Could 'Angels and Demons' bedevil Ron Howard with another Razzie nod?
Three years ago, reviews for "The Da Vinci Code" were savage, with the film adaptation of the Dan Brown bestseller rating only 46 at Meta Critic and a jaw-dropping 10 among the top tier of reviewers surveyed by Rotten Tomatoes. Tom Hanks was ridiculed for growing long tresses to play the part of crime-solving professor Robert Langdon. And helmer Ron Howard came under attack for his handling of the fanciful plot.
Indeed, the Oscar-winning director ("A Beautiful Mind") received the only Razzie nomination of his career for "The Da Vinci Code." In an ironic twist, he lost this dubious honor to M. Night Shyamalan, who had helmed "Lady in the Water," which featured Howard's actress daughter Bryce Dallas Howard in the title role. Shyamalan would win a record four Razzies that night as he also wrote, produced and costarred in this dud.
Howard had the last laugh as his film took in $217 million in the U.S. — to rank fifth for the year – and a staggering $540 million in the rest of the world. "The Da Vinci Code" even landed a 2007 People's Choice Award nomination though it lost the title of favorite movie drama to the No. 1 domestic box office draw "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
So it was inevitable that "Angels and Demons" — the other Dan Brown book to feature Langdon — would be made into a movie by good pals Hanks and Howard. The film – which is actually a prequel to "The Da Vinci Code" in terms of timeline — opens today to a much wider range of reviews. Perhaps Hanks cutting his hair helped with the cause?
"Angels and Demons" even earned respectable notices from the likes of Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times and Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer. However, there were still enough brickbats thrown by critics such as David Edelstein of New York and John Anderson of the Washington Post that it scored only 50 at Meta Critic and 41 with Rotten Tomatoes.
Cannes Film Festival tattle: Oscar hopes looking up for 'Up'
Can the new 'Star Trek' cling on till the Oscars?
Photo: Columbia Pictures
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
I think Opie should consider filming in Tehran next time and make some stuff up about the Koran.
Hey, has insulting Islam ever got a film director murdered?
Yes, it has! Nobody said anything... cuz they are cowards in that showbiz town.
Posted by: Mohammed Jihad! | May 29, 2009 at 08:03 PM
The movie follows the book up to the ending and then Ron Howard takes a subtle, but effective swipe at the basic beliefs of the Christians.
For some, the point may be too subtle but for those who got it, the last dig scored a solid hit.
In the twist ending, Prof. Langdon proves, with a gold key, that Science trumps faith. The Cardinals were ready to act on "signs" from the Holy Spirit but when they were exposed to Scientific knowledge, they quickly changed their minds. Subtle but Effective.
I like this ending much more than the one in the book.
Posted by: Ed McGrath | May 17, 2009 at 12:47 PM
saw the movie last night and expected it to be horrible after reading all the reviews and comments, however I thought it was fantastic!!
Posted by: pam | May 17, 2009 at 09:55 AM
saw the movie last night excpecting it to be horrible after reading all the comments and reviews, however, I thought it was fantastic!!
Posted by: pam | May 17, 2009 at 09:54 AM
i loved the book. liked the movie. was entertained. that's the only thing that matters
Posted by: Josel Garlitos | May 17, 2009 at 02:28 AM
I saw the movie today and I liked it. It moved fast, the acting was good, and the plot O.K.
A longer movie would have been fine with me to get more of the book in, but what they decided worked well, I thought.
Posted by: Rita | May 16, 2009 at 06:51 PM
I know some of Ron Howard's films have been nominated for Razzies. We know that Howard was nommed for Worst Director for his work on "The Da Vinci Code" and here are some others. 1988's "Willow" starring Val Kilmer, earned two Razzie nominations for Billy Barty as Worst Supporting Actor and for Worst Screenplay. 1992's "Far and Away" starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, earned a nomination for Worst Original Song for the track "Book of Days" by Enya. And 2000's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" earned nods for Worst Remake or Sequel and Worst Screenplay.
Posted by: Leo | May 16, 2009 at 06:40 PM
I'm sorry I really wanted to like this movie, but why do you have to change things that do not need to be changed like the cardinal not dying. Why you could have used the actual ending the book had and I dont think it wouldve been any longer. That and the last brand is supposed to be the diamond that says "Earth, Air, Fire, and Water" they didnt use that either! Why not what time did it save how did it tell the story better? Someone smarter than me explain it to me please. By the way you wrote out an entire character (the head of CERN) and created your own..Why? Just so disapointed. Its my favorite book and it just leaves an awful taste in my mouth. Oh does Dan Brown have a say in how the movie is going o go at all, or is it out of his hands?
Posted by: Erich | May 16, 2009 at 04:18 PM
I just got back from the theatre and boy an I pissed. Angels and Demons was probably one of the best book I have read. The movie was probably one of worst movies I have seen.
The fact that Ron Howard took it upon himself to pretty much re-write the novel to keep in simple and squeeze it into 2 hrs is unfathomable.
There was absolutely no suspense...no explanation and no thrills. The book could have easily become one of the best movies of 09, but I think it will wind up being one of the worst.
Sadly, it seems to me, that the focus of the director and the studio was to make as much money as possible. Using "DaVinici Code", "Dan Brown" and "Tom Hanks" are sure to attract movie-goers and generate enormous revenue.
In my opinion the motives for making this movie were money hungry and profit first. Storytelling and good theatre were left by the wayside.
A big F U to the studio, director and all parties involved.
I would have much rather sit through a 3 1/2 hr suspence filled thriller than this 2 hr monkey turd.
My prediction - career killer for Howard......reputation killer for Brown.
In summation.....integrity was bought out by the almight dollar...shame on you!!!
Posted by: Craig | May 16, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Um,, sorry Dan Brown didn't rip off the third-rate National Treasure movies. National Treasure ripped off Robert Anton Wilson's Illiminatus! which was published in 1975 and Wilson's Cosmic Trigger series.
Posted by: Tom The Patriot | May 16, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Second-rate Dan Brown is still not done ripping off all of the ideas in Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's "Illuminatus!", the ultimate conspiracy book, and Wilson's other works as well. Just like the movie "23" did, before this. Can't get over how all of the hundreds of shallow media reviewers and even shallower book readers who only read what is on the 'best seller' list, have no idea that Brown just stole other people's works.
Posted by: Tom The Patriot | May 16, 2009 at 02:36 PM
...UH HELLO ITS JUST A MOVIE BASED ON A FICTION BOOK. SINCE WHEN YOU DOES ANYONE TAKE ANYTHING FROM A MOVIE SERIOUSLY? ANYONE REMEMBER SEEING ERIN BROCKOVICH? WE STILL HAVE COMMUNITIES POLLUTED BY LOCAL BUSINESSES BY PAPER MILLS ETC AND NO ONE IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT THAT! GET OVER YOURSELVES AND FOCUS ON IMPORTANT MATTERS. WHETHER THIS MOVIE SUCKS OR NOT YOU WILL STILL WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND PEOPLE WILL STILL BE TAKING ANTIPSYCHOTICS TO COPE WITH THE HORRIFIC EVENTS IN THEIR LIVES SUCH AS WAR, ABUSE, AND SELF INFLICTED TRAUMA.
Posted by: BELLE | May 16, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Colin types, "The world is full of gullible people who actually may believe the Garbage dreamed up by Brown. I just don't understand Ron and Tom getting mixed up with that fraud."
Uhmm, Colin, the garbage dreamed up by Brown is FICTION. I don't think you are actually supposed to believe it. EVERY fiction movie is fraud, since fiction means "made up." Actually, most of the so called "based on a true story" movies are mostly fiction, as well.
Posted by: JayPea | May 16, 2009 at 01:29 PM
These movies are kind of stupid.
Tom Hanks has lost respect for himself and his viewers. Do not mock the Lord boys. He donna like it. It's a big no no.
Posted by: jolie | May 16, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Of course the real question is why Howard should care? Critics don't pay to get in and by and large, as the article points out, audiences don't care what critics think. On the Late Show, as the band was playing while returning from a commercial break, Tom Hanks could be overheard saying to David Letterman "I hope they say it's the worst movie ever made. We'll all make a ton of money."
Posted by: tj | May 16, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Trilogy Failure: Sony and Ron Howard dropped the ball on this should have been triple blockbuster. The book could have been made into 3 epic money making, entertaining, chart busting movies...The Sony team dropped the ball on this...creativity and story telling should be first in developing the script, instead we get edit this edit that -- you have this much time and money to do the a mediocre movie....Like a limp phallic ...so much potential not being used. The ambigram for this movie is an upside down dollar sign.
Posted by: Zemilio | May 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Unlike most people that are leaving comments and criticizing Howard, hanks and the film, I have actually SEEN the movie.
I thought it was terrific. It is an incredibly fast-paced, absorbing, mystery-thriller. A solid piece of entertainment. Notice the key word her...ENTERTAINMENT. It is a work of fiction, and like all works of fiction, is not meant to be taken so seriously.
One of the great things about "Angels & Demons" and "The DaVinci Code" is that it stimulates curiosity among the audience about history and religion. It does not attack the Catholic Church (notice the people that claim it does have not actually seen the film). As for the Razzies...well who actually take those very seriously?
Posted by: Alex | May 16, 2009 at 07:08 AM
You're writing an article that shows respect for the Razzies? Seriously?
The Razzies are an embarrassment. Just a snarky little trifle of a thing. I'm not a fan of Howard's or Hanks but I'm much less of a fan of the Razzies and increasingly less a fan of this site. Try to be professional from now on. The Razzies are not relevant.
Posted by: joe | May 16, 2009 at 06:24 AM
Actually HOWARD-HANKS-BROWN should start a new religion,for they are the TRINITY FOR TWITS.
The world is full of gullible people who actually may believe the Garbage dreamed up by Brown.I just don't understand Ron and Tom getting mixed up with that fraud.
The B.S. in the movie re "Illuminati"prays on the paranoid mind.
I just hope STEVEN SPIELBERG will produce a counter to the lies.
Posted by: Colin | May 16, 2009 at 06:05 AM
I don't think anyone could have made a good movie with Dan Brown as their source material. His books are terrible on every level.
Posted by: Brent | May 16, 2009 at 05:52 AM
The movie had one of the stupidest, most preposterous plots I've seen in years. It ripped off the Jason Bourne series, National Treasure, and Die Hard. The acting was pretty good. Howard, however, is a schlock director.
Posted by: Thing | May 16, 2009 at 05:18 AM
Angels and Demons was one of my favorite books but i am not anxious to see the movie Tom Hanks upsets me. He is too old for the part. I understand Hanks needed a blockbuster but give me a break.
Posted by: Ellen | May 16, 2009 at 05:12 AM
It's attacks on the Church are more subtle than in the Da Vinci Code but they are equally offensive and sad.
Posted by: Joe Escalante | May 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Up front, I'll say that I've never really liked "Opie's" movies and I don't understand why he's billed as a top notch director. The only movie of his I genuinely enjoyed was Apollo 13 and I can't really explain it, it was just a feel good movie that I liked. After seeing The Da Vinci Code, I'm going to wait until Angels & Demons comes out of the theatre to see it. However I will say this to the poster below me, DC Cyclist...minus the two scenes at the beginning and the end in the cemetary with the family (which I admit was complete patriotic bull----), Saving Private Ryan was ridiculously amazing, and you're a fool if you don't think so.
Posted by: Craig | May 15, 2009 at 08:04 PM
So, Shaun B. One trick pony, huh? Are you taking about Little Ronnie Howard, THE Ron Howard? If you can call a guy who has been acting since he was 4 and has been a A lister since he was Opie Taylor when he was all of 6 a one trick pony. How many times does a person have to reincarnate their career before they qualify as a two trick pony? He has been reinventing himself since he was Winthrop in the Music Man, Opie Taylor, Steve in American Graffiti, RItchie Cunningham, etc. And then he has reinvented himself as a director and a producer. Grand Theft Auto - the movie that started the GTA craze - that was Ronnie Howard as actor and director. His directing credits reads like a best of list - Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind, Willow, Apollo 13, etc, etc, etc. And he also has written screenplays for some pretty hefty movies. He has way more tricks than one, my friend, way more than you have, obviously.
Posted by: JayPea | May 15, 2009 at 08:03 PM