Spoiler alert: I will be talking about plot in this review, so don’t read it if you haven’t seen the movie, or unless you don’t plan on seeing it anyway!
I just went to see the movie “Angels & Demons” (released Friday, May 15, 2009) and thought it was much better than its predecessor, “The Da Vinci Code.” Not to confuse the point, but actually “Angels” was written first, it being the first of a trilogy about fictional Harvard professor Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks). “Da Vinci” is the second book, and the third book, originally entitled “The Solomon Key” but now retitled “The Lost Symbol” (personally, I like the original title better) is currently being written by Dan Brown and will be set in Washington, D.C., concerning the Masonic influences behind our founding fathers such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (I think it sounds just like the plot of the two “National Treasure” movies, but I hope I’m wrong). It is due to be released this September.
Without giving too much away about the plot of “Angels & Demons,” it essentially revolves around the death of a pope and unraveling the mysteries surrounding it. Ron Howard, normally a reliable director, screwed up the adaption of “Da Vinci Code” but seemed to return to form with “Angels.” It was a much more compelling adaptation, had better pacing, and took fewer liberties with the storyline (although, it must be said, I am so glad that they changed the ridiculously unbelievable Langdon-diving-out-of-helicopter sequence at the end of the book and made it a lot more plausible for the movie).
As for the novels, I also thought that “Angels” was much better than “Da Vinci” even though the latter sold far more copies. “The Da Vinci Code” relied far too much on sensationalist conspiracy theories and tenuous meanings assigned to historical circumstances with dubious authenticity. “Angels & Demons” was much more of an old-fashioned murder-mystery-cum-thriller which happened to be set in Rome. It was like “Sherlock Holmes” meets “Die Hard” meets “The History Channel”.
One of my friends said to me once that the Dan Brown novels are like pop music: the content/words are of inferior quality but it’s extremely catchy. And I think he’s right. I admit that I read both novels voraciously; I finished each one in a day because I couldn’t put them down. They were page-turners and it is not difficult to see why people are so entranced by them. That being said, there comes a point where one needs to separate fact from fiction, and Dan Brown is able to so seamlessly blend the two (even though in the introduction of both books he points out that, while the locations mentioned in the books are real, they are still novels and thus works of fiction!) that people do not heed his warning and plunge recklessly into the books, gullibly believing every word, and devouring the whole thing, hook, line and sinker.
It amazes me that the same people who so quickly dismiss the Bible (a millennia-old document) as false will so readily accept a self-declared work of 21st-century fiction as truth.
However, lest you think I am a fundamentalist bashing Dan Brown for being the antichrist (I don’t think he is, nor do I think J.K. Rowling is, for that matter! Though Philip Pullman may be…), all I really want to point out is that Dan Brown is a master of spin. And boy, he sure does it well. To the point where, even though he publicly disclaims his works as completely fictional, people still buy his arguments!
A relative of mine, who is not a Christian, recently asked me what I thought about the Dan Brown novels. When I said I actually liked them, she was surprised because “Don’t all Christians hate them?” I replied that I think they are great entertainment, but I don’t take them seriously beyond that. Christians who are up-in-arms about Dan Brown are fighting the wrong enemy. It is not Dan Brown’s fault that people out there are stupid and believe everything he writes. The problem is that people are ignorant and stupid. Am I afraid of a theory that posits Mary Magdalene as the true Holy Grail and mother of Jesus’ children? No, because it holds absolutely no historical credibility whatsoever. Why would I waste my time with such an inane theory?
Bottom line: take the Dan Brown novels for what they are, which is entertaining fiction and that’s it. Christians who spend all their energies combating Dan Brown are as bad as non-Christians who obsess about whether his conspiracy theories are true. If the novels or movies spur on conversations about religion, more power to them, but quibbling about their content is a waste of breath.
Dan Brown is not anti-religion; if there is one thing I take away from “Angels & Demons,” it’s that he wants us to distinguish between good religion and bad religion, which is something that both Christians and non-Christians ought to heed. There is a line at the end of the movie which I think summed it up best. One of the chief Cardinals says to Professor Robert Langdon something like: “Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed.” I like that. It is not Christianity’s fault that the Crusades happened (to tackle an over-the-top accusation that has been dished out against Christians all the time… if I had a dollar for every time I heard that…), it is the fault of evil people who did atrocious things in the name of Christianity. Similarly, it is not Darwinists who made Nazism happen, though Nazis did many of their horrific actions citing Darwinist theories of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection.”
Dan Brown is fine; Dan Brown is entertaining; Dan Brown is not the antichrist. His second book, Da Vinci Code, made waves, but if you have to read only one of the two, read Angels & Demons. I wonder which direction his third novel will go, however. I will be reading it as soon as it comes out, and I’m sure I will enjoy every minute of it. Then I will put it down and then live in my world of reality rather than in his world of sensationalized unprovable theories, and the world will keep on going without missing a beat.
P.S. I was pleasantly surprised to see in the credits of the movie that one of my favorite violinists, Joshua Bell, played the violin solos on the soundtrack!