Angels and Demons--my goodness. Bill Donahue nearly took off after this Ron Howard/Tom Hanks movie as if it was the worst thing they've done together since that other abomination. You know, the scandalous picture they did together, from which society is still reeling, what with its suggestion of an unnatural mythological congress. A love that really could not have happened.
Of course, I'm talking about Splash. A human man finding love with some pagan-based half-woman/half-fish? How unnatural.
What we have here, really, is a well-acted mystery about a supposed secret organization that apparently has kidnapped the "preferitti"--cardinals who are immanently electable as Pope, just after the current Pope has died of natural causes (or has he?) They've also apparently burgled an antimatter container that could be used as a potent, city-killing bomb, to be used just as Vatican City is thronged with the faithful, waiting on the announcement of their new Pope.
Honestly, this movie is very respectful to the Catholic Church and its institutions, and no one would mistake the "history" of the Illuminati depicted in this flick as being historical fact. It is a pretty well-done murder mystery story played out against the backdrop of Vatican City and Rome. The theme of science vs. religion definitely takes a back seat to the action and interplay of characters, but that actually is a bonus in terms of filmic enjoyment. And to the best that I can recall, since I read the novel just after The DaVinci Code got big, it's pretty true to the novel, and I'd say that's why it works pretty well.
Anyone might have a certain opinion about Dan Brown, and why he's a popular author. Some might say he isn't a great writer, but what I'll say for him is he finds interesting things to base his stories on, and that he has some quirks in his stories that make for interesting cinematic adaptations. For one thing, he does tend to end chapters on cliffhangers--this keeps the reader engaged, and it translates very well to screen--we like suspense. Also, he has a habit of creating kind of negative characters that might be bad guys--but aren't always, and sympathetic characters that sometimes turn out to be the baddies--it keeps you on your toes. And that makes you pay more attention to characters when watching the movie.
Minor things--Hanks' hair looks better in this movie than in The Da Vinci Code. His hair doesn't like being straight. I don't know why the character of Robert Langdon has to have straight hair. But shorter and straight seems to work better. They must have just hoped for dry, not at all humid days.
Ewan MacGregor plays an Irish-Catholic priest with a pretty good accent. Also, for the better part of the movie, I wondered if "PILF" wasn't a sacrilegious notion. Not that I should care. Just wondered.
One of the things this movies does particularly well is recognize that the Catholic Church is an ancient organization that has at different times, had different relationships with differing creeds, with science, with it's relationship to the faithful. One of the characters shown early on is a physicist-priest. One is reminded that the Catholic Church, for it's social conservatism, is a church that values learning and education. What the movie touches back on, again and again, is that religion and science don't have to be at war. The Church is at times reactionary--even excessively so. But capable of change. One also is reminded that it is, as an organization, flawed, because it is made up of people, and people are flawed. I think that's a realistic way to look at things.
Also, at two points in the movie, Robert Langdon is asked about his relationship to God--the first time, whether he believes, and the second time, he makes an answer to an assertion about whether God sends help in time of need. In both instances, I heard "agnosticism", that my brain processed as "basically atheistic." Langdon doesn't understand God, or think that he ever will. He doesn't believe God has a destiny for him. His character is viewed as suspicious by some of the faithful because he has studied and written about sacred things in a not-orthodox way, but he is a "good guy" because he is looking for truth. He and Vittoria Ventri (played by Ayelet Zurer), a whip-smart physicist, are outsiders as representatives of acedeme and science--but they both want to unravel the Vatican puzzle, and thwart the "Illuminati"--who are set up as having historically been artists and scientists who worked against the Church (and might, possibly, be otherwise the more attractive "team" to the pair. Except for the currently committing heinous murders part.)
This is a movie with some interesting twists, excellent back-drops, and a pretty good story. They are trying to save the live of the kidnapped priests, and stop a time bomb--the result of which "save" has serious implications for all.
It was a good movie. I'd get into the spoilers, and why it ended the way it did, but I'm tired, and it would be a bit of a ramble.
No comments:
Post a Comment