Today’s episode brings out the best and worst in Brady and Jay when they argue for almost 12 minutes about Ron Howard’s latest entry into the summer movie series, Angels & Demons
Jay says:
There’s still so much more to the show, though, and I’m considering putting it online later on. I never did go into the movie expecting to hate it, by the way. I was hoping it would be a decent movie.
Brady says:
It was a decent movie! You’re just too closed minded, Jay. Admit it.
Jay says:
I have nothing to admit, except that YOU like BAD movies!
Brady says:
You saying so isn’t enough to make it bad. It’s just an OPINION. You need to accept that the movie accomplishes all it set out to do. Kudos to them for a great film.
Jay says:
Kudos to—
- A.O. Scott of the New York Times: “the utter silliness of ‘Angels & Demons’ is either its fatal flaw or its saving grace…. The movie all but begs for such treatment.”
- Betsy Sharkey of the LA Times: “ultimately everything wilts under the weight of the complicated story lines of its many saints and sinners”
“And much of what is supposed to pass for dialogue is merely a recitation of fact.” - W.R. Greer of ReviewsofBooks: “some judicious editing might have made it a tighter and more focused novel”
Also, kudos to Ron Howard for showing reverence toward the Vatican—and by association, the Catholic Church—with the ending of the film.
Brady makes Jay say (for him*):
Kudos to the New York Post for saying, “Angels & Demons has some exciting sequences, a spectacular ending with a terrific twist and a grounding in the debate about science versus religion that could hardly be more timely.” And the Star-Ledger says, “Angels and Demons is a truly handsome production.” And the book review you took your quote from is actually a glowing review of the book.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was a great film but I thought it was a serviceable piece of entertainment. 3 out of 5 stars.
[...] (seriously) arguing about the quality of Angels & Demons on last Friday’s episode of About 12 Minutes. As you can tell by my review I probably fall somewhere in the middle ground of their argument [...]
Oh and Jay, I’m not sure what you were getting at with Brown’s writing style? Brown’s style is very much the same style that other best selling author’s of historical thrillers use. I’m sure you’ve read books by Michael Crichton, Brown’s books read very, very similarly. Its a style that is very prominent and to be honest quite successful. Steve Berry, Raymond Khoury, Clive Cussler, Crichton and Brown have all delivered massive best selling books using that style.
If you want to argue his mastery of the English language, yes he is sub par but much like Stephanie Meyer (another not-so-great writer with massive hit books) he knows how to craft an interesting story that works well within the style they have chosen to write.
————
Brady, there were lots of smoking cardinals in that movie.
As much as I don’t care for the movie or book, at least it wasn’t mostly stolen from others’ work, like The DaVinci Code was.
As for his writing style, I’ve read a lot of Crichton, and he’s better than Brown is, by a long shot. Brown’s reliance on artificial cliffhangers to build tension is a long used narrative trick, but he overuses it to the point of parody.
And really, any argument that invokes Stephanie Meyer should be automatically stricken from the record hahahah.
nick, I know you have a hate for “bad” pop-culture but its hard to deny that Stephanie Meyer created a universe that teenage girls can relate too. You don’t sell millions upon millions of copies of books unless you can captivate your intended audience.
Yes Crichton is a far better writer than Brown but I was just making a correlation between writing styles, taking arguably the best at it (in Crichton) and showing that Brown is only using that particular style. I’m guessing you haven’t read a whole lot of the historical thriller genre over the last few years as Brown’s overuse of artificial cliffhangers has pretty much taken over the genre.
I suppose you are of the mind that the London High Court should have found Brown guilty of plagiarism in regards to The DaVinci Code? Having read both books, I’m of the mind that he certainly used ideas set forth in that book but I also have to agree with the LHC in that he didn’t outright plagiarize the book. In fact co-author of the book in question (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) Henry Lincoln, did not file suit against Brown because he felt that the ideas set forth in their book were not entirely original either. What I find to be exceptionally funny is that no one seems to target the countless novels that have been released since The DaVinci Code dealing with similar themes and no one seems to target them for stealing from others works.
My issue with the plagiarism is less stealing themes and the general zeitgeist of the time (which happens in all areas of pop culture), and more from the reliance on the research others did without citation. Obviously, yes, the London High Court felt different.
My dislike of Stephanie Meyer has less to do with her popularity or writing ability, and more with her willful ignorance of the genre she is working within, and the general tone of the Twilight series, which is insidiously misogynistic and maudlin.
This is all just my opinion though, and as always, your mileage may vary. I don’t begrudge anyone theirs.
I begrudge everyone their opinion.
Chris, did you just call Twilight an interesting story? Really?
Vanessa, For her target audience? yes, Twilight is an interesting story. Am I interested in it? Other than liking what all the fuss over popular pieces of our culture is about, no.
nine comments? About angels & demons? Are you serious? Serious? Who cares what any of you think?! It’s not like it’s Terminator Salvation.