Angels and Demons

Ron Howard is a good director. He is. As a nerd, I'd love to see him direct a comic book movie. It'd have to be something grounded in reality because I get the impression that's what he does. So I'm thinking The Question, or maybe a Nightwing movie.

Even though he's a good director, with The DaVinci Code he missed the point. And I think he did with Angels and Demons too.

The DaVinci code was a book that aimed to pull back the curtain and reveal *gasp* Jesus the Human, rather than Jesus the Divine. The book was all about how Jesus had a lover, Mary Magdalene, and the church had covered it up by only including in the Bible the Gospels that showed Christ's divinity. And Mary Magdalene was actually the divine one. Basically. And Leonardo DaVinci knew it and could prove it. The movie kept Christ's divinity intact, but tried to incorporate the theory that he had a wife and children. The result was, well, it didn't really work. The Christians were offended by the blasphemy, and they that loved the book for it's controversy were mad because it shied away from the most crucial point.

I've had friends tell me of people who have told them to read The DaVinci Code because after reading it there's no way anyone could believe in God. Whatever. Say this with me: it's a work of FICTION. Plus, even if Jesus had taken a wife, wouldn't that be good news for all the married Christians out there who try to emulate Christ, as the term "Christian" implies? Whatever.

I know more about The DaVinci Code because I read the book. With Angels and Demons, I intentionally didn't read the book because I recognized the fact that a good movie was ruined by reading the book first. The book is almost always better. In a few rare cases, The Bourne Identity and Stardust, the movie was better. In my humble opinion. I know people who would argue the opposite. I just enjoyed the movies more than the books. Sue me. The point is: I didn't read the book because I wanted to come to the movie tabula rasa.

I guess there may be spoilers ahead. Read at your own risk. It's not like this review hasn't given you plenty of time to see it. It's been on DVD for months.

So what were the criticisms about this movie, again? Too serious, I remember that one. Well, it was pretty dark, and there was some silliness woven into it that seemed out of place. It was as if each time they solved a puzzle, they showed up just a few minutes too late. Predictable? Absolutely. Not to mention the head of security was surly and antagonistic for apparently no reason. He knew the truth just about the entire time who the bad guy was and told no one. I couldn't figure out why the Illuminati had chosen this moment to strike at the church and why they were targeting Ewan McGregor's character when he would be out of the Pope's seat in a handful of days. The answer was apparent to everyone in the room but me.

I watched the movie with my wife and my friend Ted who just graduating in Chemical Engineering. He saw the anti-matter bit at the beginning and found it ridiculous 'cause he's seen the real thing. What's more is he had the bad guy pinned from the start. I wouldn't believe it because, come on, he was Obi Wan. How bad could he be? But man was I wrong. I'm losing my touch. I need to stop playing video games and read more.

So back to the movie. Was it good? It was ok. Was it fun? Yeah, I had fun. I'm not rushing out to buy it, but it was a fair movie and a fairly good time. I'd give it halfway on the "good" meter and 75% on the "fun" meter. If you're into the church being evil and haven't read the book, give it a rental -- but maybe wait until it's on the Netflix instant queue. It might not suck.

PS
To everyone who thinks Christianity has been at odds with Science since time immemorial: you're wrong. Some of the greatest leaps in science have been thanks to the work of monks and monasteries. In fact, during the Dark Ages the monastery was the only place to find learned men and women. Some monks, particularly the Irish, took it upon themselves to translate the works of Aristotle and other classic texts (and by "translate" I don't mean "censor"). For a long time, Christians regarded the study of nature a "second Gospel." It made sense to them that studying "God's Creation" would lead to evidence of the "Creator." Science and Religion have butted heads twice: Galileo and Darwin. Galileo believed the Earth revolved around the Sun, which is true. At the time, it was a wild claim. The church told him to prove it or he'd die for blasphemy. He couldn't. In the case of Darwin... well both sides are being pretty antagonistic. To everyone who thinks education has been hijacked by the devil and everything from science to literature leads to hell: you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but your fear of thinking is only promoting the assumption that religion is coupled with ignorance. God doesn't disappear if man evolved from apes.