Too much talk stalls 'Demons'

When sound came to the movies in the late 1920s, the formerly silent medium adopted the nickname "talkies." And in the 21st century, movies, naturally, remain talkies.

But some are just too darn talky. (They're supposed to be motion PICTURES!)

The latest yak-fest is last week's No. 1 box-office hit, "Angels & Demons," director Ron Howard's sequel to "The Da Vinci Code." (And before someone posts a comment, that's not a mistake. Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons" book came before "The Da Vinci Code," but the "Angels & Demons" movie is very much a sequel.)

As with its predecessor, "Angels & Demons" requires symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks reprising the role) to spend a lot of time explaining complex plot points to a female companion (last time, it was Audrey Tautou; this time, it's Ayelet Zurer).

This isn't meant to be sexist. Rather, it's a movie device to allow Langdon to explain things to the audience. But movie shorthand seems to have escaped Howard and friends in these movies; everything is in movie longhand.

Having Hanks yammer so much while on the go reminded me of that tried-and-true movie cliche where conversations between two people always seem to take place while they're walking down a busy corridor.

It's most noticeable on TV series, all those legal and medical shows where nearly every episode has characters exchanging information as they hurry down hallways — as if the director is afraid to show someone sitting while having a conversation for fear it will drive viewers to the remote.

"Angels & Demons" requires Hanks and Zurer to race across marble floors between Vatican buildings, take note of various statuary that conveniently point the way — and to hurry up and down cloistered, winding stairwells (with no mention of Landon's claustrophobia, a key issue in the first film) — as Hanks explains stuff all along the way.

It's a wonder they don't trip up a stair-step or bump into a pillar.

On the other hand, I was grateful that Howard eschewed the popular shaky-cam technique that subverts too many movies these days. Instead, he has co-opted the Brian De Palma spinning camera — and uses it to the point of distraction.

De Palma became famous for this circling device, which he has used in many films ("Obsession," "Dressed to Kill," "Blow Out," etc.), having the camera go into a 360-degree spin around a pair of actors in a clinch or around a room being surveyed by someone.

Howard uses it in 360-degree spins but also 180-degree spins, mostly in scenes where characters are just standing and talking. Hey, it's as good a way as any to give the illusion of action.

But he uses it so much that De Palma should get residuals.

There are reasons for such camera tricks, of course. They are important filmmaking tools that help build a scene's emotion, enhancing the romance or excitement or humor or whatever.

But when any of these tools are overused — whether it's intrusive music, lingering scenic views, an overly obnoxious character, etc. — it becomes obvious and distracting, taking the audience out of the moment.

Of course, this is a movie where implausibility reaches new heights.

"Angels & Demons" in general requires more than a mere suspension of disbelief. Even with all of Hanks' explanations, "Star Trek" makes more sense.

E-MAIL: hicks@desnews.com