Clearly there are far more demons than angels among the ranks of critics reviewing Ron Howard's Angels & Demons , the sequel to his The Da Vinci Code (which most of them also condemned). Claudia Puig in USA Today comments that the dialogue in the movie "reeks of cliché." Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun describes it as "glib and hollow." And John Anderson in the Washington Post says that the whole plot "is such a slab of cheese it ought to come with a box of crackers." Damning it with faint praise, A.O. Scott in the New York Times writes, "This movie, without being particularly good, is nonetheless far less hysterical than Da Vinci . ... Mr. Howard's direction combines the visual charm of mass-produced postcards with the mental stimulation of an easy Monday crossword puzzle. It could be worse." Similarly Liam Lacey says in the Toronto Globe & Mail " Angels & Demons is no less preposterous than The Da Vinci Code , but it's a serviceable summer action movie." But Tom Maurstad remarks in the Dallas Morning News "Saying that Angels & Demons is a lot better than its predecessor, The Da Vinci Code , is like saying that this swine flu outbreak isn't nearly as bad as the last. It is better, but that still doesn't necessarily make it good." And Wesley Morris comments in the Boston Globe "Asking whether the new movie is better than the first is natural if moot. Would you prefer to drown in a swimming pool or an ocean?" On the other hand Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times awards the film three stars and remarks that the movie unspools "at breakneck speed, with little subtlety, but with fabulous production values." And Kyle Smith concludes in the New York Post " Angels & Demons has some exciting sequences, a spectacular ending with a terrific twist and a grounding in the debate about science versus religion that could hardly be more timely. It's got enough going on to sustain five blockbuster thrillers. That is its blessing and its curse."