I did. But then, I'm a nut for fast moving action that takes place in Europe. For some reason, Europe in the movies is usually a lot more interesting than the States. So when the New Yorker came with a review by David Denby, I was curious to know how he'd pan the movie. Not bad, overall.
You can always count on an intelligent review in the New Yorker although a lot of times I'd prefer either a thumbs up or down. . . and that would handle the matter. I read Dan Brown's "Angels" (the book) several years ago, right after "Da Vinci Code," which I thought was a hoot. Better and faster than Ludlum, but not as well written or developed as John le Carre's stuff. The filmed Da Vinci Code was a bore, but "Angels" was great fun, almost a nail-biter. Just consider it "escape time."
Back to David Denby. I was curious to know whether the Vatican actually let Angels be filmed in their archives, and Denby knew the answer. Nope...the Vatican archives were rebuilt in a Hollywood studio, and the Churched, miffed by "The Da Vinci Code" refused Ron Howard access to the Vatican for Angels and Demons. So. . . get this. . . Howard recreated St. Peter's Square in the parking lot of the Hollywood Park racetrack. There's something ironic about that.
Denby did himself good in his review:
Apart from conspiracy theories, who really believes in hokum like Dan Brown's? Gullibility and pockets of anti-Catholic feeling are too simple as explanations for the worldwide appeal . . Something more complicated is going on in which, precisely, not believing--the enjoyment of humbug, the crazier the better--is part of the turn-on. If these movies made any dmaned sense, the public response might be no more than a yawn.
I don't know about you, but sometimes plain old hokum can be a damn lot of fun.