Angels and Demons
#11
JonW Wrote:If this isn't about a real pope, could it be considered as controversial or blasphemous as the first movie?

No, it couldn't insofar as the pope isn't Christ (from what I understand, the subject of the first movie/film). I still would steer clear of any movie where the film production crew bragged how they were trying to destroy Christianity (http://www.indiancatholic.in/news/storyd...ic-bashing)

What really is an amazing testament to public education is the amount of people who think Brown's works are truly historical.
Reply
#12
The good news is that the climax of the move is so far-fetched that Brown's credibility goes up in the same cloud of smoke as Father.

Only an idiot would walk out of this film thinking that they had seen any secrets that the church was hiding.

Of course, this past November showed we have a large pool of fools, of both deliberate and useful varieties.
Reply
#13
The_Harlequin_King Wrote:The cover-up is that the Pope died because the camerlengo murdered him after the Pope revealed that he was actually his father. Naturally, the Pope is is on the liberal side, and the camerlengo is on the conservative side. Would you expect anything else?

Oh, and I don't expect anyone on this forum is upset that I didn't use spoiler tags.

Oh, thanks, Harlequin King![Image: hoppingmad.gif]

(just joking)

Seriously, though, spoil the damn film for everyone. If Hollywood wants to make money by defaming the Church, let them know it wouldn't be worth their while.
Reply
#14
By God's loving Mercy, we smashed The Da Vinci Code with both prayer and protest. It lost money and influence.

It can happen again with Angels and Demons. So let's prepare ourselves.

Reply
#15
When the Davinci Code was about to be released I went to one of the discussion forums at a well known movie website. I was reading the comments and of course people were going nuts about the Church's "hidden secrets" and what not. There was one guy there that seemed to be defending the Church against the "facts" of Dan Brown and he was doing an excellent job. It turns out that he was not a Christian but was actually some sort of historian on Christianity and the bible and he was saying how preposterous the claims were in the movie, and defending the bible from a historical point of view from different angles. This guy was actually an atheist.


Reply
#16
The Church has a lot of "hidden secrets" nowadays.  Stuff like if you don't belong to Her, you're in a whole world of trouble.  You wouldn't think that'd be a secret, but yeah, weird times.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)