Open Thread: ‘Angels and Demons’

Will someone please remind Dan Brown and Ron Howard that all of the major European and American universities were started by the church and run by priests? Will someone also remind Brown and Howard that Galileo, Newton, Keppler, Copernicus, Brahe, Mendeleev and most of the great scientists were Christians and trained at these universities? Will someone also remind Dan Brown that the first observatories, chemistry labs and medical disections were done at these universities by priests, monks and Christians?

It makes me sick that just because we believe that life begins at conception, that humanity can't destroy the planet with SUV's and that we didn't come from monkeys that means we don't want progress. Christians believe that God created the world and He wants us to study it and learn about his laws.

I'm sick of science becoming a popularity contest in the media. I'm sick of Christians not learning about our history and being able to fight back intellectually. Thus, people are going to believe this garbage.

I find it odd that Hanks' big pal, opie, seems to be doing all he can in these films to make Hanks look, well, unappealing. What does that reveal about opie? Hanks is not classically handsome, sure. But opie must be jealous enough of him to deliberately play down what looks he does have.

Opie KNEW he was peeing down the leg of the Roman Catholic Church while working on his first attack flick. He had to film interiors and accumulate footage BEFORE the left filming the FIRST movie. What a liar and a fraud. Zero integrity, none, like his hair. I'll never pay to see a Opie or Hanks flick again.

Well, I saw it, and when I came out I immediately spat on a priest, slapped a nun, wiped my butt with a Bible and set fire to a Catholic church!! Such is the power of Hollywood! Bwah Hah HAAAHHH! Hail, Satan!!

No, actually, it's only a middling film. Its greatest crime? Making me want to go into hock and take an extended Italian trip. Rome looks AWESOME in this movie. But unless you want a travelogue, it's a 'meh' movie. Go see Trek again Or better yet, seek out the doc "Every Little Step," about the making of "A Chorus Line" and the recent Broadway revival.

Yeah, Rome did look awesome indeed. And I personally thought Hanks' ties were well-chosen, and the sound was first-rate. After that……..

Dan Brown tried to explain that "The DaVinci Code" was "just fiction", and shouldn't have been taken as an insult after he caught hell (so to speak) long before Howard/Hanks got their unoriginal hands on that one. It's become so fashionable to demonize the Catholic Church and by extension Christianity that one is left wondering when such purveyors of "truth" will finally get bored with the words coming out of their own mouths.

God knows I am.

Yeah- funny how they (Opie & Co.) know who they can safely attack, isn't it? That's why you no longer see terrorists portrayed as mid-easterners, like the chief villain in "True Lies." They're always white Americans (Live Free or Die Hard), or Germans (Sum of all Fears), or some other caucasian nationality. Truth is, Hollywood is deathly afraid of angering them and risking a Jihad. But Catholics are fair game, and Op'e knows he can get away with it.

Anyway, Clarity, you may not see it as such, but books and movies do constitute hate speech, and the hypocrisy of Lefties for not condemning them as such shows how ethichally and morally bankrupt people like you are.

You know, in the Grand Scheme of things, Dan Brown, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks won't amount to a hill of beans.

Doesn't mean we have to pay our hard earned money to spend 2+ hours out of our lives having these people poking their thumbs in our eyes.

If God is all powerful and all-knowing why would he need you to stand up for him and to determine what "hate speech" is? If he cared at all, couldn't he just stop the "hate speech" from occurring in the first place? Why would an all powerful god need you to stand up for him to begin with? As for ethics and morals, mine have developed quite well, thank you. I may think it's ridiculous, but I don't tell people that they're "ethichally" and morally bankrupt just because they worship another god (or don't worship at all). And I learned my ethics and morals without living in fear of an invisible man in the sky that makes sure I behave.

Howard is a gifted director and occasionally even they succumb to fits of utter stupidity. What I don't get is Tom Hanks playing Tom Hanks playing Robert Langdon. It's like watching Fred Travalena doing an impression of Fred Travalena doing an impression of Jim Nabors. Hanks doesn't try to distance himself to play the character.

I am a Christian, and I didn't really find anything offensive about the film. I thought it was a harmless action/conspiracy movie. I enjoyed it. I get that some people may have found the Da Vinci Code offensive, but this?

Congratulations on your accomplishments. I was referring those that came hundreds of years earlier that UVA and GW are patterned after.
I know the left loves to bring out the Galileo example when talking about the church halting scientific progress. Let me educate you on this. Galileo was supported by the Jesuits (Catholics); however, the church was divided on the issue due to scriptural interpretation. Galileo actually agreed with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine that he should postpone any teachings on heliocentricity until further evidence came out, because Galileo was a practicing Catholic. However, Galileo went ahead and published his theories (assuming the pope would back him), without the consent of the church. Moreover, his theories were correct, but his evidence was not. (circular orbits vs. eliptical orbits). Several clergy defended him during the Inquisition until it came out that he agreed with the Cardinal not to publish his work. So, blame the church for wanting to be cautious, but don't blame them for trying to stop progress. Galileo was a great scientist, but he was not right on everything. He was prosecuted for arrogance and poor judgement, not because he was a scientist.

I’m not an overly religious person. My wife and I will not see the movie for political reasons. So listen up kiddies aka. Hollywood, you’re messing your own bed. We used to go to a movie just because it was something to do, not any more. Maybe you liberals need to see the movies twice to subsidize your Hollywood buddies lifestyle? Boycott!

The Money Pit was a much better film for Tom and one more folks could relate to. No one is really into religion so much to go into all of these fantastic theories and speculation. One needs more faith to beleive in the Book of Brown, than even the Bible. Plus the thing is so boring. C'mon Ron what's the point? What a bomb!

I'm nine days away from landing in Rome for a two week completion of a class on Roman history. Yep, going into hock, and loving it!

Dang it professor, don't confuse the atheist lawyer with facts! He's burnishing his credentials and hoping for an Obama appointment. Besides he seems agreeable to a taking a stab at Islam, the new "in" religion for leftist in Europe and in Washington D.C. Obama hasn't "settled on a new D.C. area church"… say Xavier, does Obama hitting his knees and pointing his ass towards America five times a day interfer with his routine?

I suspect Hanks is constantly calculating his part of the box office as he goes about his craft in this flick. You can see little calculators in his pupils when the tighten up on a shot of his eyes.

Awesome, inmateprof! Well done, indeed.

I'm also a fellow Wahoo and we can remind everyone that our school was founded by non other than Thomas Jefferson. As to prayer being a "load of crap" I have had a different experience.

But to inmateprof's central contention that early universities were started by the Church, he is correct IMO. And there certainly has been a bias in Hollywood against Judeo-Christian principles . One would think they would have a movie (or 2) about radical Islam but I believe the threat of having one's head removed (or the fate of Theo van Gogh in Holland) has "stifled their creative energy" in that direction

If you can't follow the book strictly (i.e. keep the muslim bad guy), then what's the point of this whole movie? Once you exchange one key character for something "less" offensive then why not change everything to "less" offensive? I mean, why not make up a religion to go after? That one crucial change makes the whole movie look weak. I've got better things to spend my money on–like Start Trek!

It's called voting with your pocket book. Given the track record of Dan Brown and Ron Howard, why would I wish to subsidize them when I already know the outcome?