Sunday, June 07, 2009

less angels, more demons

i had no problem with dan brown’s four books. i thought they were suspenseful – entertaining even. i didn’t care if critics thought his prose was something else, what mattered was that “the da vinci code” intrigued me enough to get me reading his other books. subject matter-wise, i had no problems either. i thought he drew enough information from his “research” that i didn’t mind the religious theme and tone of his two most popular books even though it conflicted strongly with my catholic upbringing - it was fiction, and i bought it... end of the story.

when “the da vinci code” was turned into a movie, a huge uproar among catholic conservatives erupted against it. i was one of those who kept silent. again, i considered it fiction and if it was entertaining enough – the way movies ought to be, then that’s fine with me.

saturday afternoon, with my friends xtn and jaggy, we went to amc in norwalk and finally got to see “angels & demons”.

i so hate the movie!

i consider myself a populist. i do not always agree with my church but i don’t understand why i felt too offended by the movie. i know it’s fiction but at the same i couldn’t reconcile the thought that the movie, in an attempt to capitalize on the secrecy of the vatican tradition and hierarchy, made an utterly contemptible thriller centered primarily on the basic core of my church’s faith.

why did i like the book? i thought the book was less offensive and it worked for me in the same way that a regular suspense-thriller would – and my fascination with the inner goings-on in the vatican fueled my imagination; however, seeing it on the big-screen, it felt like as if the filmmakers completely threw away all caution and put my church at the very center of the story. it was no longer about a delusional man of faith (although, the movie does get into it like a second thought near the end) but the story seems to have highlighted the perceived hypocrisy in the church.

the movie is visually engrossing – that i cannot disagree. the photography and music combined also to make a very effective thriller. but it is the very aspect of the “thrilling” plot that really annoyed me.

it could also be that i am just so sensitive. but the movie does suggest that there’s a conspiracy or how do you explain the car explosion that brought to end the life of the hired assassin? do you think, the camerlengo went through all lengths to wire the car despite everyone always following him? impossible! writers, explain that! i don’t intend to scrutinize the story anymore because as i said, i don’t freakin like it!

and then there’s this other question that i didn’t think i would ever ask. why did mel gibson lose so many friends in hollywood when he made “the passion of the christ” while martin scorsese (he’s my favorite and his part in this question is just a matter of perspective) received an oscar nomination for “the last temptation of christ”? do you know?

No comments:

visit my sponsors

TMZ.com

philstar.com - entertainment

CNN.com

EW.com