Still a very strange and incomprehensible fashion thing. For example, several years ago, after the resounding commercial success of the book "The Da Vinci Code", it was very fashionable to admire Dan Brown praised his research and writing skills and perhaps raising it to the rank of "guru, who opened our eyes to the truth and the truth." But then, when the book read not only housewives, glamorous lady with the ruble, and low-level office workers, but also people who know a little bit raised in a novel subject, immediately there is a new fashion - mercilessly (while fairly) criticized Brown water First, for elementary distortion of historical facts and religious teachings, and secondly, with the secondary of the idea of ​​the book (ie, borrowing from the less successful "writers").

After the book became a curse, and the eponymous film. And a new adaptation of another creative works of Dan Brown's novel "Angels and Demons", began to criticize how much in vain before the release of the film.

And, as it turned out, in vain. No, as a literary framework still leaves much to be desired for many, many, Dan Brown in his repertoire. His novels are built on the same pattern, making sure that one or two works, we can anticipate in the next as will turn storyline and who in the end will be the most villainous villain, the most rascal scoundrel, the meanest scoundrel and stuff like that. Again, Brown or reverses the known facts upside down, or invent new "facts" - say, a society of the Illuminati "created" them back in the Middle Ages, while the real Illuminati emerged only in the second half of the XVIII century. Or, for example, an obvious gaffe with the status of Chamberlain, the secretary of the Pope: the film is a simple priest from Ireland, whereas in reality this position can only occupy the Cardinals.

But if we ignore all this pseudo, psevdomisticheskuyu, pseudoscientific husk, then the film "Angels and Demons" leaves a very good impression. You can count a lot of advantages:

- One of the best track record in Hollywood Ewan McGregor role (here we do not take into account his psychological images in the early British paintings). It is suitable for the Scottish actor's image of restrained emotions, but energetic and active man. In addition, the purely professional, actor's respect McGregor never be false, never beat;

- Really interesting detective idea that ancient secret anti-religious society of the Illuminati took advantage of a) the death of the Pope; b) give the scientists of antimatter in order to try to destroy the Catholic Church and for all establish the rule of the "dry" science;

- Skilfully spun director Ron Howard affair - for those who have not read the book "Angels and Demons" and who are not familiar with the works of Dan Brown's enough to understand the general scheme of his novels, to the end will be saved secrecy and isolation will unexpected;

- Very precise, very professionally supported throughout the films paced real thriller when the viewer simply does not have time to escape, because just had one exciting scene, but here is the characters make a surprising discovery, and a minute later committed horrible and mysterious crime, and so on , and so on.

Of course, missing and disadvantages. In addition to the global (weak literary source) can be called surprising dullness and vagueness of the main female character, and tired of Tom Hanks, who was frankly not interested to engage in net earnings of money, and it strictly on the highest acting technique, but without inspiration, played his part a specialist in symbolism Robert Langdon. All of this is really enough. But you know, when you do not expect anything good from the film, and there is a good present fairly pretty, surprised and delighted to the point that you do not want to notice the negative aspects.

  Alexander Babitsky