Angles and Demons, Science or Religion? the Novel or the Movie?

It turns out to be a common comment (even a criticism) addressed toward the novel-adapted movie, which is that movie can't beat the novel. Well, I certainly have to get the same idea about giving such comment particularly about Angels and Demons. There are at least two things I consider as the fact which make the movie less interesting than its novel.

To start the idea, I begin to mention about the story. I can really say that the story is rather different between the two versions. Okay, fine! It leads to the same ending but still there’s certain part that felt like different, maybe “not matched” is the exact point. I mean the sense of having the story of the novel version and the movie one. I am not sure what this deviant part is all about, but this really bugged me when I watched the movie.

Then, the idea comes about having different realization of imagination between the readers and the movie creator. I practically have different imaginary figures of Vittoria Vetra and Robert Langdon (whom I consider will be suitably played by Pierce Brosnan rather than by Tom Hanks, well, no offense, that’s what I think), of different experience of having every suspense described, every action and intimacy of Langdon and Vetra have, and the detail of time and place as well. Maybe the point is that they found it hard to visualize the detail of what happen in those hundreds pages of story into less than two hours movie duration, thus they have to change or even reduce some parts of the detail which I consider as the completing touch of making this story stronger and more remarkable. And maybe that’s the reason why most of the novel-adapted movies fail to win its readers’ hearts.
.
Yet, after all I give three out of five for the movie for appreciating its explosion visualization of the antimatter, and four for the novel which keep making me turn the pages and guess where the story will end up till the very end of the book.