6 / 10
Today I went to see "Angels & Demons", but I weren't expecting too much. I absolutely loved "The Da Vinci Code", and it still is one of my top favourite films and to me, was much better than the book.
However, I never really liked "Angels & Demons" as much as "The Da Vinci Code" when I first read it two years ago - it felt like I was reading a book about "The Terminator". 
The film was just OK, it wasn't amazing or anything. I personally think "The Da Vinci Code" is a much better film: the characters were much more interesting and the plot was so intriguing and unique, whereas "Angels & Demons" is just ordinary. :neutral: I was upset about how the filmmakers changed the characters from the book and I feel they left out many important parts, which could've made the film much better than it is.
It never really felt like I was watching the sequel to "The Da Vinci Code", which is another negative thing about this film. Even though I read the book, I was still confused about certain parts of the film. The acting was good, but just average really: Ewan McGregor did well as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, although I still feel he was not the right choice for the part (I'm still a huge fan of his!) and Ayelet Zurer did fine as Vittoria Vetra. Tom Hanks is the perfect Robert Langdon, as always.
All in all, just an average film - still entertaining enough though! {thumb2} And it was refreshing to hear "The Da Vinci Code" actor Alfred Molina narrate the beginning of the film.
Quite entertaining film if you're bored. But I'd much rather just watch my "The Da Vinci Code" DVD tonight... 
Christian Bale and some others did a good job but there were some actors that didn't do such a good job, not even close.
