Tom Hanks returns as Professor Langdon in this adaptation of the sequel of the bestselling “The Da Vinci Code.” Langdon is again the detective in this second religious-history whodunnit. And, of course, the mystery to be solved is tailored to him to a T. Otherwise, as the captain of the Swiss Guard so aptly puts it – “Great, now we’ve got the symbologist.” The story consists in Langdon driving through frightful traffic to four different churches in Rome in order to see which way the next angel statue is pointing. Well, let me revise that. The mystery consists in this city-wide game of “Can you remember that that angel statue we just saw was pointing East?” The story gives a reason for making frantic what would otherwise be a mildly entertaining tour of four obscure Roman churches. (Just a note – you can now indeed take the “Angels and Demons” tour of Rome, following the path of the Illuminati just like Langdon.) At each of these four churches, at every hour on the hour, a kidnapped cardinal is to be executed. This is why Langdon was called to the Vatican by a Church who doesn’t much like his previous work; these kidnappings and executions are supposed to be the retribution of the ancient order of the Illuminati, on whom Langdon is naturally an expert. The thriller moments are rather good. There are some gruesome deaths and some grand escapes that are quite cinematic and produce exactly the desire emotional effect. I don’t want to spoil any of them, because these are the bits that make the movie worth seeing, if you’re going to go. The mystery itself is a bit lackluster. Langdon conveniently thinks of more bits of trivia, or notices some statue or bas-relief or text, as predictably as the murders-on-the-hour he’s trying to prevent. He’s not so much making brilliant leaps of deduction as noticing and remembering. You expect him to think of everything he thinks of; unlike the great detectives, he never surprises. Makes you a bit disappointed in the Illuminati, really. As far as faith controversies go, this film is not nearly as scandalous as “The Da Vinci Code,” and while I’m sure many Catholics will faithfully boycott it, I feel the flames of righteous indignation have died down into the nice hot embers of the lifestyle choice of not seeing semi-anti-religious films. The film was actually trying to say that religion and science should get along, but I suppose that stance might be too forgiving for both religious and anti-religious fanatics. You want something to be enraged about? Not going to find it here. It’s got Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer, all smoothly competent, so I wouldn’t balk at seeing the film if you’re a fan of any of them. But as to why this movie was made? Just another sequel. Better than some movies out there, sure – the directing is fine, the visuals are fine, it’s reasonably exciting. But would it have been made without “The Da Vinci Code”? Of course not. Maybe if this series continues, it will eventually find itself. But this film suffers from “second film” syndrome, in that the characters don’t do all that much and the story seems like it should be more exciting than it is. Not really remarkable in any way, I’m pretty sure this movie will have passed on once you’re done reading this article. Which is now. -Sharon Campbell
