"Angel and Demons"

Welcome to the critics corner . arrrgh!

Well, I did my part to keep Tom Hanks and Dan Brown in bisquits by plunking down my $9.50 (plus $1.39 for the smuggled in Rasinettes, is that sin?)

Entertaining, yes. Interesting, yes. Profound, no.

Entertaining: the action sequeces and the "who dunit?" aspect of the movie were good. It keeps you on the edge of your seat while our hero (Tom) races through Rome trying to save four Cardianals AND try to prevent the destruction of Rome by way of a cataclimic (do critics have to know how to spell?) explosion.

Interesting: the underlying premise of the movie is the ages old struggle between science and the Catholic Church. I thought it was interesting because of our debates with the Progressives largely revolve around the primacy of religon over nature. Also, the sets and locations of the movie were FANTASTIC. The Vatican, the old churches of Rome, the statues, the vestments, it was stunning.

Profound: not in the least. Like the Davinchi Code, Dan Brown takes facts and conspiracy, puts them in a blender and pours them out as fact. I noticed in his book, The Davinchi Code, he would break from his story with a background on "factual history" that wasn't factual. The concern being that a reader unaquainted with history would be duped into believing these statements to be true.

It is one thing to entertain and another to deceive.

I would recommend seeing the movie based on the first two points. If you don't expect too much, you will be marginally satisfied with your investment of $9.50 plus whatever bootleg candy you smuggle in. I pretty sure it is only a venial sin. (out of five)

about how some "conservative Catholics" might be put off because the story suggests that the Church keeps a death squad for the assassination of scientists who challenge Catholic doctrine with their experiments.

My wife and I had a good chuckle about the idea of a Vatican hit team, about the idea that it would kill scientists of all people, and by the idea that you had to be conservative to think these ideas were irksome. (The assumption, I suppose, is that non-conservatives don't particularly care one way or the other about slander or historical accuracy, so long as the target of abuse is some supposedly conservative institution.)

It's a shame that Ron Howard has spent so much time with this junk, since he's typically a pretty great filmmaker.

I wouldn't want to give my money to help support Dan Brown, but I apprecaited your comments.

My candy of choice is nopareils.

[quote="VicarJoe"]about how some "conservative Catholics" might be put off because the story suggests that the Church keeps a death squad for the assassination of scientists who challenge Catholic doctrine with their experiments.

quote]

The moive did not suggest that.

It did recount the days of Gallileo, when the Church pursecuted scientists.

I can't say anymore without giving the who dunit.

Stihl

AustenFan wrote:

My candy of choice is nopareils.

Are those the choclates with the white sprikles? inquiring minds want to know.

Apparently, Howard turned the anti-Catholicism down a few dozen notches.

Marion, you and I would be fighting over the box in the theatre. LOL Yes Stihl, you have it correct, dark chocolate with white sprinkles. Oh, on a side note the new Star Trek movie is great and my 20 year old daughter concurrs. The actor who plays young Spock almost steals the show.

Dark chocolate, little white sprinkles.

I'd prefer to go to "Star Trek", but I think about going to movies, and by the time I actually intend to go they've.

VicarJoe wrote:Apparently, Howard turned the anti-Catholicism down a few dozen notches.

Sorry Joe, I didn't read the book, sorry to mis-speak (spoke).

Oh don't worry, Howard and Hanks managed to get pleanty of snarkiness into the movie just not the vast RC conspriracy.

An di think the sin is the price gouging at the candy counter. But maybe I'm rationlizing.

I read an article somewhere about the wacky historical timeline in the story--how people are moved to new centuries for hte convenience of the story, etc.. Perhaps Brown's real service to us is that he causes people to write articles correcting his wacky history, so we all learn something new.