Hal,
Thank you for your posting of the Dem platform information. I about fell off of my chair when I saw it. I received, just yesterday, a pleasantly dismissive email from Sen Durbin in response to my email (60 days ago) objecting to his position on abortion. An exerpt follows:
"While abortion is an issue that has tended to divide Americans, I believe we can acknowledge women's rights and still work together to reduce the number of abortions. We must make family planning services and age-appropriate sex education more available. This will help couples avoid the unplanned pregnancies that often lead to abortion. I support the federal family planning program, which provides nearly five million women with a wide range of services designed to improve maternal and infant health, lower the incidence of unintended pregnancy, and prevent abortions. This program has a proven record of success."
I freely acknowledge the rights of unborn women. Age appropriate sex education? How does he define "success"?
No wonder your quote looked familiar. I expect that the education he speaks of will be "values neutral". That education is presented in a fashion that "neuters" my Catholic/Christian values!
The often heard phrase about certain activities is "But they will all do them". That has never prevented me from trying to teach my children not do do certain activities. I have not taught them to minimize the "damage" by only drinking "lite" beer, smoking "light" cigarettes or that they should only drive on the left side of the road in residential neighborhoods. I have taught them that "NO" is a valid response in so many circumstances. Our actions do have consequences.
I hope that this comment is not too "practical" for the tenor of the discussion. I was taught to try to make the world a better place by my actions. Others have said it but it bears repeating again that actions speak louder than words. Yada, Yada, Yada is cheap.
That applies to my actions as well as those of politicians. If not me, Whom? If not now, When?
Dismissive letters only confirm what my vote will be 5 years from now.

I was curious to know whether, putting aside the errors in theology, history, science, and everything else, was the movie entertaining in any way, or was it just another Opie snooze-fest like DVC. DVC was like watching a boring history documentary with a monotone monologue as the main character. I thought A&D would have been a little more action oriented.
And more than anything, Dan Brown pisses me off for wasting a cool title ("Angels & Demons") that could have been used for a fascinating supernatural thriller.

The best part of this movie's release is watching the apoplexy from scientists over the laughably erroneous physics Dan Brown puts forth as truth. Welcome to the club, boys.

I have read your article, I think very popular with this article.

Everyone is biased! SDG is biased and will by definition promote a pro-Catholic view in his movie reviews. There is nothing wrong with this, but to claim someone is unbiased is pure error.

I just wish A&D was not being promoted by the media in a fashion that hammers on the Catholic Church. I heard on following on the CBS radio news yesterday afternoon - probably Sunday 4P CDT.
Paraphrased slightly: The movie Angels and Demons was popular at the box office this weekend (followed by a voiceover from what I assume is a trailer) The Catholic church has been persecuting and murdering members of a secret society called the illuminati ... (background audio includes music and screams)
This was in the middle of a "Newscast" on the radio! A casual listener could easly take the trailer as "information" about the actions of the Church. While I can d/l a copy of what was actually in the newscast, I'm not sure I want to hear it again.
I used to think ABC radio was biased. CBS radio news too often upsets my stomach! Including a movie trailer within a network radio newscast without identifying it as such is not "journalism"!
The oft touted (in past decades) "firewall" between Journalism and commercial interest & editorials is long since gone. This is particularly true within broadcast. It has been sad to watch news departments be gutted. The pattern the past several decades is that "cost centers" are always removed. The value of true News and Information is "soft" and cannot easily be quantified.
Thanks to SDG for filling an obvious void. (Obvious at least to most readers of such blogs as this!)

A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a critic for?
Thanks SDG for watching it so we don't have to.

Or be like everyone else and watch Star Trek instead. I saw it twice and would not mind seeing it a third time.

Why waste your time? Rent "The Scarlet and The Black" instead.

"Bad movie" it may be, but if it's a "good romp" for a couple of hours, I'll probably watch it at some time.

Do not be a fool and see a bad movie just out of curiosity to "see for yourself". I half think the people who advocate this "idea" are puppets of the studio that made it. The results are in: Angels and Demons, like its predecessor, is an epic fail. The box office returns confirm this. On its opening night, the movie barely outperformed the second weekend of Star Trek. The following night, it actually grossed LESS than Trek and the Sunday returns show it ahead once again by a very small margin. Here are the stats:
Friday:
A & D: $16,600,000
Trek: $11,779,000
Saturday:
A & D: $17,800,000
Trek: $18,317,000
Sunday:
A & D: $13,600,000
Trek: $12,904,000
Weekend total:
A & D: $48,000,000
Trek: $43,000,000
The production budget of A&D is secret, but estimated to about the same as the $180 million it cost to make Code. One estimate put it at $150 million. The opening weekend is crucial for box office returns because it generally is all downhill from there. Both Trek and Wolverine grossed about $80 million their first weekends and they garnered about half the following weekend -- which is equal to A&D's opening night. Expect next weekend to put A&D in the sub-$10 million range and the following weekend to be its prelude to the bargain DVD bin at Wal-mart.
Why? Because even people with nothing invested in the religiosity of the movie think it stinks. I have read numerous reviews from people who admit their historical ignorance by accepting the movie's characterization of the Church and science and these same people call the movie a stupid and convoluted waste of time.
So when someone comes around arguing that the movie does not have problems and that it is a "good romp", we have to question what counts most of all when it comes to opinions on movies: taste.
There was a similar reaction to the first movie -- critics lambasted it as snoozefest and the public wanted to show their open-mindedness and acceptance by open-mindedly accepting to watch a crappy movie. The problem is this time, the memory of it is too fresh and the banality of banging constantly on the same anti-Christian drum is actually starting to wear thin.

Spend time with Jesuits and Bishops and you will surprised at the large number that do smoke.

Yes, and probably more so in Europe and elsewhere than in the U.S. Still, in a contemporary Hollywood film, it is a de facto rule that smoking cigarettes is something that bad, decadent or somehow compromised characters do. In the overall context of the film, it's not a stretch to see a jaundiced eye in those shots.

Spend time with Jesuits and Bishops and you will surprised at the large number that do smoke.

I saw the movie last night and I thought it put a bad light on the Catholic Church. I remember the part when all the Cardnals got off the bus and they showed them smokeing, useing cell phones, video tapeing with cams.

galfin: For the second and final time, this combox is not the place.

[DELETED]

Massawyrm at AintItCool points out the failed Batman script nature of it. Frankly, I think that's all the laughs you're going to get out of it.

Tonight I went and saw Angels & Demons. I'd read the book a few years ago, so I was curious. I don't agree with the assessment that this movie made a mockery of the Church or it's leaders. While it was over the top (it was a Catholic National Treasure), it was enjoyable and I came out of the theater with a renewed interest in the Church (no, I'm not going to start searching for Illuminati symbols). While I don't agree with galfin's other assertions, and certainly his lack of respect for Mr. Akin and his blog, I do agree that this movie has become a mountain made of a mole hill. Sometimes a movie is just a movie with no sinister motives. I walked into the theater with doubts and cheered at the end when the new pope was announced with the rest of the movie attendees. Don't take my word for it, and if you feel you still shouldn't see it, don't. It's just a movie. There will be many more.

C: Please see the above from Jimmy. Note that your recent posts have been removed. Please stop posting. Thank you.

While I appreciate the polite way in which C addressed his most recent comments, his current religious position precludes him from participation in this blog.
I wish him well and I hope he revises his religious position soon for the sake of his soul, but there are limits to the kind of dialog that I am prepared to host on this blog.
A religious position that will, in every instance that it is expressed, be perceived as a deliberate affront to most sacred beliefs of the average reader of the blog--and that will consequently generate fierce arguments at every turn--would fundamentally disrupt the kind of discourse that this blog exists to foster.

The above takes the "non-apology apology" to entirely undreamed of heights.
You haven't changed a bit, C, heart or otherwise - except you now at least admit openly to being a Satanist. Perhaps that glimmer of honesty could be considered, by some, progress of a sort.
Not by me, however. I do not look forward to your posts sucking all the oxygen out of the combox, as I see by your first few comments that you remain a troll, only with grander, more convoluted and flowery prose than most.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church and its leadership did much to help Jews from torture and death. I don't know of any church denomination or organization that did more than the Catholic Church in helping save the Jewish people from imprisonment, torture and death. If anyone else knows of one, please present those facts here.
As for Dan Brown, he wrote the DaVinci Code knowing it was a fictional mystery, and included that fact in his book, so it was requested to have that fact added at the beginning of the movie. Now this latest adventure thriller seems again to poke fun at church officials, mainly those who are of the largest Christian population in the world (Catholic) to make a mockery of it and misrepresent the organization we know today as the Catholic Church! It's interesting that film makers and others are allowed to criticize the Church, but not allowed to criticize the Jewish people or Muslim people or any other religion. Isn't that what's called discrimination? And for those giving statistics as if they were fact, only 1% of all Catholic priests have been accused of sexual crimes or misconduct with others (400 out of 40,000 in this country), and of course a number of them are later being found to be innocent much like those convicts on death row. So where does anyone come up with the figure of 25% being homosexual? It appears to me that 1% of all Christian Churches and non Christian churches also have had their pastors accused of sexual misconduct making the Catholic Church no more guilty than anyone else. It's simply the great number of those who are Catholic resulting in more sexual misconduct cases but the proportion seems to be the same. Don't get me wrong - those who are guilty of such behavior should be removed from their office (and they are), but the Catholic priesthood is no more guilty than any other church.

Mr. Greydanus' are the only movie reviews I regularly read (to paraphrase Belloc on Chesterton). Thank you. They are immensely informative and entertaining... often more so than the film... which is very bad... for the film.

"denying responsibility in helping the Jews during WWII"
The Church has no need to deny her helping of the Jews during WWII.

galfin: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to drop by and express your bigotry.

galfin: While you're welcome to your opinion, derogatory speculation about the unknown motivations of others, especially stated as fact, is both foolhardy and rude. Don't tell me you know why I'm writing about Angels & Demons. You don't.
This is not the forum for discussing the mixed bag of topics and inflammatory accusations you raise. Beyond that, it is sophistry to say "Here are important topics that you must talk about, so you mustn't talk about anything else!"
I happen to be a film critic. Most of my writing is about movies, and I write about other subjects as they come up in conjunction with film.
If you are just bursting to discuss the topics you mention, take it someplace like Catholic Answers Forums.

I saw the movie and think it is great escapist entertainment. SDG, Catholic Answers, and the rest are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The reason for straining at these gnats is to deflect from the REAL atrocities promulgated by the Vatican.
Some of these include the Inquisition, sabotaging the Eastern Orthodox, denying responsibility in helping the Jews during WWII, and a 25% homosexual clergy.
So please address the REAL ISSUES, not trifles like Dan Brown.

I'd like to say I know how you feel, but I have no idea. I do sympathize, though. Hang in there.
"...they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint."
I hope Brown's third movie involves aliens. Or Bigfoot. That might help people to get some perspective on the other two books/movies/marketing bonanzas.