Dan Brown stories are endlessly enticing, from page to film – but the way these stories translate for the silver screen are always an interesting one. I’ve held the notion that Dan Brown books are unfilmable – at least if you want to capture the essence of what makes the books so great. The Da Vinci Code, specifically, was an interesting movie – but ultimately a mess when it tried to explain things…between that and Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code was the book I favored. On the other hand, this is the movie I personally prefer

When it comes to the two films, Angels & Demons is more cohesive and works better on film than the other, even if I prefer the first movie’s story more. Both stories are compelling, but one tries to persuade you of a certain idea – while this one doesn’t. Instead what you have here is a story that you can comprehend and get behind. It still introduces exciting questions regarding secrets and faith…just not secrets that change the way the entire world operates.

I like to balance these films on a notion between entertainment and importance. The Da Vinci Code had a pretty good balance between the two – but they go over the top trying to explain everything to you. Angels & Demons is just more entertaining, period. I think more people will enjoy this as a film because it doesn’t demand that you trust its neverending crazy conspiracy theories. You can watch this like any other film. You’ll just be interested in the Vatican archives and maybe the large hydron collider. In the end, as weird as this may seem, the first movie is probably more memorable because it’s insane.

Regardless on how good or bad this movie is, or even the predecessor – both films are obviously based off books, and books that you should read…because even though they follow the basic plot – you’re missing a lot of very interesting details that stick with you for years. I’ve read all the books, and I’m still upset over the fact that they aren’t apparently planning to make the third book in the series – The Lost Symbol – a movie…because that was basically my favorite book. But hey, who knows? They are coming out with a 5th book next year, and you know I’ll be all over that.

Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, dedicated cryptologist and all-around smartest guy in the room, just in time to save Catholicism from conspiracy and MacGuffin alike.

The film moves at a rapid pace, and excels at white-knuckled, buzzer-beating thrills, but it's got problems. Not the least of which is Langdon himself, who spouts like a broken nozzle atop the fountain of knowledge for the duration. OK, we get it, he's exceptionally smart and this is what he does best, but his act quickly grows redundant and tiresome. Not only does he know all the answers almost as soon as the riddle presents itself, robbing the audience of the joy of working anything out for themselves, he's also immediately ready to fire off a lengthy dissertation about the relevant historical figures, masterpieces and religious movements while muscling about various set pieces.

That evil becomes necessary when the film quickly paints itself into a corner, setting a merciless time limit on each puzzle that pushes suspension of disbelief right out the window. Now, not only are we unraveling mysteries older than recorded time in less than sixty minutes, but we're also visiting libraries, slicing through political red tape and effortlessly navigating the whole of Vatican City, swamped by humanity in the midst of a papal election.

Despite all that, I still held the film in good graces until the calamitous final act, which is capped by exploding helicopters, ludicrous swerves and a parachutin' pilot priest. More generic than The Da Vinci Code, it places a much heavier emphasis on nail-biting than convention-challenging, which is a shame because that's precisely the trait that set the original apart. Not quite disastrous, but dangerously close.

Faith is a gift I have yet to receive.

Angels and Demons is directed by Ron Howard and adapted to screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman from the Dan Brown novel of the same name. It stars Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard, Pierfrancesco Favino, Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Armin Mueller- Stahl. Music is scored by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.

Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is summoned to Rome and asked by the Vatican to help when four cardinals are kidnapped. Upon examining a tape recording that announces that the cardinals will be killed one at a time hourly, Langdon places the crime at the door of the ancient Illuminati. It's a race against time to not only try and save the lives of the cardinals, but also to avert the detonation of an anti-matter bomb which will destroy Vatican City.

In spite of The Da Vinci Code making gargantuan amounts of cash, there were many who actively hated the movie. Yet this follow up from Howard and his makers still enticed just under $500 million's worth of worldwide paying punters into see it. Ultimately it's a very different movie to Da Vinci, where that film was sombre and talky, and had a great religious hook that caused tremors in Christianity, Angels and Demons is a pacey race against time serial killer thriller. Albeit one that is still religion based and additionally topped up with some sci-fi gubbins.

The ticking time bomb format works well as a cliff hanger and the narrative allows Langdon and his latest lady investigator, CERN scientist Vittoria Vettra (Zurer), scope for no-nonsense detective work. There's a good solid mystery story at the heart, one which doesn't veer to being over complicated, and the production value is of a very high standard. Casting is first class, with McGregor and Skarsgard complimenting the reliable, and thankfully new haircut sporting, Hanks. It's a little draggy in the mid-section, as history comes crashing into the mix and the makers feel the need to be cerebral, and the finale is bizarre if wholly appropriate, but herein lies the problem…

If you can judge it on its own terms, not as a Dan Brown novel recreation and a link to bad memories of Da Vinci Code (not me, I liked it well enough actually)? Then it's a film of simple pleasures. If not then it kind of goes without saying that you probably already dislike the movie! 7.5/10