard ignores pure fact in favor of telling a better story.

Richard Nixon has slowly become one of cinema’s great characters. Oh sure, there was once a real Richard Nixon, but the idea of Richard Nixon is so much bigger than the real Richard Nixon. There was a real Richard III, but Richard III wasn’t really Richard III until Shakespeare made him “Richard III.” Have the likes of Robert Altman, Oliver Stone, and Ron Howard given Nixon similar immortality? Every time Nixon appears in a film, he always seems to have more of something… more poise, more intelligence, more tragedy, more desperation. Long gone are the cornball stand-up routine caricatures of the 1970s and ’80s. Nixon’s life played out like great literature, and actors like Philip Baker Hall, Anthony Hopkins, and Frank Langella have molded the man into a figure worthy of the story he lived. I say this because Frost/Nixon feels like last important evolutionary step of Nixon’s cinematic journey. Altman got the ball rolling with the intensely personal Secret Honor, Oliver Stone offered a sprawling biopic that colored outside the lines with Nixon, and now Ron Howard brings closure to the Nixon story with Frost/Nixon. The man has been defined and re-defined by various people, and now a legendary character has emerged. History is written by the winners, and the winners have generously chosen to make Nixon a tragic villain of the grandest sort.

Closing Statement
Frost/Nixon isn’t quite a classic. It’s a bit uneven at times, and Michael Sheen’s Frost isn’t quite the worthy adversary for Frank Langella’s Nixon. My criticism more or less stops there. This is a film that works remarkably well in spite of itself, and is all the more fascinating for it.

The Verdict
8/10