While it was a long way from perfect, or even great, 'The Da Vinci Code' was better than expected, considering its less than great reputation.

Despite being a box office success, 'Angels and Demons' received mixed to negative reviews, and it's not hard to see why. As an adaptation of the book, which also had some imperfections but was an engrossing and intriguing read, 'Angels and Demons' is extremely poor, with much being cut out or dumbed down, giving the film an over-simplified and over-complicated feel. On its own terms, it's just as problematic and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, inferior to 'The Da Vinci Code', sharing some of the same flaws but amplified while making more on the way.

'Angels and Demons' to its credit is a great-looking film, being beautifully shot with breath-taking locations that could have been utilised more. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting and accentuates the thriller mood of the film. Tom Hanks gives his role an easy-going charm, while Ewan McGregor has an earnestness while also trying very hard to give his character plausibility (though the character has too much of the opposite for him to properly succeed).

Stellan Skarsgård is similarly strong, as are Victor Alferi and a chilling Nikolaj Lie Kaas.

On the other hand, Ayelet Zurer is a charmless and bland substitute for Audrey Tautou, with little to do and giving her worthless dialogue far too much weight. Then there is Armin Mueller-Stahl's very over-acted villain and Pierfrancesco Favino who spends the whole of his screen time looking hopelessly lost.

The cast are not helped by their (interesting) characters being reduced to mostly simplistic caricatures, and even those not quite as badly affected are underdeveloped. Nor with a truly corny and clunky script, muddled direction by Ron Howard and a story that feels convoluted, to the point of incomprehensibility in places, and childish with plot twists too obvious.

People have said that 'Angels and Demons' had brisker pacing than 'The Da Vinci Code'. Personally, it was partly yes (it is in a way) but largely no. To me the pacing was all over the place, with so many convolutions and parts that feel jumpy it did feel rushed, while the middle act especially lacked urgency and instead dragged like mad.

Overall, not without dishonour, and with enough to prevent it from being completely demonic, but very lacklustre and disappointing, with it also falling far short of being angelic. 4/10 Bethany Cox

It's now been three years since Tom Hanks as Dr. Robert Langdon solved the mystery of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that Audrey Tautou from The DaVinci Code is their descendant. You wouldn't think that for one minute the Catholic Church would call on this guy in a crisis. But that's what The DaVinci Code sequel Angels & Demons would have us believe. After all this guy basically ripped apart the linchpin of the Christian faith.

But now four cardinals have been captured on the eve on the conclave to elect a new pope and with some jurisdictional disputes raging, some in the Vatican have called in Tom Hanks. The culprit is that notorious secret society the Illuminati and not only have they captured four of the cardinals and are threatening to kill them, but are threatening to blow up the Vatican itself with an anti-matter device. The anti-matter was stolen from the supercollider in Geneva which brings scientist Ayelet Zurer into the picture as well.

So with Hanks trying to decipher codes from the Vatican archives in much the same way Nicholas Cage was working in National Treasure and Zurer around to see the bomb doesn't go off, it's a race against time to save the Vatican and its cardinals.

Director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks did a great job with The DaVinci Code, but in the sequel they came up way short. Church politics can get good and nasty sometimes, but this one was way too much for my taste.

Better this sequel just not have been made.

Is anyone else increasingly tired of Ewan McGregor's trite mannerisms and being stuck with his own brand of non-acting in film after film? Unfortunately, he's a major presence in ANGELS & DEMONS, Ron Howard's follow-up to his DA VINCI CODE. Tom Hanks returns as Professor Robert Langdon, and this is based on another Dan Brown novel.

The good news is that it's better than the awful DA VINCI CODE, but then it couldn't exactly be worse. ANGELS & DEMONS has pace in the first hour and style in places, and some interesting snippets of historical information thrown into the mix, although it's still saddled with the same problems as its predecessor; namely, that the clever-clever plot which tries to be so intricate all the way through actually turns out to be incredibly simplistic and naive come the end. It's also incredibly overlong, and dull in places.

It's admirably vicious for a family film, with all manner of nasty deaths that in some ways recall the SAW franchise, a clear inspiration here. Tom Hanks is also better, more relaxed and at the same time more believable in his role. However, the shonky script wastes the talents of the likes of Stellan Skarsgard and the other cast members like Armin Mueller-Stahl, and it gets increasingly ludicrous as it goes on, reaching a nadir with the ridiculously cheesy effects of the helicopter finale. As a result, I can't really say I'm looking forward to the next in the series...