AngelsAndDemons Tagged Articles at Cinematical

So here we have it, the summer movie season finally winding down, and maybe it's just us, but a couple of peculiar trends have cropped up since May that we thought were worth bringing to light. For starters, we've only further elaborated on Eric's early indicator that puking was 'in' this year (seriously, it's gotten to be a pretty considerable theme), and as for the rest, you can check them out after the jump. Some spoilers follow. And if there are any corrections or additions to be made, please pipe up in the comments, and do so gently.

I was just looking over the current release list and came upon two movies that seem to have been pretty much forgotten already, Ron Howard's Angels & Demons (247 screens) and Tony Scott's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (383 screens). The first one is a sequel and the second one is a remake. The first one is absolutely terrible, earning a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second one is merely mediocre, earning a 52% rating. But what's truly astonishing is that Angels & Demons is a box office smash, with $133 million to its name, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 has earned less than half that, with $64 million.

Let's look at little closer at this. These are two of the summer's only movies that may have been aimed a little above the heads of young boys. All three of the name-above-the-title stars, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, are in their 50s. This ostensibly means that the studios wanted to entice older audiences out of their comfortable homes and into theaters. But unfortunately, if you're a fifty-something and you go out to see The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, what's the first thing you get? You get one of Tony Scott's quick-cut, jumpy, razzle-dazzle openings with Jay-Z boasting "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." Not to mention the rest of the breakneck movie, which practically reaches out from the screen and slaps you in the face.

A below-expectations turn-out for Angels & Demons and good word-of-mouth for Star Trek helped make it a surprisingly close battle for the weekend's #1 spot. Studio estimates have the Dan Brown sequel at $48 million, beating out Trek by about $5 million. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but The Da Vinci Code opened to $77 million in the same weekend two years ago, which indicates that the anticipation for the sequel probably wasn't there to the extent necessary to sustain a blockbuster franchise. I am sure that the third Robert Langdon novel due this fall will see its way to the screen -- but maybe it'll be a little cheaper, and released sometime other than the summer.

Star Trek, on the other hand, is turning out to be the perfect summer film. It dropped off just 43% in its second weekend, which is bloody fantastic for a movie that opened to $75 million. It's already the highest-grossing Trek entry, but that's kind of a no-brainer. If word-of-mouth keeps it afloat, it will end up as one of the biggest movies of the summer.

With no new contenders hitting their demographic, the holdover family offerings -- 17 Again and Monsters vs. Aliens -- saw tiny drops, but that may change next week. Monsters vs. Aliens is also currently the biggest grosser of 2009, but that will change soon too.

The full top 10 after the jump.

Our pals at Moviefone have posted an interview with Ewan McGregor in which the always-charming Scotsman expresses his opinion on a number of highly relevant topics, starting with his work in Angels & Demons and extending to issues such as onscreen nudity and Megan Fox awareness.

First, though, the news: despite director Danny Boyle's enthusiasm for the idea, McGregor has no interest in appearing in a sequel to Trainspotting. "I didn't think the book was very good," he said, referring to the Trainspotting novel's sequel, Porno. "The novel of Trainspotting was quite fantastic ... and then I find that the sequel ... it didn't move me as much."

He also said the sequel's story is too similar to Trainspotting's. "Renton walks away with all the money at the end again. And I thought I don't want to make the same story again. And, also, I think just the idea of getting the cast together again 10 to 15 years later isn't good enough, you need more than that."

So that's it on the Trainspotting sequel. Then, in news sure to astonish certain Cinematical editors I could name, McGregor is asked whether he has a tattoo sleeve like Megan Fox said he did, and McGregor says, "No. I have a tattoo ... but who's Megan Fox?"

Who's Megan Fox?! One can only conclude that McGregor doesn't go to movies about giant space robots that harass teenage girls who wear ill-fitting T-shirts, and that he also doesn't read Cinematical. The guy's really missing out.

Over 4,000 Cinematical readers chimed in last week on our Star Trek 1-10 poll (um, wow), and though it's extremely close, as of now Trek is hanging in at the number 9 spot -- which, I believe, beats both X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Watchmen. That's a pretty tough number to top for any film, but Angels & Demons might be able to summon a whole bunch of good vibes from the gal upstairs and inch away with a perfect 10. Perhaps director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks combined to make a stellar sequel that takes the addictiveness of Dan Brown's novel and times it by twelve. Or not. All that's entirely up to you.

From Eric D. Snider's review: "Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. Angels & Demons, the Da Vinci Code sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the audience?"

But that's just one dude's opinion ... now tell us yours.

Part of the problem with the movie version of The Da Vinci Code was that it took itself too seriously. You had these people dashing around Europe, investigating obscure clues and uncovering outrageous conspiracies, but the only person who seemed to be having any fun with it was Ian McKellen. "Tom Hanks has never seemed so dull," I wrote in my review.

Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. Angels & Demons, the Da Vinci Code sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the audience?

Not having read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel (which actually came before Da Vinci, not after), I was able to find some entertainment in the mechanics of the plot -- not knowing how the mystery would be unraveled, curious to see what the clues would mean. The screenplay, by veteran action writer David Koepp (Panic Room) and Ron Howard regular Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind), basically adheres to a limited point of view -- we don't know any more than the Hanks character, Robert Langdon, does. For viewers who already know where things are going, there may not be much pleasure in watching Langdon figure it out, unless the movie has deviated significantly from the book.

Is there really much enthusiasm for a religious thriller this weekend? I realize that The Da Vinci Code made eleventy billion dollars worldwide despite widespread critical negativity, and that legions of fans support Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, and Ron Howard, but I'm not feeling the love for Angels & Demons, which opens on Friday.

I admit I'm biased. I managed to finish The Da Vinci Code, which was one of the most turgid, tortured, self-important works of fiction I've ever read, and don't have much regard for the movie version. I can understand why so many people went to see it, with the unbeatable combination of sensational subject matter, the promise of a thriller, and Tom Hanks' mullet. Yet how many came away satisfied, and demanding a sequel?

Early critical reaction to Angels & Demons has been tepid (54% at Rotten Tomatoes), but that didn't dissuade people before, so that probably won't be a factor. Our ace prognosticator Matt Bradshaw predicted that Angels & Demons would top the box office this weekend with $60 million, with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek dropping to the #2 spot after last weekend's $79.2 million haul. But could Star Trek retain its #1 position? The Movie Blog agrees with me on two points -- disappointment with The Da Vinci Code and lack of buzz for the sequel -- and also suggests that Star Trek's quality, excellent word of mouth, and expected repeat business could make the difference.

What do you think?

Angels & Demons, director Ron Howard's sequel/prequel to The Da Vinci Code, is less about actual angels than it's about Action Tom Hanks running, jumping, and climbing trees to solve a city-wide Sudoku puzzle and save the world from the Illuminati. At least that's what I think it's about from watching the trailer, and from the five pages of Dan Brown's book that I read before I gave up and threw it across the room.

But it did get me thinking about angels in movies, and what a fascinating subject they are -- even when they're mishandled. Here's a few favorite movie seraphim:

1. All That Jazz - Bob Fosse's wickedly raw, musical autobio offered a luminous Jessica Lange, who appears to Roy Scheider's Fosse as a sexy angel of death, flirting and cajoling him into finally going towards the light. As the embodiment of all that Fosse found seductive in his self-destruction, Lange was a heavenly body, indeed.

2. Dogma -- Kevin Smith's irreverent examination of faith and religion cast Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as two laid-off angels headed for New Jersey, hoping to find a loophole that'll put them back in God's graces. Along the messy, uneven way, Smith gives his characters some wonderful lines -- like when the angel Metatron (Alan Rickman) explains, "Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

3. Wings of Desire -- Wim Wenders' 1987 fantasy about an unhappy angel (Bruno Ganz) who longs to be human is a slow, seductive dream of a movie, full of sadness and beauty. Henri Alekan, the cinematographer who shot Jean Cocteau's Beauty And The Beast, came out of retirement to make this film, and it's a masterpiece. Plus, it's got Peter Falk, and an amazing performance by Nick Cave:

(Clockwise, from upper left: Splash, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Castaway, The Ladykillers, The Da Vinci Code.)

Our last two polls covered Star Trek : anticipated box office returns (most folks guessed too high) and 1-10 rating (most folks were very impressed). Those polls are still open, but we thought it was time to let our hair down and move on to this week's big opener: Tom Hanks in Ron Howard's dramatic thriller Angels & Demons.

Based on the novel by Dan Brown, Angels & Demons follows Professor Robert Langdon as he again uses his expert knowledge of symbology to uncover an international conspiracy involving the Catholic Church. Though the book was written before The Da Vinci Code, the events take place afterward. When Hanks and Howard previously teamed on the film adaptation in 2006, Hanks' hair got plenty of attention. As Eric D. Snider noted, "If you recall nothing else about The Da Vinci Code, surely you remember that Tom Hanks sported a ghastly mullet in it. So the important thing to know about Angels & Demons ... is that Hanks' hairstyle has been corrected. So that's a relief."

But did you love Hanks' "ghastly mullet" in The Da Vinci Code? Or are you a bigger fan of his earlier, funnier hairstyles in movies like Splash, his first collaboration with Howard? How about the Forrest Gump flat top? The Castaway outgrowth? Or the Colonel Sanders hair from The Ladykillers? Inspired by a classic post at TheJay.com, please take our silly little poll and tell us: What's your favorite Tom Hanks hairstyle?

When you're finished with that poll, head on over to Moviefone and vote for your favorite Tom Hanks performance.

When you hear the word boycott, your mind probably goes to big moments in history like the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 or President Carter boycotting the Olympics back in 1980; what you probably don't think about are summer blockbusters. Over at The New York Times, Michael Cieply looks at a rare summer season that saw almost all of the big studio releases experience a fan boycott. So even though there are the obvious targets like Angels and Demons; it didn't stop there. Practically all of the big summer releases have earned a spot on a list that included: Terminator (thanks to a very unpopular PG-13 rating), Star Trek (in hopes of a little fund-raising for space exploration), and even Wolverine (and no, not because of the amnesia bullets; instead it was due to the political leanings of one of the film's consultants, Richard Donner).

You almost have to wonder why anyone would go to so much trouble? Even though I totally get how a film can inspire protests because of content that a group may find offensive or inappropriate; to me it seems a little extreme to organize online petitions and custom-design logos just because you might have to wait a little longer for the next installment of Harry Potter. But the voice of experience in this debate is New Line's President, Rolf Mittweg, who told the Times, "If you have a group that might speak out against the movie, and they're large enough to affect the box office, you have to do something about it," Mr. Mittweg knows better than anyone the effect a boycott can have on a film's bottom line, having dealt with the backlash for The Golden Compass; saying, the film could have "done 50 percent better in the United States had there been no organized opposition."

After the jump; why movie studios still aren't losing sleep over fan boycotts.