Angels and Demons (Dir: Ron Howard)

Howard's latest excursion into Dan Brown inspired Catholi-ploitation is ludicrous, but will not bore you to tears like it's predecessor "The Da Vinci Code", one of the worst films of the decade. I did not read "Code", but while watching the film I was amazed that it was a work that was shaking people's lifelong faiths to the core. It was beyond implausible and stillborn. Its worst sin was not casting doubts on the chastity of Christ, but being unforgivably boring. The film made the mistake of attempting to be both reverent and subversive and failing on both counts. How could a story so ridiculous subvert anyone's faith, and why did such a pulpy, off-the-wall thriller attempt reverence? The movie needed to be zippy in order to distract from its storytelling flaws. Instead it was a slog filled with bad history and stock characters. Brevity is the soul of pulp.

"Angels and Demons" mostly lives by the above maxim--and is far better for it--though it flags in it's waning moments when it steps back to reveal the weight and breadth of the conspiracy at its center. We can't be asked to take any of this seriously, but director Howard pleads with us to try. The story finds Ivy league Symbology--not a real discipline--professor Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) safely back in the classroom after discovering the Holy Grail. (Spoiler: It's Audrey Tatou's reproductive system.) The discovery didn't make him any friends in the Vatican, but they realized he was a formidable opponent. When the Vatican comes under attack from the ancient science loving Illuminati, Langdon is called back into the fray.

When he gets to Rome he sets off on an implausible quest throughout the city that you realize, when the movie pauses to catch a breath, is utterly ludicrous. It's the kind of quest the Riddler set up for Batman where you realize the criminal would be more successful if he stopped leaving clues. But without the clues, there's no movie and no work for adventure loving symbol-nut Langdon. Four men are kidnapped and Langdon must follow an ancient trail that points to each man's whereabouts before they are killed one by one. But really wouldn't the whole endeavor been just as successful if the men had been offed in a secret location not revealed by tell tale statues? The Riddler is insane and needs the game, but the bad guys in this movie are simply craven. Why not more efficiency?

But the film zips along so if you must watch it, you'll be diverted. Its gustatory equivalent would be the eating of a marshmallow. Empty calories, not much taste, but it goes down easy enough.