Thread: Angels and Demons

I really enjoyed watching 'The Da Vinci Code' and the book 'Angels and Demons' is simply brilliant. (Though lacking a bit of reality every now and then, but then again, it's a movie, so meant to be entertaining not educating. ;) )

Has anyone seen Tom Hanks reprising his role as Professor Robert Langdon so far?
Is the movie as good as the book?

I'm quite curious about some of the other actors, too.
Can't actually imagine Ewan McGregor to play the Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca. Though I'm looking forward to Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss. He definitely fits for the role.

On the other hand I haven't seen any movie with Ayelet Zurer I think. She's the actor who plays Vittoria Vetra, the CERN scientist and inventor (together with her father) of the antimatter bomb.

Have there been any sneak previews in the UK?
The teasers here sure look fine so far. :D

Originally Posted by YesItsMe

the book 'Angels and Demons' is simply brilliant.

Surely you jest?
While the stories in Brown's novels have potential - mostly because he's plagiarised them - his prose is worse than that expected of Primary school children. Run on sentences, woeful grammar, vocabulary limited to Janet And John levels, random uses of italics, weak dialogue, shallow and inept characterisation... and, most annoying of all, the 'here-is-some-information-I-found-during-my-research-and-I-am-going-to-have-to-insert-it-in-the-most-clunking-way-possible' moments that occur in every chapter.

To save me giving examples, Geoffrey Pullam has many critiques of Brown's writing at Language Log.
The Da Vinci Cod: A Fishy Parody by Don Brine is much the same as Brown's work, only it's amusing for the right reasons:

The opening paragraph:
Jacques Sauna-Lurker lay dead in the main hallway of the National Art Gallery of Fine Paintings, in the heart of London, a British city, the capital of Britain, with a population density of approximately 10,500 people per square mile and a total population of approximately seven million people, unless by ‘London’ you include the Greater London Area, which has a population of about twenty million people and a slightly lower population per square mile.

Originally Posted by ottar

Originally Posted by YesItsMe

the book 'Angels and Demons' is simply brilliant.

Surely you jest?
While the stories in Brown's novels have potential - mostly because he's plagiarised them - his prose is worse than that expected of Primary school children. Run on sentences, woeful grammar, vocabulary limited to Janet And John levels, random uses of italics, weak dialogue, shallow and inept characterisation... and, most annoying of all, the 'here-is-some-information-I-found-during-my-research-and-I-am-going-to-have-to-insert-it-in-the-most-clunking-way-possible' moments that occur in every chapter.

To save me giving examples, Geoffrey Pullam has many critiques of Brown's writing at Language Log.
The Da Vinci Cod: A Fishy Parody by Don Brine is much the same as Brown's work, only it's amusing for the right reasons:

The opening paragraph:
Jacques Sauna-Lurker lay dead in the main hallway of the National Art Gallery of Fine Paintings, in the heart of London, a British city, the capital of Britain, with a population density of approximately 10,500 people per square mile and a total population of approximately seven million people, unless by ‘London’ you include the Greater London Area, which has a population of about twenty million people and a slightly lower population per square mile.

So you don't like Browns novels then I take it? ;)

'The Da Vinci Code' was without doubt one of the biggest lets downs so won't be rushing to see the latest epic.

Umm...Browns book are works of fiction, written at a level accessible to masses, and judging by the sales figures, he did a bloody good job. The Brown novels are just another light holiday read.

Methinks Ottar had too high expectations. Dickens it ain't and it ain't trying to be either.

....took me ages to write this....keep staring at THE BOOBS....curse you Ord!

Sorry, Ottar, but I really like the books.
As mentioned before, they're only supposed to be entertaining as far as I'm concerned.
Never said they'd be educating or even prosa.

If I want to read something sophisticated, I'll choose Shakespeare and not Brown. ;)

It is said that everyone has at least one good novel in them.

Except Dan Brown.

His books are like scripts for films destined to go straight to DVD and from there directly to the bargain bin without ever gracing a shelf.

I read most of Browns stuff a few years ago when "The Da Vinci Code" book came out.
Mediocre reads, all of them.
Entertaining, but not taxing.
Fell asleep due to boredom watching the film of "The Da Vinci Code", so I won't be rushing to see this film.
Also felt Tom Hanks was mis-cast.
My two-penneth, for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by Croque_Monsieur

...Dickens it ain't and it ain't trying to be either...

Dickens was writing for the masses in weekly published magazines too.

Saying that I think Dickens is dreadful anyway. Chuckle at the "comedy" names, wonder at the patronising way of writing "lower class" speech, pass the sick bucket on the death of Little Nell!

I read the Da Vinci code on holiday, because everyone else was. I enjoyed it, as a holiday book. I then read Angels and Demons. If I had read Angels and Demons, I would not have read the Da Vinci code. Not least the jumping-from-a-helicopter-using-your-tweed-jacket-as-a-drogue-thing...

pap

Originally Posted by dogmeat

It is said that everyone has at least one good novel in them.

Except Dan Brown.

His books are like scripts for films destined to go straight to DVD and from there directly to the bargain bin without ever gracing a shelf.

It's also said that there is no more money in publishing for new authors; Dan Brown's got 50% and JK Rowling's got the other half! :D

Originally Posted by ottar

Originally Posted by YesItsMe

the book 'Angels and Demons' is simply brilliant.

Surely you jest?
While the stories in Brown's novels have potential - mostly because he's plagiarised them - his prose is worse than that expected of Primary school children. Run on sentences, woeful grammar, vocabulary limited to Janet And John levels, random uses of italics, weak dialogue, shallow and inept characterisation... and, most annoying of all, the 'here-is-some-information-I-found-during-my-research-and-I-am-going-to-have-to-insert-it-in-the-most-clunking-way-possible' moments that occur in every chapter.

But it's worse than that. His research is woefully inadequate. He can't get his history correct. Some of the mistakes are so bizarrely stupid you can't believe an editor would have let it through--the major character, an expert, claims that Catholic communion--it's genesis is in the 1st century AD--is derived from the Aztecs. I'm thinking the fact that the Aztecs weren't known to the West until the 16th century might have come up in his 'research'. He can't get Italian translations correct, he apparently does'nt realize that the Swiss Guards are in a different country--Vatican City--and aren't allowed to roam all over the city of Rome which is basically part of the adjoining country of Italy. And it just goes on and on. Very disappointed.

Certainly an interesting idea for a story, but very poorly executed.

The only time Dan Brown is absorbing is when you're wiping the sh*t from your a*se.

His work is of the most ludicrous, puerile drivel I have ever encountered. The conspiracy nuts he plagerised have a better sense of prose and narrative than he does.

Read "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco instead. Not only is it a riveting thriller you will actually learn something from them. Try, also, "The Dumas Club" & "The Flanders Panel" - Arturo Perez-Reverte. Books with real story telling.

I cannot advocate the burning of books, because that is wrong, but I would happily build the pyre for Dan Brown, douse him in meths, light the fire then dance naked, merrily cackling to the music of his dying screams. Knowing that I had struck a worthy blow for literature and trees throughout the world.

Editedx2 for spelling: 'cos I was seething with anger at this man's very existence.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe

Sorry, Ottar, but I really like the books.
As mentioned before, they're only supposed to be entertaining as far as I'm concerned.
Never said they'd be educating or even prosa.

If I want to read something sophisticated, I'll choose Shakespeare and not Brown. ;)

I like them too. For what they are, their not a bad read. Stories somewhat unbelievable, so what? They are page turners and take me through them at a cracking pace.

I think the criticism of his books is a tad harsh. Fine, if he was attempting fine writing, just too harsh for what is a light thriller.

Shakespeare is good. But it is hard work to get the language if you was not taught it at school. That makes repeat reading necessary for me to get the jokes and story. Not something I would take on holliday.

Then again, I also like 2000AD and Spiderman. So what do I know?

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Originally Posted by dogmeat

It is said that everyone has at least one good novel in them.
Except Dan Brown.
His books are like scripts for films destined to go straight to DVD and from there directly to the bargain bin without ever gracing a shelf.

It's also said that there is no more money in publishing for new authors; Dan Brown's got 50% and JK Rowling's got the other half! :D

Well, those H. Potter books have finally been done, so there might be a chance for someone else after all.
Hey, who knows, could even be Adam Roberts. :D