‘Angels and Demons’: A Tale of Two Critics
by John Nolte
If the world could be rendered as simple as “Angels & Demons,” we’d all be living in a less confusing place. Taking to heart the critics’ lament that the first Dan Brown novel-to-film “The Da Vinci Code” was talky, static and arcane, director Ron Howard and his crew have worked hard to make Professor Robert Langdon’s return a thrilling, faster-paced walk in the park.
I’m not going to review “Angels & Demons.” Sometimes the idea of tearing a film apart just doesn’t quite appeal to me, believe it or not. But watching the expected unfold on the Sony lot last night, it suddenly occurred to me that Dan Brown’s bloated if intriguingly researched fiction has no place on the big screen. It might, in fact, be better suited to television.
I haven’t watched scripted television since “The Sopranos” ended and “Law and Order” took a rocketship to the planet HateBush, but people I trust tell me the writing’s better than ever, so maybe Tapley’s offering a compliment?
Or not.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
30 Comments
Ron Howard took a fairly exciting book and, with the help of Tom Hanks, turned it into a snoozer. I'm reserving judgment on "Angels and Demons".
Yeah, I actually enjoyed reading Angels & Demons. I found it more entertaining than the Davinci Code. If this movie is indeed a snooze-fest, I wouldn't be that surprised. Most movie projects from books suck. Only half-way decent adaptation was Lord of the Rings trilogy.
After seeing the trailer, I came up with a better title. 'Agnostics and Dummies' Sorta fits as Hanks spends his time looking clueless and in denial.
When I see these trailers I think Ron Howard and sadly, Tom Hanks have a lot of self loathing they are working out. I don't know why either.
Maybe it's just because I'm an English teacher… But I hated both of these books with a passion. Dan Brown has no love for the language whatsoever. An all right storyteller, sure – but a godawful writer.
What is his preoccupation with the Church? Or do you think he's just collecting some quick cash in between making better movies? Could he really be so stupid as to have a beef against a church that he's never been part of? I don't get it.
Tom Hanks stinks anymore. He is an actor turned actor and it is a strain to watch him imitate instead of create. His last satisfying performance went is not just "Castaway"…
R.I.P Wilsoooonnnnnn…..
To my Catholic friends: Take it from this Lutheran–Angels and Demons is going to do about as much damage to the Catholic Church as a mouse could do to the USS Ronald Reagan. I intend to see it when it comes out on DVD. I love high camp and unintentionally hilarious wannabe drama. Brown, Hanks and Opie will provide both in abundance.
Brown needed no help in boring readers with his circular nonsense. But it was nice of Opie and Hanks to help him out. Next up: Satan is revealed to be Eve's first husband. Adam was a Catholic who didn't believe in divorce, so he re-wrote Genesis to make Satan into a serpent.
For the past 1500 years we Roman Catholic's have been attacked by the best and survive. Ron Howard, Tom Hanks and Hollywood don't even rise to the level of amateurs. This film will be a long lost memory as all the others in that past that attack Catholics. The level of anti-Catholism never surprises me, especially against us Irish. The Roman Catholic Church has weather a lot worse from real threats then these losers from Hollywood.
I'm guessing he loves the English language. He just can't speak it or write it very well. I love basketball, but I never could dribble, and I made my last free throw sometime around 1962. Brown writes English as well as I play basketball.
I could not agree more. At best, his prose labors — and at worst, it's downright amateurish.
I meant… The language of… Love. =)
Now I get it. Thanks for the clarification. It had to be love, because it had nothing to do with Brown using logic, style or basic good English. Love made him crazy–as well as a bad writer.
[...] [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.] [...]
I doubt it, I think its just a lazy way to add intrigue (and controversy) to his story by riding the church's coattails.
My question would be…why return and read the second book after hating the first ??
I'm relieved that someone else thinks that Tom Hanks has seen better days as an actor. I really enjoyed his comedy roles, but his dramatic roles leave me cold.
Professional standards: try anything twice.
"Only half-way decent adaptation was Lord of the Rings trilogy." Um…"The Maltese Falcon", "Jaws", "The Godfather", "Schnidler's List"….
Cashing in on a popular thing most likely. I give him credit for hard work technically. Not that he is totally accurate, but like Harry Potter, at least the author made it sound like part of the witchcraft world. But if any of the leftist morons take it for truth, then pity their tiny diseased minds.
One of the most distasteful and bizarre ad I ever saw was grown up Opie and nearly dead Andy Griffith promoting that pig self serving empty suit Obama. There goes my innocence.
You're right It's survived the fall of Rome, Saracen and Ottoman invasions, the Reformation and now the priest abuse scandals. Short of every world leader pulling a Henry VIII on it, I don't see it going away.
I believe Brown is just a disgruntled ex-Catholic with a bone to pick.
Even if every world leader pulls a Henry VIII on it, the Catholic Church will survive. Remember, three of the next seven English monarchs after Henry wanted to be Catholic (Mary I, Charles II and James II), even though that meant that they would not be able to run their own church as "Supreme Governor." It was only when the aristocrats who overthrew James II passed a Succession Act that barred the king (or heirs to the throne) from being Catholic that the Catholic Church in England went down for the count. Yet, you can't keep a good Church down. At present, more Britishers attend the Catholic Church on Sundays than attend the "Established Church" of England's services.
You know, I just can't watch Tom Hanks anymore. I don't know if it's the weird hair or the botox, something about his appearance is so off-putting and fake. This does not seem like the guy who could play anything, do anything and even made Madonna look like she could act in A Field of Our Own. Can't watch him anymore. And Opie's intellectual dishonesty and disdain for his audience turned me off for good after Beautiful Mind.
C'mon Ron Howard, show some guts. Tell us when you are going to make the Satanic Verses into a film……………………………………….i didn't think so.
Limousine liberals, silk stocking socialists, ………………..it's really all just NIBMY to them, ya know
"I love high camp and unintentionally hilarious wannabe drama." Then run, don't walk, to see Mark Wahlberg in "Shooter."
Thank you, kind sir, but I already made that mistake.
It's telling how different church attendance is between vigorous religions, like Catholicism, Islam and various Protestant sects, and religions that have basically become watered down houses of leftist claptrap. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a walking leftist joke. He's more concerned about "climate change" and advocating Sharia law than saving his dying church.
I agree with SonnyB. When is Hollywood going to make Satanic Verses?
I don’t have a problem with movies honestly confronting issues in the church, but jumping on the anti-Christian bandwagon is passé. Too predictable. Very cliché. Also, annoying. How about taking aim at Syria, Lebanon, and Muslim fundamentalists Tom Hanks? I tend to think that schizophrenic liberal Democrats are the people harming America’s rep.
You must be logged in to post a comment.