Angels & Demons (2009)

First of all, this movie was much, much better than The Da Vinci Code.

[Plus, Tom Hanks looks much, MUCH better. Thank goodness!]

I say that because I feel that Angels and Demons was a far more superior book than The Da Vinci Code. Although the latter is very interesting and touches on a much more controversial subject than the former, Angels and Demons has people dying by the hour. You can't beat carnage in a book.

[Agatha Christie's Death Comes As The End, has people dying every two-three chapters. It remains one of my favourite books.]

Plot-wise, they made a lot of changes to the beginning, which I can accept, because it'd be VERY formulaic if they kept the book's, as in Guy Gets Mutilated -> Langdon Gets Called In -> Guy's Adopted Daughter Wants Revenge -> Seemingly Evil Character Who Is Actually Good.

Here's what I liked about the movie:

• Ewan McGregor. I loved the Camerlengo in the book, and I thought that Ewan McGregor would be spot-on, which he was. 'Cept he wasn't Italian in this one.
  

[They tend to give REALLY pivotal roles to much more established actors, and that usually gives away the game for me.
Fr'instance, Lauren Bacall in Appointment with Death. When a famous person plays a character that doesn't even show up for a quarter of the movie, you KNOW she's just that relevant.]

[Because it's friggin' Lauren Bacall.]

• The Assassin. They probably didn't go into that whole Illuminati business with the guy due to time constraints, but I actually liked the guy. He didn't take pleasure in killing the Cardinals; he just did it 'cuz he was getting paid. He doesn't like prolonging death. I was a bit pissed at first, because I was looking forward to the sadistic bastard in the book.

[Plus, he was cu with a really nice pair of spats.]

• PAOLO FROM FRIENDS!! Even though he died.
  
• Anti-matter-go-boom part. Looked way cool.
  
• Ewan McGregor. Excellent casting. Love the guy.
  

Secondly, though I've come to terms that the word 'adaptation' means 'creative liberty with source material', I'm still gonna nitpick:

• No Maximilian Kohler. I thought the misdirection in the movie seemed forced, since EVERY OTHER SCENE with Cardinal Strauss made him look power-hungry and possibly-evil. The different-named Cardinal in the book (only one prominent Cardinal) was a very decent and nice person. Obligatory misdirection aside, if they'd followed the book, then they wouldn't have to keep the fourth Cardinal alive.
  

[Plus, how many times is Armin Muehller-Stahl going to be THE morally-questionable character of a story?]

• In the beginning, why was there blood on the rest-thingy on the outer door if the dead guy and his eyeball was inside the entire time? Yes, the murderer would need his eye to bypass the security system to get to the anti-matter, but there was no mention of another dead man with a missing eyeball, so there shouldn't be any blood on that chin-rest which was on the outside of the lab.
  
• They totally changed the character of the guy who died at the beginning. This makes Vittoria's presence moot. She didn't have much of a point in the movie, except to look pretty and run around with Tom Hanks change the battery of the anti-matter canister. In the book, the man in the beginning was her father. That's why she was along for the trip.
  
• Was looking towards the "WTBloodyF" moment of the book, but it wasn't in the movie. Which brings me to this: Why "Patrick McKenna"? Why not keep "Carlo Ventresca"? Don't tell me Ewan McGregor can't do an Italian accent.

[They also changed the names of every other character that is not Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Like, why, man?]
[The Camerlengo is Irish. Isn't McKenna a Scottish name?]

• Where is the Illuminati Diamond? Oh noes, Carmen Sandiego stole it!
• The ending. The one in the book had more of an impact, and explains the Camerlengo's actions in much more detail. You'd actually feel sorry for the guy, and his final act literally IS a "Father, forgive me" kinda thing, rather than, "Oh, I've failed, quick way out, please." I loved how the book portrays him as a very sympathetic character, one who strongly believed that he could make a difference, unlike in the movie, where he just seems old-fashioned. They probably could've taken a minute or so out of the water-rescuing scene and devoted it for this.
  

[Dan Brown has a knack for creating very likeable characters, before revealing them to be true villains of the piece. I hate him for that.]

All in all, good movie. Can't match the book, of course, but not as far off as The Da Vinci Code.
Really missed the guy in the wheelchair.