So I'm sure by now you've at least HEARD of the Angels & Demons movie "based" on the novel by Dan Brown.
I say "based" because it varies from the book GREATLY. As a spoken word poet I understand very well that in making movies books don't always translate well to the screen. So script writers and directors tend to take a bit of artistic license.
But I think they went a little too far. Don't get me wrong. The basic premise is still there: Illuminati threaten to destroy the Roamn Catholic church and Vatican City with an anitmatter explosion. But they departed greatly from the tone of the book.
I'm not what one would call a fan of the Roman Catholic church (that's Catholic with a capital c). I don't agree with much of the doctrine and antiquated traditions. On the flipside I'm not an enemy. They do enough damage to their own image without me or anyone else adding to it. But that's exactly what Ron Howard did.
In the book, the church tried a new strategy: openess & honesty. However, they portrayed them in the same light as the "Da Vinci Code" had created: covering up a conspiracy. What's worse was the subplot in relation to the Cardinal chosen to run conclave. In the book, he would have been one of the preferred if he hadn't been so old. He was portrayed as man who wasn't at ALL concerned with politics. Instead he was determined to serve the church in any way he could. He was authoritative yet very respectful of the carmelengo. The movie painted him more like a power hunger politician.
Now the novel IS a work of fiction. LOL A fact I often remind "Da Vinci Code" conspiricists. That's the truth. It's a fact. So why take the fact and turn it into fiction? It seems the only reason they did it was to sell movies. I mean, that's what made the Da Vinci Code such a big hit wasn't it?
So in conclusion:
- Angels & Demons (book & movie) is a work of fiction
- The book kept you riveted and was inspiring
- The movie tries to capitalize on the Da Vinci Code
- I falls FAR short of the book and the other hit movie