Angels and Demons: A Movie Review

Another movie review? Why, I couldn't possibly! Well, I mean . . . if you insist I suppose I could write one . . .

So pretty much Angels and Demons was everything that I expected it to be: your typical summer movie with a few cool effects, little character development, sub par acting, highly improbable plot line, and over all worthy of a 'meh' on my part.

The movie differed from the book greatly at some parts, which is something to be expected when you go to see a movie. If you haven't figured this out already folks, let me assure you: The book is usually better than the movie, 99% of the time, anyway. And also, the movie is always different than the book is. Period. I mean, we've seen what happens when a movie stays too true to the book (COUGH COUGH Da Vinci Code COUGH COUGH).

But moving on: The parts of the book that were taken out are exactly the parts that would've made the movie better: the fact that Vittoria's father was murdered, the Hassasin being Arabic (as oposed to some bespectecled nerd with a laptop), the weird, random love connection between Langdon and Vittoria, and yes, even THE LEGS (also known as: my main complaint and grievance).

I think that all of the aformentioned are all things and elements to the story that are better suited to the big screen: it's my belief that Dan Brown speficially writes his books with a movie in mind. The quick chapter changes, the 'everyman' protagonist, the over played characters: it's obvious that Brown is a fan of films, and has seen a few of them.

So pretty much Angels and Demons was everything that I expected it to be: your typical summer movie with a few cool effects, little character development, sub par acting, highly improbable plot line, and over all worthy of a 'meh' on my part.

All of the things that this movie tries to do have already been done, and they've been done better. It's a good try on Howards part to make a summer block buster, and aparently he's done that, seeing as how A&D is the highest grossing film of 2009 (it's done really, really well internationally as oposed to domestically). But for someone like me, who's seen this typical movie a hundred times before, it just falls under average. As a fan, it was interesting to see the source material brought to life, but other than that, the film held no real interest for me. For the average movie goer, I'd say that its a movie to pay $2.00 to go and see during a matinee during the summer, to waste an afternoon and escape the heat.

One last word: was it just me, or did anyone else have Forrest Gump flashbacks thanks to Tom Hanks?

'Mama always said life is like a box of Cardinals!!'

'Swin, Forrest, Swim!!'

' I love you, Vit-tor-i-a!!!'

. . . yeah, the list goes on and on.

Pope Version 2.0: Now with 98% more Joyful Palpacy!

Okay, so I have to admit that I kind of saw this one coming:

Haven't we discussed in class the fact that the catholic church isn't really 'down with the kids' are are tailored to suit more of an old school generation (aka our grandparents) ? I think that anyone who has been following the advancement of technology a

nd the recent decline in the interest of Jesus-loving teens could

have guessed that at some point or another, the Pope was going to have to get with the times and use his BlackBerry not just for calling God, but to also update his ever interesting Facebook status.

And this isn't necessarily a bad thing: new media, celebrities, and a barrage of other companies, groups, etc are using technology to their advantage rather than turning it down or opposing it, in hopes of gaining the attention of our Gen Y minds (fyi: t

he Gen Y shall now be referred to as Generation Youtube. Coincidence?)

Personally, I'm not very religious so the fact that the Pope got a facebook page and an iPhone app doesn't really rock my world. While I find it a tad tacky, hila

rious, and generally ironic, I'm not up in arms about this whole thing. I think that its great that for once, the church is accepting some sort of advancement, be it technologically or otherwise. I mean really, it's a small start, but it's still a start.

What does this mean for the rest of us? Well, just like when you parents got Facebook, this means that Facebook is officially no longer cool. Think about it! Now that the Pope has Facebook, how long is it before dear old gran is filling out her 'looking for' and 'political views' in her brand spankin' new FB page (with all the privacy settings on full, of course).

The fact that Facebook is officially, completely, and 100% no longer cool means that either

a) Twitter is going to become over populated (please, no) or

b) MySpace just might make the resurgence it's been waiting so long for. OR

c) A new form of social networking that has yet to be unveiled will take over

Only time will tell which one of these scenarios is going to work out, but I can tell you that no matter what, we're all still going to be logging in, turning off, and praising God: for many, many years to come.

PS

While on the subject of the Pope, I can't help but share this photo that my friend made of me . . . as the Pope. Politically incorrect? Yes. Offensive? Possibly. Hilarious and though provoking? Most definitely.

Oh How Lame, the Hair of Tom!

So by now, most of us have seen either all of, or part of the disaster that was The Da Vinci Code. Personally, I actually paid money to go and see the movie the night it came out. Why? Well my friends, it may be hard to believe, but there was a time when the movie guru you see before you was young and naive and didn't know all that she knows today about what movies are good, and what movies are a complete waste of time.

But getting back on track, after the movie, many fans were left asking 'what the hell went wrong?' and personally, I don't know the answer to that question. I'd like to say that I really do know all there is to know about movies, but I'm just a mortal, and I can only come up with a few suggestions on to why Code completely and utterly crashed and burned.

First of all, it remained way too true to the book. It's not always the case that books can be perfectly segwayed into movies (AHEM Watchmen AHEM) and this is one of those times. I think that the best example of this is at the very start of the film, when Langdon aka Tom Hanks is deciphering the codes that Dead French Dude left behind for him. Does anyone else remember this? Floating, glowing letters, and a murmuring Hanks does not a good scene make. The effects here looked like some kid with Final Cut Pro had spent about 2 minutes trying to make his Com

m Tech project YouTube acceptable. I mean really, how much of a budget did these guys have, and that's the best they could come up with? Honestly Ron Howard, give your head a shake.

SECONDLY! Ron Howard isn't an action director. Sure, he's made such great films as Apollo 13, Frost Nixon, Cocoon, etc etc. But as for action and face paced adventure? Not so much. The audience doesn't experience a sense of urgency like they do in Demons. There is no ultimate threat really, except for that really pale monk, who looks like he could be my cousin, and even then, he doesn't seem like that much of a threat.

Also, as for the action part, a specific scene comes to mind where Sophie is driving her smart car around the streets of Paris, and the cops are after her. In a nutshell, the scene is shot too close. You can't tell what's going on, because everything is shot so close up. You see perhaps 2 shots that show more than just Sophie looked scared and/or concentrated and/or excited.

Lastly, Tom Hanks' hair. Need I say more?

There are a few other things that are wrong with the film (aka the flashbacks. If it was a happy flashback, it was colored normally, but if if was a scary or sad flashback, some guy in editing when nuts with the color correction and made it all BLUE), but I won't get into those too much. Pretty much, only the really die hard fans enjoyed the movie, and even then, only slightly. It's a rental of a movie at best, and even then I wouldn't suggest it to anyone.

Good Old Al Gore....

Despite the fact that most people believe that Al Gores message of the environment being in trouble as 'the sky is falling!!' type alerts, I for one think that it's true.

While I'm fulfilling my white person job as being enviormentally aware, I do think that we (and I say 'we' as in 'globally') have to figure out something to stop a total collapse of our environment. I mean really, have none of you people seen Wall E? We have Al Gore and cute, animated robots trying to get us to save the planet, what more is it going to take?!

And while it is true that history shows us that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, there's no denying the fact that we as humans are having some kind of negative impact on on earth. You can only sit there and mass consume, pollute, and litter for so long before it comes back and bites you. Anyone who thinks that we aren't at least partially responsible for this problem is ignorant, and part of the reason why we're here: people unwilling to believe new facts and change their ways for the good of man kind.

But, as I said in a previous blog, though, we need to sort ourselves out financially before we can save the environment, otherwise we're globally going to be in a lot of debt, and that will just cause bigger problems for us in the long run. My plan of action? Fix the economy, fix the environment, and then be on our merry way.

Angels and Demons and Hollywood

So not gonna lie, I didn't really exactly read the entire article...I know I know, give me a break, here! I have like 10 chapters of Frankenstein to go through still!

ANYWAYS I think I pretty much got the jist of the article, and here's my thoughts, plain and simple.

Way way way back in the day (the good ol day, that is) biblical epics (like the ones that I talked about in my ISP presentation) did really, really well. Why? Because more people were religious and open about where their faith lay. So if your movie in some way or another portrayed faith in a good light, there was little you could do to stop if from doing well financially.

Skip a few decades to today. More and more people are claiming that they're atheists or agnostics (damn fence sitters) that there used to be. Now, I'm not saying that the non-believers outweigh those who do believe, but its more socially acceptable now to be able to say 'I don't believe in a god' than it was when our parents were growing up (those people who did, were considered radical liberal hippies.... or communists, depending on where you lived).

So what does this mean for the movie industry? Pretty much, if you want your movie to be a success, you have to pander to both crowds. How, you may ask? Well its simple. You're pretty much allowed to have one or two characters that are either

a) undecided on faith (aka agnostics)

b) atheists, but subtle atheists, no Richard Dawkins' allowed

and these characters are the ones that represent one side of the religious spectrum: the side that isn't religious, that is. They are the only ones that are allowed to question faith or be cynical about it, etc etc.

For the rest of the movie, you have to have more people who are of faith than there are not of faith. Aka Tom Hanks (one character) vs VATICAN CITY. See what I'm saying here? The religious people are happy because over all, they win, but the atheists and agnostics are happy that their view of things is still represented.

This is exactly what Angels and Demons manages to do: bring up a little bit of watered down controversy while still managing to win over the Catholics with its over all message of 'Faith is good'. When tackling subject matter like this, this is the only way you can win, aka your 'no fail, idiot proof movie making' plan.

Don't believe me? Well, numbers don't lie, my friend: Angels and Demons has made the most money of any movie thus far this year. It has made (worldwide) $414, 171, 118 (according to Box Office Mojo.com). As it seems, all you need is a little faith.

The Big Issues

Okay so although my group and I (and  by 'my group' I mean 'CJ and I') thought that the biggest problem facing the world at this very moment was The Kids Today! (which I still stand by. Seriously, what is the world going to look like in 20 years when those twerps start running the place? All I can say is, I hope I die before I get old....)

But ANYWAYS, in all honesty I think that the biggest problem facing the world today is the economy crisis. Sure, some experts say that we can be looking at getting out of this thing by the end of the year, but here's how I see things:

Globally, things kind of suck right now: poverty, famine, disease, war, and not to mention global warming. In order to even start to think about fixing some of these things, we have to have the money and funds to do so, and as of right now, that's not an option. If we try to fix any of these issues right now, we'll have less money than ever before. 

If, however, we wait until (as a global community) we are financially ready to fix the tasks at hand, and then start to solve some problems, I think that we would all be better off. You can't start to fix something unless you have to the tools to do it, so if making this world a better one means waiting until we have the funds, I say we do it.

Educatoin System

So I'm just going to put this out here right now: don't expect my usual epic blog post. I'm serious, I'm trying really hard to not make these things 8 paragraph events that take an hour to write and another half hour to read for you guys. Seriously,  I'm putting my foot down, and this one is going to be short, sweet, and to the point.

OKAY so with that out of the way, the one major thing that I would change in the school system would be to have school start later. Anyone that knows me well is probably thinking 'You WOULD have school start later, w

ouldn't you Chloe?!' and to that I say 'Shut up!' because yes, while it is true that I am late to my first period class almost everyday, and there have been many an early English class that I have slept through, I do have more than personal reasons behind my decision.

The first of them is that I for one, have taken Mrs. Hoopers lovely Physcology class, and beyond talking about our part time jobs, dating, having kids, an

d a cornucopia of other 'wtf' classified topics, we discussed teen sleeping habits, and how they apply to learning and education. Now Mrs.Hooper is many things, and one of them happens to be a person who knows what the hell she's talking about, so when she says she's done her research, chances are, she has. So I believed her whole heartily when she said that recent research shows that teens need between 8 and 9 hours of sleep every single night to maintain happy, healthy, and to also be in the ideal state of mind to l

earn. She also gave us a case study of certain schools that have under gone a schedule change, and that now start at 9 or 10 AM instead of 8, and its a proven fact that those high school that start later in the day, are also the same schools that have higher test marks, happier students, and less attendance problems.

To quote Polk a Dot Shorts:
'Coincidence? I 

think NOT!!'

(If anyone actual remembers this show besides me and Marcie, welcome to the dark side)

So what does that research show us? Lets appeal to math land for a second and put it into an equation!

Teenagers + More Sleep - School starting Earlier =

 Happier, Healthier, Smarter Teens.

I'd like to see one educator who doesn't like them apples.

Also, with the rising cost of college/university tuition, many kids now have part time jobs. Between school, homework, work, etc, that doesn't leave kids with much time after school for sleep. If you get home at 3pm, work a 6 hour shift from 3:30 - 9pm, and then have one hour of homework for each of your classes, you're looking at not getting to bed until 12:30AM! If school starts at 8, like ours does, and you get up at say, 6:30 to catch the bus, get ready, etc that gives you exactly 6 hours of sleep, 3 hours less than the amount you need to stay healthy.

Now I know that some of these figures are obviously of

f, and that one hour of homework for each class may not apply to everyone, but if you put things in perspective, it still shows us the truth of the matter: we need more sleep.

Now I'm not saying that things are going to change drastically, suddenly, or all at once, but with this kind of research, it is possible that in the next few years, high school may just start later than it is now. With this happy thought in mind, think of the fact that by this time, we won't be in high school anymore, and we won't be able to reap the benefits of a 9AM wake up call. What was that about 'Always look on the bright side of life', Eric Idol? 

                                                            Yeah.... I forget too......