Angels & Demons ....what's all the fuss about?

[7_Sorrows]

Thank you for the reviews everyone! I wasn’t going to see the film, but I was thinking, “Not again!” when I heard that it had a distinctly anti-Catholic flavor. I’m glad that the observation seems to be more boredom than intrigue…
Actually, the older I get, I usually leave movie theaters thinking, “I just wasted 2 hours of the precious time that God has given me on Earth! I can’t believe that I did that!” So unless someone whom I trust tells me, “It is awesome! You’ll love it!” I’d just as soon as do some gardening! The Star Trek movie is tempting though…

Thank you!
God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary

i know exactly what you mean. i will see a trailer for a movie or hear about one that will be coming out and the excitement builds. i can’t wait for the entertainment i am expecting for my money. like you, i have walked out of so many movies thinking “why did i waste my time and money on that?!”
i don’t see how Hollywood is able to come up with the money for so many movies that are really terrible. i think we could pay off our national debt with the money wasted in Hollywood.

angels and demons was entertaining though. i didn’t feel like i had wasted my time and money. when i lived in the city where there were so many movie theatres and i had a choice of so many movies, i sometimes saw a movie once or twice a week. now i live in a small town and i am lucky if i go to a movie once ever 3 months. so, even though there were a couple of slow parts in this movie, it did keep my mind working. if i were to grade it i would give it a B. definitely not oscar material. just entertaining.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

IMO for all the hype that angels & demons generated it’s a real disappointment

Like I said before I slipped in the other theater and saw about 15 minutes of Star Trek. I didn’t want to leave (but against my better judgment I went into to see angels & demons, which is the movie I went to see in the first place) … needless to say bad move.

I think Tom Hanks is getting old or something … because this movie (like the DiVinci Code before it) isn’t anything to write home about that’s for sure. I plan on seeing Star Trek this weekend though (I wonder if I can write Hanks & get my money back like the kids did with Mel Gibson on that South Park episode )?

 

[jevinslil]

Mom and I didn’t make it, but from what I am hearing we are mot missing anything. I think if she asks again I will perhaps suggest Star Trek. I thought that looked good.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Mom and I didn’t make it, but from what I am hearing we are mot missing anything. I think if she asks again I will perhaps suggest Star Trek. I thought that looked good.

I just seen Star Trek this evening & I definitely recommend it. It’s not our mom’s & dad’s Star Trek that’s for sure! Pretty good action flick (I’d give it a 3.5 on a 5 scale whereas I’d give Angels and Demons like a 2). The sad thing is people are flocking to angels & demons (I guess when the church complains loud enough it’s great for business … I don’t know what else to attribute it to).

 

[Eucharisted]

well, let’s be honest … they probably are wax duplicates? If they’re not then why not allow rigorous scientific scrutiny? It seems to me if there are to be any divine mysteries they should be left to god. Between men what one calls a mystery another will naturally call a lie.

Actually, the incorruptibles have been tested. There are many books about it.

I never saw the movie, but I did read the novel. Horribly written, very boring, and I didn’t get to the end.

By the way, Dan Brown’s books classify under historical whodunit.

Historical whodunit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_whodunnit

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Actually, the incorruptibles have been tested. There are many books about it.

I never saw the movie, but I did read the novel. Horribly written, very boring, and I didn’t get to the end.

By the way, Dan Brown’s books classify under historical whodunit.

Historical whodunit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_whodunnit

You guys have to keep in mind Dan Brown fully acknowledges that his books are fiction. He’s not really launching charges against the CC … albeit many people believe this stuff. This might be how religion got started

As far as the “incorruptables” go, I don’t believe any of it, not a single claim. I’m not really asserting they’re wax corpses (frankly I don’t know), but there’s plenty of ways to preserve a dead body (and plenty of ways to ensure scientific tests come out in your favor). It’s just the preservation of macabre mythology to serve the entrenched interests who benefit from it (who all probably started out with the purest intentions, like most lawyers who before the student loan bills became due thought they could save the world).

 

[elts1956]

Religion is something that plays a major role in American life … so naturally it will frequently be the subject of our theater entertainment. Artists do tend to be irreligious … so yes there probably is somewhat of a bias against religion in Hollywood.

America is the marketplace of ideas (as we would say in my law school days). I don’t know about anyone else but I love our freedom in this country. If there is a god then what greater gift could he give anyone besides freedom?

Somewhat of a bias? What somewhats are you talking about, the flak most dwellers of Hollywood give the Church about abortion, homosexual marriage, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and other intrinsic evils? Somewhat! Somewhat! Pu leeze.

 

[elts1956]

Religion is something that plays a major role in American life … so naturally it will frequently be the subject of our theater entertainment. Artists do tend to be irreligious … so yes there probably is somewhat of a bias against religion in Hollywood.

America is the marketplace of ideas (as we would say in my law school days). I don’t know about anyone else but I love our freedom in this country. If there is a god then what greater gift could he give anyone besides freedom?

You guys have to keep in mind Dan Brown fully acknowledges that his books are fiction. He’s not really launching charges against the CC … albeit many people believe this stuff. This might be how religion got started

As far as the “incorruptables” go, I don’t believe any of it, not a single claim. I’m not really asserting they’re wax corpses (frankly I don’t know), but there’s plenty of ways to preserve a dead body (and plenty of ways to ensure scientific tests come out in your favor). It’s just the preservation of macabre mythology to serve the entrenched interests who benefit from it (who all probably started out with the purest intentions, like most lawyers who before the student loan bills became due thought they could save the world).

I have read all of Brown’s books, including Digital Fortress etc. which was quite good. Why doesn’t Howard make a movie based on that? As far as the Da Vinci Code goes, Brown said at the beginning of the book most of what he wrote is true history. That has been disproved since the book first came out, but people are still going to believe what they read.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Somewhat of a bias? What somewhats are you talking about, the flak most dwellers of Hollywood give the Church about abortion, homosexual marriage, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and other intrinsic evils? Somewhat! Somewhat! Pu leeze.

Just like I don’t believe in any ancient mythology – I don’t allow Hollywood to shape my opinions (frankly I don’t exactly view artists as the fountain of intellectual enlightenment if you know what I mean … at least contemporary artists, though I suppose some might be smart). As to the subjects you mention, I’d have to take them one by one, because my opinions are built on logic (apparently a novelty these days).

Abortion, bad thing … but to criminalize it would be even more absurd (for reasons I’ll discuss only if I have to). Gay marriage, something we don’t have to criminalize because it doesn’t depend on a prohibition by government, but rather it relies on the positive action of licensing a marriage. However, it is a complicated subject (and I don’t feel like doing a legal analysis right now). Embryonic stem cell research, very complicated.

Euthanasia … no way (keep it illegal, we have plenty of drugs to keep you pain free & flying like a kite while you wither away). Cloning … it depends?

Gay marriage is the only thing I’m conflicted about, because I’m frankly hesitant to support the notion, although I think it’s a topic that deserves an in depth analysis. I don’t like the idea of denying a right to people who don’t harm others. However, I also think there are some theoretical risks that need consideration. I’d like to engage gay people on the topic since I’d like to be able to infuse reason and logic into the debate. I think marriage is something that has always been about child rearing, and anything that threatens the institution IMO poses an unknown risk on society at large. Like I said it’s too deep of a topic for me right now (I had a few drinks & I’m in no shape to discuss it reasonably). Perhaps another day?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I have read all of Brown’s books, including Digital Fortress etc. which was quite good. Why doesn’t Howard make a movie based on that? As far as the Da Vinci Code goes, Brown said at the beginning of the book most of what he wrote is true history. That has been disproved since the book first came out, but people are still going to believe what they read.

Hmmm … I think I remember an interview where he said it was fiction (but perhaps he spun it so it seemed real). Now you have me thinking; but no big deal (frankly I’m pretty sure it’s fiction like the religion its built around).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I haven’t yet seen the movie (though I plan to). As a Tom Hanks apologist, I feel prompted to step up here.

Again, without having yet seen the film, I believe a preliminary judgment should be passed on Ron Howard. As a director, He is hit-or-miss. Either he develops brilliant pieces such as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, or Cocoon or he produces utter junk such as Splash, Cinderella Man, or The DaVinci Code. It seems to me (in my most solemn, humble, subjective opinion) that there are no “so-so” Howard films. I’ll go to see the film in theaters, but I promise you that if I walk away dissatisfied, culpability will likely rest squarely on Howard’s shoulders.

 

[Shaken]

I haven’t read the book nor have I seen the movie and I don’t think I will do either. But I have viewed some segments about it on TV. When I heard the plot involved a release of anti-matter that was stored in a secret Vatican cache, I laughed out loud. How could anyone see that as anything but fiction?

I heard Ron Howard insist that his film was fiction; it was not a documentary. I appreciate the distinction. Movies are made featuring our government and Washington, DC and no one confuses them with fact.

I didn’t know the plot included a papal assassination, learned that from this forum. Such a crime is certainly anti-Catholic. Especially not now am I interested in watching the move.

 

[Eucharisted]

You guys have to keep in mind Dan Brown fully acknowledges that his books are fiction.

You don’t seem to understand the influence that fiction can have on the human mind - especially if fictional events are referred to as facts in the books. Moreover, there is a difference between saying a book is fiction and keeping it fictional, and saying a book is fiction and putting into it so-called “fact”. If Dan Brown’s books were set in an alternative reality, his mistakes and errors would be perceived as fiction; but since his book is set in the present time and space, his “facts” are inexcuseable.

He’s not really launching charges against the CC … albeit many people believe this stuff. This might be how religion got started

Yes he is. That’s the whole point of his books. He’s taking charges against the Catholic Church and using fiction to sell them. Just as the author of The Golden Compass admitted to using his books to sell atheism. You could say that all authors sell morals or lessons one way or another in their books, but there is a difference between including morals in a book and attacking people or institutions in a book.

As far as the “incorruptables” go, I don’t believe any of it, not a single claim. I’m not really asserting they’re wax corpses (frankly I don’t know), but there’s plenty of ways to preserve a dead body (and plenty of ways to ensure scientific tests come out in your favor). It’s just the preservation of macabre mythology to serve the entrenched interests who benefit from it (who all probably started out with the purest intentions, like most lawyers who before the student loan bills became due thought they could save the world).

Don’t be an intellectually agnostic. Seek the truth, do the research, get your hands dirty. You’ll never learn if you keep inside an ideological bubble.

 

[greggy53]

I know it’s off topic, but I cannot let it pass without comment.

To Humble_in_ doubt:
I see you have a quote from Friedrick Nietzsche in your posts. Do you know who that guy was?. He was Adolph Hitler’s favorite philosopher. Yes, the fascists used Nietzsche as a model for their tyranny, and slaughter. Perhaps you are just using his quoted to get a rise out of people like me, who’s fathers and uncles bled and died by the millions to liberate the world from that totalitarian philosophy? Otherwise I can’t imagine any freedom loving person quoting such a racist, hatemongering fascist philosopher.
There, I got that off my chest. My apologies to all others for interupting.

 

[KC91]

I watched the film with my parents yesterday and did not find it really objectionable as unlike the Da Vinchi code it does not relate to theological matters, but the plot about the Carlamengo wanting to seize power is ridiculous. However, the makers recreated the Vatican well (the Vatican refused them filming access due to it’s association with Dan Brown) and it was face-paced and exciting.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The book was so-so written. Based on the critiques, I won’t see it at a movie house - I might buy it when it’s on the $5 shelf.

It’s at best entertainment. Not doctrine or dogma. In most cases, “fuss” usually does nothing… except make film makers more money.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You don’t seem to understand the influence that fiction can have on the human mind

I understand the influence fiction can have on the human mind … just look at religion and the bible.

• especially if fictional events are referred to as facts in the books.

Exactly!

Moreover, there is a difference between saying a book is fiction and keeping it fictional, and saying a book is fiction and putting into it so-called “fact”. If Dan Brown’s books were set in an alternative reality, his mistakes and errors would be perceived as fiction; but since his book is set in the present time and space, his “facts” are inexcuseable.

Sounds like you advocate censorship?

Yes he is. That’s the whole point of his books. He’s taking charges against the Catholic Church and using fiction to sell them. Just as the author of The Golden Compass admitted to using his books to sell atheism.

A good course on critical thinking is all one needs to question the veracity of religion (but I’ve never read the golden compass so I can’t really comment).

You could say that all authors sell morals or lessons one way or another in their books, but there is a difference between including morals in a book and attacking people or institutions in a book.

You’ll have to clarify here. Are you saying such people shouldn’t be allowed to put their thoughts into print? Or are you saying Catholics should merely complain and boycott these sort of books? The second step of a tyrant is to burn the books (right after he takes our guns).

Don’t be an intellectually agnostic. Seek the truth, do the research, get your hands dirty. You’ll never learn if you keep inside an ideological bubble.

Hmmm … I spent the vast majority of my life as a Christian. I know church history and theology better perhaps than most Christians. So I think I’ve given religion it’s day in court.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I know it’s off topic, but I cannot let it pass without comment.

To Humble_in_ doubt:
I see you have a quote from Friedrick Nietzsche in your posts. Do you know who that guy was?. He was Adolph Hitler’s favorite philosopher. Yes, the fascists used Nietzsche as a model for their tyranny, and slaughter. Perhaps you are just using his quoted to get a rise out of people like me, who’s fathers and uncles bled and died by the millions to liberate the world from that totalitarian philosophy? Otherwise I can’t imagine any freedom loving person quoting such a racist, hatemongering fascist philosopher.
There, I got that off my chest. My apologies to all others for interupting.

Actually Nietzsche hated racism, and in fact ended his friendship with Wagner because he was antisemitic. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche advocated totalitarianism has obviously never read Nietzsche. Sure Hitler liked Nietzsche, but Stalin liked Bolesław Prus, so what? It’s rumored that Churchill enjoyed Nietzsche, President Obama enjoyed Nietzsche, and even Theodor Roosevelt (Hitler’s enemy) loved Nietzsche.

 

[greggy53]

Actually Nietzsche hated racism, and in fact ended his friendship with Wagner because he was antisemitic. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche advocated totalitarianism has obviously never read Nietzsche. Sure Hitler liked Nietzsche, but Stalin liked Bolesław Prus, so what? It’s rumored that Churchill enjoyed Nietzsche, President Obama enjoyed Nietzsche, and even Theodor Roosevelt (Hitler’s enemy) loved Nietzsche.

sounds like you have been reading fascist propaganda. Although I wouldn’t be suprised if Obama were a fan of his. People like Nietzche who advocate tyranny are always among us. Thank God for our Bill of Rights!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

sounds like you have been reading fascist propaganda. Although I wouldn’t be suprised if Obama were a fan of his. People like Nietzche who advocate tyranny are always among us. Thank God for our Bill of Rights!

Yes … I am thankful for our BOR (so religious zealots can’t censor our literature & impose their theocratic vision on us). In fact if I were to have a bible it would be the American Constitution!