Angels & Demons (2009)

The critic finds the sequel more thrilling and briskly paced than its predecessor, with a warm-hearted finish. They praise the simplified story and the spectacular reconstructions of Baroque Rome.

The page could not be read, so its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. The available text contains only a browser-check message.

The review's verdict cannot be determined from the accessible page. No praised or criticized element is visible.

The page did not provide the review text, so its verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint can be verified from the accessible content.

The critic finds the sequel a kinetic but mechanical improvement on its predecessor, though it remains overstuffed and pompous. Hans Zimmer’s dynamic score and the busy set-pieces are singled out for praise.

Robinson finds the film an exhausting, overlong thriller whose clue-solving and implausible leaps of logic undermine its pace. She praises the sumptuous production design, cinematography, and beauty of Rome, but says they become oppressive over the film’s length.

Robinson calls the film disappointing. The review criticizes the adaptation for failing to match the original novel’s murder, betrayal and religious conspiracies.

Mackie finds the film overblown and weighed down by exposition, though he enjoys its denouement. He singles out the big twist as a payoff after the lengthy explanations.

The 2/5 rating signals a negative verdict, and the description frames the film as relying on faith that it will repeat the first film’s commercial success. The available text singles out that box-office expectation, rather than a creative strength, as the guiding principle.

McCarthy finds the film more energetic and less aggravating than its predecessor, but says its contrived plotting and rushed timeline hold it back. He praises the visually spectacular climax and the convincing Roman atmosphere.

Newman finds the film more entertaining than The Da Vinci Code, but ultimately still tosh. He faults the implausible supporting characters and Ron Howard’s plodding direction despite the more urgent pace.

Sharkey finds the film an overstuffed action thriller that fails to give its ideas meaningful direction. She praises its visual design and breakneck pace, while criticizing its dialogue and reverence for Dan Brown’s hackneyed vision.

Denby finds the film hollow, exploitative conspiracy-minded entertainment rather than a meaningful inquiry into religion. He singles out its relish for religious ritual turned into a creep show of sadism and self-mutilation.

The critic finds the film noisy, overplotted and short on the guilty pleasures that made its predecessor entertaining. Ewan McGregor’s portrayal of the pope’s secretary is singled out as a welcome display of genuine acting.

Schager pans the film as a dull, geriatric adventure that substitutes the appearance of action for excitement. He particularly criticizes how its elaborate historical puzzles are rushed through and reduced to afterthoughts.

Davis calls it a decent, more exciting thriller than The Da Vinci Code, though it does not turn its ideas into genuine suspense. He praises the film’s sustained science-versus-religion theme and its playful plot twists, while criticizing its heavy-handed symbolism and thin characterization.

Picerno finds the film an enjoyable, tightly paced thriller, though its crowded plot leaves the characters underdeveloped. She singles out Rome’s striking visuals and production design as the film’s real strength.

Kermode finds the film effective as light entertainment but criticizes its implausible science and predictable plot. She praises the smooth direction and engaging performances, especially those of Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor.

Nicholls gives the film a harshly negative verdict, finding it formulaic and lacking a point of view. He singles out the screenplay for prioritizing plot over character, theme and engaging dialogue.