I wasn't a very big fan of The DaVinci Code as a movie (I haven't read the Dan Brown novels). I was actually somewhat intrigued by the religious hook at he heart of the film, but as a mystery, The DaVanci Code felt tepid and flat. In addition, it was overly long resulting in a film that was more dull than anything else. Angels and Demons, which reunites director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks, is every bit as boring as it's predecessor, but it also happens to be funnier. An amazing feat taking into consideration that Hanks' much talked about mullet is nowhere to be found in this picture. In the end, Angels and Demons is considerably shorter than The DaVinci Code and that should count for something.

In Angels and Demons, symbologist/academic Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) sets out to stop to a series of Cardinal assassinations he believes are either being committed by an ancient, underground sect known as the Illuminati, or an elaborate copycat group.

Angels and Demons sort of plays like a Tom Clancy adventure only with a religious slant and far fewer thrills. Robert Langdon is Dan Brown's Jack Ryan, an analyst who, for whatever reason, always finds himself plunged into action when he'd much rather be sitting behind a desk somewhere.

With its slow pace, exposition heavy dialogue, and bordering on silly anti matter sub plot, Angels and Demons manages to move at a quicker clip than The DaVinci Code, but it still suffers from all of it's predecessor's inner flaws. The mystery aspect of the film is a complete bust. I challenge audiences to not figure out who the chief architect of villainy is inside the first twenty minutes of this movie.

While Angels and Demons is positively gorgeous to look at, the film–as adapted by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman-- never offers up any real sense of danger. At least, not where Langdon's life is concerned. The fact that the assassin carrying out the Illuminati's dastardly deeds has absolutely no menacing qualities whatsoever, doesn't help matters. Neither does the laughable climax which includes, among other things, a ridiculous parachute sequence and a massive, obligatory explosion. Having said all of this, I actually liked the very end of the movie. The scene in which a Pope successor is named is both subtle and moving.

Everything that should have provided a provocative punch in Angels and Demons, namely the age old debate between science and religion, feels like an after thought. Even Robert Zemeckis' Contact managed to explore these themes with far more insight.

The performances don't do much to elevate the material. Tom Hanks is out of his element here. He's proven time and time again to be one of our most dependable actors but he's completely miscast as Langdon. His natural, affable persona never shines through the bland and all too serious Langdon. Lovely co-star Ayelet Zurer is saddled with a completely thankless role. Her appearance as Dr. Vittoria Vetra feels wholly unnecessary. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of casting is the blatant absence of Clint Howard. Hell, Ron put his dad in the picture. Certainly he could have found room for his brother.

A final caution. Angels and Demons does push the PG-13 rating. Most likely, it wont offend or push buttons in the same way The DaVinci Code did, but it's far more violent. Be prepared for death by fire, eyeballs gouged from sockets, drowings, and human brandings. I've never been a big supporter of the MPAA, but if this stuff doesn't warrant an R rating, than I don't know what does.

If you want a lush, cinematic tour of the Vatican and if you're into heavy exposition, than you're probably going to enjoy Angels and Demons. If you're a fan of unpredictable thrillers and suspense yarns that don't feel compelled to spell everything out for you, than you'll probably be bored. I for one thought Angels and Demons was a disappointment, particularly after taking into consideration that Ron Howard's last film was the criminally underrated Frost/Nixon. Here's to hoping that Howard passes on Dan Brown's next book.