Review: ‘Angels and Demons’
by John NolteThere’s a lot of “It’s better than ‘The Da Vinci Code‘” flying around about director Ron Howard’s “Angels & Demons,” but that’s a lot like saying “It’s smarter than Nancy Pelosi” or “It’s less involved with the Nazis than George Soros.” For starters, A&D is not better than “Da Vinci,” which at least made some sense in helping us to understand how the mind of Symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) worked. Instead, this follow-up offers the same plodding plotting, outrageously dishonest Catholic bashing and numbing over-length … but now Langdon’s mental methodology is made completely incoherent to the point of gibberish.
The Pope is dead and to elect the new Holy Father, the ancient ritual of the Conclave is set to begin when the four Cardinals most likely to be chosen, the preferiti, are kidnapped. An ancient brotherhood known as the Illuminati takes responsibility. They have no demands and only wish to teach the Church a lesson for a violent purging of their scientific “free thinkers” hundreds of years ago and to do that they have promised to violently kill one Cardinal an hour, each in a different location, with the grand finale being the complete destruction of Vatican City with an anti-matter bomb stolen in the film’s opening scene.
The only clues offered that might save the day are also meant to further the Illuminati’s pro-science stance. Each clue is based on the four altars of science: earth, air, wind, and fire and to help unravel these symbols, Harvard Professor Robert Langdon is called in. Joining him is Vittorio Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), the gorgeous Italian scientist who helped create the anti-matter and the best hope to disarm it.
Before the story even has a chance to get going, “Angels & Demons” seals its fate as an episodic snoozer. For the first forty minutes, using awkward asides and clumsy exposition, the Langdon character uses every opportunity (and creates a few of his own) to chastise the Catholic Church for its historical secrecy, hatred of modern art, book burning, anti-science posture and a violent past borne of intolerance and fear of truth. Now, I’m no historian, so all of this might carry some credibility (or not), but I also understand that another word for Leftist Kryptonite is “context” and that never once is the overwhelming good the church does given a hearing (other than a single sentence tossed off by an unsympathetic character). The result of this relentless demonizing is to completely undermine the story’s tension and suspense. In other words: Why should we care whether or not this horrible institution survives? This may be the first mainstream Hollywood thriller where our protagonist isn’t racing to save something worth saving.
Make no mistake, the filmmakers here are smart professionals who have been around a while and who fully understand that in order to tell a compelling story the audience must be emotionally invested in the outcome. Unfortunately, with their relentless stream of (at best) out-of-context Catholic bigotry, they’ve made the conscious choice to undermine our sympathizing with the very institution in danger, and this is done at the expense of telling what could have been a much stronger story. You might as well make a film with someone in a race against time to save Charles Manson.
To qualify “Angels & Demons” as a movie would be naïve in the extreme. What we have here is a big, clumsy cannonball in the culture war launched, not by filmmakers, but by ideological warriors who know how to use film.
But even if Howard and company had wanted to tell the best story they could, A&D would still have its problems. Having one Cardinal executed each hour in the grisliest of fashions with the promise of a big boom to top it all off may sound like the perfect way to structure a thriller, but Harvard Symbologists are a long way from Indiana Jones.
Hanks must have been bored stiff. Langdon is all about the wash – rinse — repeat, but it goes like this: Puzzle to solve — furrow brow — light comes to eyes — point somewhere with authority – speak in academic tongues – dash off screen-left – jump in car – drive through ridiculously busy streets but still arrive barely in time in a way only Jack Bauer could relate to. But to the hero of “24’s” credit, with only an hour between murders, he’s never stopped to wash up, change clothes, enjoy a refreshing cup of coffee and chat up the help like Langdon does in a truly surreal moment.
As far as the most awkward moments, it’s hard to choose between the awkward stem cell debate between protesters the camera thrusts us into or the awkward shoe-horned shot at the energy industry near the film’s end. There might have been PETA posters on the Vatican walls but Howard likes his cinematography dark, so it was hard to tell.
Too much of the suspense is as contrived as these political moments trying to disguise themselves as a theme. Langdon’s a College Professor, Vetra’s a scientist, and yet the Vatican police sure do leave them alone in the most dangerous of circumstances an awful lot. But even then you never feel Langdon’s in any real danger. I counted at least three times where the killer could’ve easily offed him and didn’t.
For a PG-13 film, A&D is loaded with a surprising amount of graphic violence and the performances vary. Armin Mueller-Stahl comes off best as a senior Cardinal whose motives remain in doubt until the very end, Ewan McGregor enjoys some good moments until a preposterous climax undoes all his good work, Hanks is Hanks, and the fetching Zurer just doesn’t have a whole lot to do.
Big movie. Big stars. Hard to stay away. I get that. But if you remember that “Angels & Demons” wasn’t conceived with the goal of telling the best story possible, you won’t be as disappointed.








Subscribe via RSS
94 Comments
I like to think of this movie as "Opie Blows."
Plot summary: Robert Langdon solves a puzzle. Catholics are evil. The end. Save your money and skip this one. Go see Star Trek instead.
Whom?
Anything at all that involves Mila Jovovich (even just her name) deserves a "Thumbs Up"! Mmmm Mila!
Okay back to earth. Am I alone on this, or was The Devinci Code one of the most over-hyped movies ever?
It was the first time I ever fell asleep during a movie (honest injun!). I felt so old! Or maybe, just maybe, the movie sucked?
I figure I'll see Angels and Demons when my insomnia returns!
Wow, that was an amazing review. By the time you were done there was nothing left on the floor but bloody pulp and a few teeth.
Thanks for a good laugh and a great review. I won't even rent it now.
Trust me, you are not alone. I tried watching it three times on cable. Never made it past fifteen minutes.
The real mystery is how Tom Hanks got his hair so straight.
Man, that sounds even worse than I thought. Those TV commercials were bad enough. Sounds like it makes Sahara look like Citizen Kane
Real mystery! How Tom Hanks still gets work!
Skip, uhm, are you sure you were watching "The Da Vinci Code" and not "The Da Vinci Coed"?
I discovered that little "gem" on Showtime one night. I had honestly misread the title — imagine my surprise.
Same here. I tried to see what the hubbub was about, but I just could not get into the movie. I had the same problem with "Alien v. Predator II: Galactic Bugaloo."
Oooo, Sahara. . . painful. I used to like the Dirk Pitt books, but the movies have been horrid.
That reminds me of that other Tom Hanks hit. "Saving Ryan's Privates"!
Looks like Opie Cunningham and Buffy Wilson have made another lame movie.
Went to the prview:
Laughter at serious parts and some folks left before the end,
free tickets where over priced
Ah yes, The Da Vinci Coed. Brought to you by the same crew who created the classic, Witches of Breastwick" I imagine.
Apparently Howard and Hanks have enterred into a bizarre career suicide pact, whereby they make Sean Penn and Oliver Stone look like reasonable, thoughtful auteurs in comparison.
Thanks, Mr. Nolte, for wading through this sewage so we don't have to.
My husband, the guy who NEVER fails to finish a movie, couldn't watch the Da Vinci Code. I knew better than to even try if he couldn't watch it. What baffles me is that this movie got the green light. Was it just because Hollywood never misses an opportunity to go after the Vatican?
I'm in the class of people who wouldn't even consider watching AD in the theater, on DVD, on HBO or anywhere else – forget religion, Ron Howard etc – TDC was crap as a book and film, so why would AD be any different? Answer – there is no reason, b/c it is, was, and forever will be crap. Nolte gets an applause for taking a bullet for the rest of us, but was anyone really looking forward to this crapfest?
John, ffwd us to Basterds, please. My popcorn's getting soggy.
Won't be seeing this garbage………….
When will the oh so smart Hollywood types ever learn. I read the books and found them only mildly entertaining. Thier was too much of history that was abused to make it truly compelling. I do not know what Dan Brown or Ron Howard have against the Catholic Church but this has got to stop. There have been many bad things done by the church over the years, the history is there for all to read. The real irony is that there would be no Western History or Civilization were it not for the bad ole Catholic Church who preseved as much as tey could after the fall of the Roman Empire. Remember the folks who took charge after had no interest in preserving anything.
I used to read Clive Cussler, but the books aren't so good now that his son has taken over. They've started becoming P.C! It's a sin. It's like telling James Bond he can't drink or chase women anymore.
Don't ever suggest that to the Bond people. . . even in jest!
I stopped reading Cussler a while back. Right before the Japanese one (can't think of the name). What a shame about going P.C. I always viewed Pitt as kind of like a poor man's James Bond, not a rich man's Alan Alda. Yuck.
My favorite, by the way, was "Night Probe" — really neat idea.
Oh you'd hate the new ones. Without getting too much into I'll summarize– Dirk's long lost twin children show up (all grown up) and of course one is his namesake. Dirk Jr. takes over the job– only he's a kinder, gentler Dirk Pitt. Suuuuucks! I always viewed Pitt the same way you did– kind of a Bond rip-off but in a fun way. Now the character is totally neutered and no fun anymore.
My favorite was the one in which the evil old lady went down the elevator shaft. I forget which one that was. But I loved that he had the nerve to write that in.
"Deep Six" — I liked that one. That was a great scene too. I believe the line was: "Bon voyage, you diabolical old crone."
I stopped reading after "Treasure."
Pitt was cool and fun, and somehow always managed to pull it off even though he got the tar beat out of him every time. I can't imagine what it's turned into now.
Ok, my posts are vanishing, so let's try again here:
"Deep Six" — I liked that one. That was a great scene too. I believe the line was: "Bon voyage, you diabolical old crone."
I stopped reading after "Treasure."
Pitt was cool and fun, and somehow always managed to pull it off even though he got the tar beat out of him every time. I can't imagine what it's turned into now.
Bingo!
Great review … every critique is dead on. Loved the chemistry between Hanks and the female lead … oh, wait, there wasn't so much as an electron of energy between the two.
Good advice, that's my plan. Then head off to see the new Terminator movie.
Really sad, what Ron Howard has come to.
I seem to remember something in the Bible about "blessed be those who are persecuted," so the movie can only be a plus for Catholicism, right? Hey–at least unlike in the book:
***SPOILER***
the villain wasn't the dead Pope's illegitimate son!
***END SPOILER***
I didn't find the Catholic bashing too offensive, mainly because I know its a movie and don't base my worldview on them, and since we'd heard it all before in Da Vinci Code it wasn't anything new. (I wasn't raised Catholic but my mom was, and my aunt still practices) If the film makers hate the church so desperately it's out of pure envy because visually, the trappings of the Church look awe inspiring and are beautifully shot. (does anyone know if the Vatican library looks at all like that? Because that was cool) They certainly kissed and made up with the Church by the end of the movie, IMHO. Nolte is spot on about the surprisingly tedious treasure hunt though, and I really didn't need the time stamps either. Mueller-Stahl was a saving grace. It was an o.k. movie. So far this summer, Star Trek is my clear favorite, and A & D and Wolverine are about on par for me–neither movie brought anything new to their franchises/concepts, but were well executed. The dirty truth of the film? I think Howard & Hanks wanted another free trip to Rome and got one. But I will say this–after seeing the film I really, really want to visit Rome before I die. John, were you at the press screening at the Grove last night? If so, we must have passed each other in the lobby. I was there with some friends who work for a Cable News Network.
Thanks Bonnie for the awesome review of the review. This is the biggest laugh I've had all day.
"What baffles me is that this movie got the green light."
The first one made something like 700 Million worldwide. That's PROBABLY got a little bit to do with it…
Yup. Grove. Balcony, last row center, next to a woman whose son played a choir boy and was terribly disappointed at the end to discover he'd been cut out of all three scenes he was supposed to be in.
Cruel, cruel business.
maatkare — someday we have to meet up.
***************SPOILERS***************
But I didn't think anyone kissed and made up at the end. At the end the assumption was that all the anti-science lies told about the Church were true when the church "evolved" with "Luke" in the way liberals want it to — which is essentially to cease opposing life issues. Today EMBRYONIC stem cells, tomm. the fetus, the day after the pesky elderly…
Langdon didn't have an arc, the church did. I cry bull sh** on that.
Yup. Grove. Balcony, last row center, next to a woman whose son played a choir boy and was terribly disappointed at the end to discover he'd been cut out of all three scenes he was supposed to be in.
Cruel, cruel business.
maatkare — someday we have to meet up.
***************SPOILERS***************
But I didn't think anyone kissed and made up at the end. At the end the assumption was that all the anti-science lies told about the Church were true when the church "evolved" with "Luke" in the way liberals want it to — which is essentially to cease opposing life issues. Today EMBRYONIC stem cells, tomm. the fetus, the day after the pesky elderly…
Langdon didn't have an arc, the church did. I cry bull sh** on that.
Vittorio…isn't that the masculine version of that name? Wouldn't it properly be Vittoria..
Oh, the heck with it…I couldn't even get past the first chapter of "The Da Vinci Code" – I kept tripping and falling flat over sentences that read like an entry for the Bulwer-Lytton contest (http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/ ) Sorry – I don't care how many bookstores that get crammed full of copies of the latest drek that the Literary Industrial complex has decided will be the best-seller-du-jour. If, on the basis of the first chapter, I decide it's finest-grade-industrial-strength-krep, then it's finest-grade-et cetera, and I won't read it, watch it, pay money for it. Translating it into a movie doesn't improve it much.
The thing is, these films/books get exponentially better once you realize that the whole "revealing the truth of the sacred feminine" thing that grew up around DaVinci Code isn't really IN the book… that it was basically a matter of lots of people – mostly lapsed Catholic women – hearing these longstanding theories and concepts for the first time and getting excited about them and wanting the book they found them in to "mean" more than it did. These are old-fashioned pulp-adventure books with catholic/renaissance history stuff as the decorations – it doesn't have any more to "do" with them than National Treasure has to do with history.
I read both books, Da Vinci and A&D, I loved them, great thrillers and good fiction books…..need i say that again…fiction books. The Author still says these are based on a mix of facts and fiction, but not straight on non fiction books. Kinda like a Mike Moore "Documentery". In A&D book Ewan McGregor character had a great spot, when he talks on the TV, to the Illuminati, it was an awesome speech. But the ended killed that one spot. Ok, the Da Vinci Code movie, sucked, but still did a killing…why? Because everyone was up in arms, screaming to "ban" the movie, churches were screaming to high heaven, so in part they gave the power, to the people, people wanted to see what was the reason for the rucus. And there was no reason..none what so ever, these movie are not stopping people from worship, they dont offened the ones that truely believe, and are strong in their faith. So let the whole thing go quiet into the night, dont give the left to raise this fiction up and put it on a pedistal either. I'm going to see it, for the simple reason, is I did enjoy the book, and I want to see what made it in to the movie. Sorry for the spelling tonight, it's a little late here.
I thought Hanks was really good in "The 'Boobs."
I did like the Sahara movie, I liked Matt as Dirk, cause he just had the feel of him, sorry. But the books have become way too PC, I cant even read the new one Artic Polar Shift. I have read the Leagend of the Seeker books, start with Wizards First Rule, yea it's a fantasy book, but one of the best right side books ever, since Obama took over, these books will teach our children the right way rule, not the Obama way
As did I with Rambo XXIX–Rambo Gums the Martians. (aka) Gumbo XXIX.
Brilliant point. It's annoying when films are thinly-disguised propaganda. It's unforgiveable when the propaganda detracts from the entertainment.
But I heard tell that "Forrest Hump" won Tom critical acclaim.
i want to love conspiracy movies. when done well, like the manchurian candidate, they are a joy.
my first great disappointment was "twin peaks". brilliant first season. then in year two, it became clear that the writers had never bothered to come up with any underlying explanation. same thing with x-files and battlestar galactica. i bailed out on lost after seeing it headed in the same direction.
the da vinci code had a great secret. you can easily image a few thousand years of conspiracy and violence to protect it. unfortunately dan brown is a hack. and everything up to the final revelation is laughable. and often a flat out unnecessary lie.
Which "Manchurian Candidate?" The original was anti-communist and anti-fascist. Communist brainwashed saboteur returns from Korea as a ticking time bomb to his family which has Elsa Lansbury as a scheming mother married to a drunken McCarthy type. Villains at both ends of the spectrum. It took a lot of suspension of disbelief, but it had clear good guys and bad guys and didn't play political favorites. The re-make was nothing but anti-corporate propaganda cum Denzel Washington saves the world (again). As opposed to requiring suspension of disbelief, the ending of MC2 was just plain childish.
never saw the remake. heard it was an abortion.
i do not have to agree with every political aspect. the hero of "no way out" was revealed as a communist spy at the end. "three days of the condor" was pure moral ambiguity. the sides were indistinguishable.
the brain washing in manchurian candidate was a simple and obvious bit of science fiction. but logical if you are willing to buy into the world the movie creates. the da vinci code is built on easily identifiable lies about real peoples and events. am told this new one involves anti-matter. why not just include dylithium and set it on the holo deck?
But the reviews were horrible. I know that the huge popularity of the book drove the audience to the theaters, but I don't know a single person who liked the movie. I also looked up the gross and it was mostly foreign ticket sales that drove the numbers so high. It was just over $200 million domestic with a $125 million production budget. Maybe that's enough to warrant a sequel most of the time– I don't know. Obviously they must be hoping for a similar foreign gross on this one. From a laypersons point of view (my own) I'm just surprised when a sequel gets made off of a movie that is so universally panned.
Also, it surprises me a little that Hanks and Howard signed on again. They both have had such strong careers that I would think they wouldn't want to be associated with a weak franchise. Perhaps they thought they could do it better this time– though the early reviews aren't looking too good.
The original was a great movie, although by the time most of us got to see it, nearly twenty years had passed. It had only been out a few days when the John Kennedy assassination took place, and they pulled it from the theaters and locked it up. I had planned on seeing it in Berkeley the weekend of the assassination, but ended up waiting until it showed up on cable TV. I liked "No Way Out" in part because it killed off a psycho Senator, but didn't justify it by making Costner a hero for it. "Three Days of the Condor" was a real knuckle-biter, and despite Beatty's left wing politics, I didn't see it as having an anti-American theme. Many of us questioned the Warren Commission, regardless of what conclusions we finally drew.
So, you're saying they didn't have dylithium crystals and a holodeck in the Vatican?
the sinatra judo fight scene was a bit of a stretch. but great otherwise.
caught the da vinci code on cable last year. how did this thing make money? it was grindingly dull. it's not even the sort of thing that inspires passionate hatred, religion aside. it's just something i dismiss and forget.
Fair enough, but if I can say something inappropriate and probably blasphemous: Ewan MacGregor rocked the hell out of his cassock. He was one hot priest!
You couldn't be more right about DaVinci. I didn't have time to hate it, my snoring drowned out the sound.
The best thing about awful movies are the reviews. Angels & Demons must be pretty bad to inspire so many fun to read criticisms.
Good plan. I've seen Trek twice with my two boys already. I think Ope needs to go home, get his cane pole, and catch some bluegills with Pa. Try to remember what it was like to make a decent flick.
I never heard "everyone screaming to "ban" the movie", because, they didn't. That falsehood makes you a disseminator of falsehood, or as you call it, a fiction writer. 'Moby Dick' was fiction, and to lump Dan Brown's crap into the same category is a slander to fiction and a travesty of literature. What Brown and Howard and Hanks have collaborated in doing is the slandering of Christianity through the propagation of falsehoods.
If you ever tire of being an intellectual bottom-feeder, I have a few books to recommend which you may find quite enjoyable and edifying. They are: The Wanderings Of An Elephant Hunter, by W.D.M. Bell, (A book I'd love to give to Obama), Mr.Archer U.S.A. by R.H. Platt (It would make a great movie), and The History Of The English Speaking People, by Winston S. Churchill (Churchill was a better writer than he was anything.)
Beatty in "Three Days Of The Condor"??
Somehow, I don't think you saw the same movie I did.
WOW, I never once came here to bash anyone, and yes it is FICTION BOOKS, they are not sold in the NON-fiction section, so just come here and insult me for no good reason.
"What Brown and Howard and Hanks have collaborated in doing is the slandering of Christianity through the propagation of falsehoods." and this doesnt count for fiction
"If you ever tire of being an intellectual bottom-feeder" wow, once again didnt insult anyone here, but for some reason i get it.
Not to be overly simplistic, and I don’t care if it reaches the quality of the Godfather movies. I’m not particularly religious, but I am a conservative that loves his country, and I will not see this movie because of Opie and Hanks. Pay attention “Hollywood” my wife and I would see a movie a week, just for hell of it. Not anymore, you don’t like us (hillbilly, redneck, provincial, flyover) we wont like you back. Boycott!
>>>Big movie. Big stars. Hard to stay away. I get that.
You have no idea how easy to staw away it's become.
It's butts in seats.
Even if every single person who went to see The Da Vinci Code was exit polled, and every single one said it was trash AFTER they paid for a ticket, a sequel, part II, prequel and fully open franchise would be forthcoming as sure as the sun rises.
I won't be seeing it for 4 reasons:__A) I don't go to the movies – too expensive __B) I only have extended basic cable – anything higher is too expensive__C) I like to pick a movie I'm in the mood for right then and there, so Netflix or a similar service is of no use to me.__D) My local video store just went out of business.
The only part of The Da Vinci Code I enjoyed was when Sir Ian's character, while watching on his security monitor as his front gate get barged in by Langdon's pursuers, says to Hanks, "I'll say one thing, you're never dull"
I liked that. By contrast, the movie itself was pretty much always dull.
Sounds like a good weekend to stay home and read a book.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Vittorio Vetra???? Puh-leeez! Dan Brown's been spending too much time with his Sixtie's Playboy collection.__(Victoria Vetri-PMOY 1967)
I'm a life-long Catholic, but I went through my defiant stage in college. One of the many reasons I became serious about being a Catholic again was the wonderful history the Church has in advancing science.
I can still take certain criticism leveled at the Church, but this film seems ridiculous — not even worth the time.
I'm going to see Star Trek for the third time.
One of my dearest friends starred in Witches of Breastwick.. Yes, the same mind that brought the world the Breastwick movies, Da Vinci Coed, is Jim Wynorski, aka H.R. Blueberry. He's also brought us the erotic classic spoofs, 'Cleavagefield', 'House on Hooter Hill', the 'Breastford Wives'. Plus 'Bare Wench' and 'Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade' to name a few others.
A lot of his SF films show up on the Sci-Fi Channel, he directs them under the name 'Jay Andrews'.
Nolte's reviews are always excellent. I read this to enjoy the writing, not because I have any intention of seeing this later Pro Al Jazeera release. I'm not a Roman Catholic and have no opinion about the church one way or the other and I did read "Angels and Demons" which I thought it was boring. I saw "The DaVinci Code" and thought that was stupid. Won't be seeing this one.
All you have to know is they filmed a movie that's about the Catholic Church from a guy who sticks in, as a plot device, an anti-matter bomb.
Think about that for a second — we're supposed to take Brown's writings seriously (yes, its posted as fiction, but his fans supported, and Brown did nothing to stop the inferences during the hype over "The Da Vinci Code" that Jesus was married and fathered a child), and in middle of this, he sticks in the same sort of plot device they used on the old "Star Trek", when the warp engines were threatening to fail and turn the Enterprise into a giant anti-matter bomb.
The equivalent would have been if in "Silence of the Lambs" Clarice Starling and Buffalo Bill had pulled out Jedi light sabers for their climactic battle in the basement. And if the mainstream critics had said nothing about this sort of stupidity while taking the rest of the plot as some sort of serious probe of the Illuminati and the Church itself.
AVP: Galactic Bugaloo – great title.. hahahahah
They should just come out and make the movie "We Hate God" and get it over with. At least Douglas Adams had used comedy to make his atheistic messages.
I'll probably be made to go see this movie by my dear husband… I am not a fan of Dan Brown… at all… but my husband is… I still haven't finished reading The Da Vinci Code because I got bored with the diatribe… But I guess I will go watch A&D (after Star Trek of course) for my husband… ; /
Good point about the anti-matter bomb, but I'm more curious about the idea that this organization devoted to "scientific truth" apparently believes that the "elements" are earth, fire, wind, and water, an idea that hasn't had much traction since about Galileo's time. Sounds like something that would be more likely to come out of a video game or a group of neo-Pagans than any folks who might be called scientists.
Actually, given that we have four elements, a corrupt church, and a cool-sounding but completely impractical weapon, are we sure that this isn't a video game? I'm pretty sure I've played through this exact same plot in one of the Final Fantasy games…
Wow. Another bad movie from Ron Howard. Color me surprised. It looks like Opie is joining that increasingly large group of people who make you wonder, "Why does this person have an Oscar?"
No one was screaming to ban this movie. The Church just ignored it.
[...] Code’ flying around. That’s like saying it’s smarter than Nancy Pelosi.” So says John Nolte at Big Hollywood. He also thinks it’s anti-Catholic (I don’t, particularly, [...]
Anyone who likes Dan Brown must have poor reading skills to not recognize the bad writing. It ranks with "Twilight" in its lack of literary quality and bad grammar. Yet, both are extremely popular. Why?
I tried watching "The Divinci Code" hoping Dan Brown's writing was getting in the way of a good story. Again to compare to "Twilight," I enjoyed the first book (couldn't continue on with the others) despite the writing because there were some good moments and an interesting vampire story hidden behind the words. With the DC movie opening sequence I wondered why I should care about the dead person? Then there was the bad-guy scene and I thought, again, why should I care about this person? That translated into why do the heroes care about these people and finally why should I care about this movie? I was able to watch it for free and I still didn't get past the first ten minutes before moving on to something else. I think I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the tenth time. It was more engaging.
Does age, or aging overall cause folks in Hollywood to develop pickled brain matter? Just wondering because the older these two get; the worse their acting and movies become.
It is so hard for me to reconcile Hanks' support for the WWII Museum in New Orleans, his acting in the past, and these latest performances. Instead of finding better material, or a subject matter worthy of his talents, Hanks opts to make horse hockey movies like this? Sorry my Southern slipped out! But movies like these truly fall in the horse hockey category!
And dittos to Howard. He of the "Apollo 13" and other movies of the past that were actually enjoyable and radical agenda free. UGH!
A movie funded and released like this one contributes to the general public's frustration with Hollywood. Many of us wish much success to the movie makers, actors, writers, etc. who get it that movies like this one is soooo NOT what we desire. There are a large contingency out here planning on becoming more active in supporting good movies which we want. We may not be legitimate critics, educated in any form in movie making, or Hollywood experts, but we know a stinker, or bad movie when we hear about one. This definitely is one our family had no intentions on seeing. At any time.
Thank you for the correction. I wrote the original comment with Redford in the correct movie. I also made a quick comment on Beatty in "The Parallax View." Then the whole thing disappeared into the robo black hole we were going through off and on all day. I re-wrote the post in a hurry out of frustration, and the post was the result. That also explains the seemingly unconnected comment on the Warren Commission. Thanks for catching it.
It's what they call a "tentpole" – i.e. it "holds up" the careers of the various people/entities involved so they can do things that might NOT make 700 Million worldwide. For Ron Howard, this "pays for" another five or six "Frost/Nixons" or that H.P. Lovecraft bio he's attached to. For Hanks, this is a few more NASA docs and maybe a "Charlie Wilson's War" here and there. Movies like this are the sneaker-endorsements of the film biz.
Wow, I guess the Catholic church must be the only organization in history to impede the progress of science and secular thought. It must be way worse than Russification, starvation, and genocide. Thanks for making it official, Hollywood.
"When will the oh so smart Hollywood types ever learn."
What, exactly, are they supposed to have "learned" from The DaVinci Code – other than that putting probably the most well-liked movie star in the Western world into a film based on a book that (disregarding it's other merits or lack thereof) was THE publishing phenomenon of that year is a good way to make several hundred-million dollars?
You're not alone. I was stunned at how bad that film was. I mean, (H)akiva Goldsman just took a polo mallet to the plot points and shattered them to smithereens. Then, in true Red Diaper Baby syndrome (gotta please Marxist mom and dad), he inserted every damned thing he could to bolster the 'opiate of the masses' bs in this film. It was just dreadful. Dreadful.
'Da Vinci Code' was a flop commercially. But typically Hollywood would rather shoot off its right foot than admit that. The book shattered publishing records – which meant that rare thing that all movie producers drool about – a surefire public demand even before the movie was made. Had 'Da Vinci Code' been made right, that film should have done Titanic box office. It didn't. Not even close. My friends, commercially speaking, the Da Vinci movie was a disastor. They barely made back their operating costs – but they did NOT make a blockbuster. This was a flop. And man – you have to be one lousy director and screenwriter to destroy something that was surefire blockbuster. But bless their hearts, Opie and (H)Akiva did just that.
Bob – the books don't get better. I read "Angels" cover to cover. Hated it. I was told to give DaVinci a try. Also god-awful. As an English teacher, I steer my students toward anything that will get them interested, but I always have to qualify this (and the Twilight books) with a caveat: "good storytelling is NOT good writing."
There is nothing "old fashioned pulp-adventure" about these books. There is nothing Doc Savage-The Shadow-Indiana Jones about the characters. There is nothing Raymond Chandler-H. Haggard-Lester Dent about Dan Brown. I wouldn't mind if the book were about Jesus riding around in a spaceship, smoking cigarettes and blowing up stars with Mary Magdalene as his copilot if it were well-written.
But it's a piece of crap.
Jack – the books don't get better. I read "Angels" cover to cover. Hated it. I was told to give DaVinci a try. Also god-awful. As an English teacher, I steer my students toward anything that will get them interested, but I always have to qualify this (and the Twilight books) with a caveat: "good storytelling is NOT good writing."
There is nothing "old fashioned pulp-adventure" about these books. There is nothing Doc Savage-The Shadow-Indiana Jones about the characters. There is nothing Raymond Chandler-H. Haggard-Lester Dent about Dan Brown. I wouldn't mind if the book were about Jesus riding around in a spaceship, smoking cigarettes and blowing up stars with Mary Magdalene as his copilot if it were well-written.
BUT THESE BOOKS ARE CRAP.
That's always been my beef with Brown. I can handle people who mock my beliefs if they can at least do it with skill (e.g. Voltaire). But reading Dan Brown is like viewing a monocled stereogram (I should get bonus points for forcing a Google search).
More seriously, Brown's problem is that he completely lacks character development. He doesn't actually have any characters at all. He has featureless labels that he puts into various situations. In other words, he strives to have plot only, and even then the plots are so far-fetched not even a hyperactive hummingbird on LSD could follow it.
Of course, Brown doesn't care because he's making millions of dollars. But no one will remember his writing 10 days after he kicks the bucket, whereas people who write with character first (e.g. Steinbeck, Hawthorne) are read to this day.
Ayelet Zurer is such a babe. Gina Grey and her classy ass. No one's seen Adam Resurrected. Oh well.
I couldn't care less about seeing this movie because Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" blew such major chunks in both the book and the movie. DaVinci Code made illogical leaps and ridiculous conclusions that I can't sit through another installment of his anti-Catholic diatribe. Hanks and Howard are a talented (although extremely leftist) team, but even they can't convince me to part with my money for this flick. I agree with "Sammybull"; see Star Trek again.
Jewish Hollywood and MSM is always interested in going after the Catholic church but,
Long list of Jewish Child Molestor Rabbis gets no media coverage and Jewish homosexual pedophiles are undisturbed.
http://100777.com/node/463
It really bugs me when Hollywierd cannot get even the simplist historic details right. Can't even watch the HBO Tudors because they have Henry VIII with brown/black hair. WHY??? Doesn't everyone know he had red hair- just stupidly distracting. Like reversing the order of the Bolyn sisters birth( AND having Eric Banna's HVII with black hair) in the latest Tudor movie- WHY BOTHER- it's distracting.
Earth, Fire, Water and Air? Umm scuse me but is that not the foundation of Alchemy? So why are the brilliant world conspirator honchos the Illumanati still bogged down with a theory that has long ago been debunked? Oh wait maybe they have figured out how to turn lead into gold or at least into a major tax write off as evidenced by the green light being given for this project.
I'm simply bored with trashing the Roman Catholic Church. It is not entertaining any more. Isn't that what made Madonna a Billionaire? I will not go see Opie's newest.
[...] For a review of the movie from a conservative viewpoint, Review:
Da Vinci Code made extremely high numbers across the world in its theatrical run. You are extremely incorrect, 125 Mil budget with a 758 Mil take worldwide. That is not a flop by any sense of the word. I can guarantee that right after the movie had a 77 million opening weekend, the studio was looking for a sequel.
By the way Ron Howard is not even close to a lousy director, Michael Bay is a lousy director. Ron Howard has directed films such as:
Frost/Nixon
Cinderella Man
A Beautiful Mind
Apollo 13
I could have been mistaken but those movies might be critical and commercial successes. Ron howard is a great director that has made a few lousy movies.
If reviews meant anything then Step Up wouldn't have gotten a sequel.
And who could forget "Yank My Doodle, It's a Dandy" just in time for Memorial Day.
You must be logged in to post a comment.