Hey Catholics, Ron Howard Doesn’t Hate You THAT Much

Angels And Demons, Ron Howard, Catholics, Tom HanksWhenever Ron Howard adapts a Dan Brown book into a movie, three things are guaranteed to instantly happen.

Firstly, Tom Hanks will grow a terrible haircut. Secondly, reams of fat American tourists will start plodding around wherever it’s set loudly carping on about the Catholic church because they think that listening to a rubbishy airport book on audiotape once makes them the world’s sweatiest, most badly-dressed professors of theology.

And thirdly Ron Howard will wring his hands and unconvincingly claim that he doesn’t hate Catholics. Angels & Demons is released soon, so you’ll never guess what Ron Howard has done.

The Da Vinci Code. Now that was a good film. Probably. We haven’t actually watched it. But then again we didn’t really need to, on the basis that anyone who’s even been within 30 miles of Paris in the last five years already knows the entire plot front to back from overhearing the small army of simpletons who blunder round day after day shouting things like “Ooh, Mary Magdalene was the victim of a Catholic cover up,” and “Ooh, Opus Dei,” and “Ooh, blah blah blah blah wank.”

Anyway, now the movie adaptation of the sequel to The Da Vinci Code, Angels And Demons, is about to be released. It’s bound to have exactly the same effect as The Da Vinci Code, in that everyone is going to spout badly-informed nonsense about the Illuminati until we end up punching ourselves unconscious, the Large Hadron Collider is going to become a haven for fat tourists who secretly wish they were sitting by a swimming pool somewhere and all the Catholics in the world are going to throw a massive tizzy about it.

It happened with The Da Vinci Code – plus the film was banned in Pakistan and China – and now it pretty much looks like it’s going to happen with Angels & Demons, too. The Roman Diocese had already banned the movie from filming inside any of its churches, and last week the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights wrote a newspaper article saying that Angels & Demons was a fat load of toilet and that Ron Howard was a ginger, Catholic-hating tosswhump. We’re paraphrasing.

But Ron Howard isn’t going down without a fight, so he’s written a response for the Huffington Post:

“Let me be clear: neither I nor Angels & Demons are anti-Catholic… After all, in Angels & Demons, Professor Robert Langdon teams up with the Catholic Church to thwart a vicious attack against the Vatican. What, exactly, is anti-Catholic about that?”

Now that both sides have had their say, it looks like we’re all invited to take sides. So who will you pick – the large, humourless organisation that believes an omniscient fairy will let you live on a cloud if you spend your entire life brown-nosing him, or the slightly annoying ginger man who’s made a bad film based on a worse book?

It’s a tricky one, isn’t it? So we’ve decided that we’re just going to tell you ending of Angels & Demons to save you the effort – apparently it was Jesus, in the drawing room, with his holy eye-lasers.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Headline Name: Email: subscribed: 0 We respect your privacy Email Marketingby GetResponse

Comments

  1. diedye says

    Oh give me a break! Why is it that these fanatics always try to lump in ALL Catholics into their views?! I am Catholic and by no means share the views of the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (*snicker* hypocrisy, anyone?). It’s a STORY, people… you know… FICTION! If you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality, then there’s a straight jacket down at the local funny farm with your name on it. GET OVER IT!

  2. says

    I found I noticed obelisks much more after watching “The Da Vinci Code”. Plus I always enjoy reading more biblical related story telling. So many little twists and turns – thing is they forgot to include Satan. Oh wait, that was the whole church role this time.

  3. Bob says

    Yet diedye, you believe in the biggest fiction story, the bible. Somebody get this man a straight jacket.

  4. says

    Oh yeah, Pal, well listen. Me and a bunch of the Illuminati – some smart guys what got scads of dough, see? – are plannin’ to pay a visit to Opie’s set and maybe talk some sense into the kid, because he’s been the spillin’ the beans on this Pope Dope through the movies see?

    We are behind Planned Parenthood – we’re doin’ an inside hostile take over the skirts that snuff their kids and we got Bishops dressin’ up like boards and sissies on MSNBC doin’ the Dark Work of Scarlet Horra Babylon. You think Harry Potter’s on the level cupcake?

    Us Catliks is poised. Poised – See?

    Barack Obama – Secret Catlik prentendin’ to be Moslum – why think

    the kid went to Georgetown and is set at Noter Dame?

    Yeah, Opie don’t like Mackerel Snappers but he’s really on to the straight Pope Dope.

  5. Tyler says

    By the way…Angels and Demons is the prequel, not the sequel.

    People are too high-strung.

  6. says

    You joyfully say you haven’t seen “The DaVinci Code”, but in your other article, which you cite in reference to Pakistan’s banning of that film, you call it overlong, boring, and full of “shouting exposition”. A critique of a film you haven’t watched? You also mention the quality of the book it’s based on. We should probably assume you haven’t read it.

    You also call “Angels and Demons” a “bad film” before its release. Unless you’ve seen it in a reviewer’s release (weeks before actual reviewers will be allowed a screening), it’s more of the same pre-formulated canned animosity.

    I don’t wish to defend either film — I haven’t seen them and so I don’t yet have an opinion of my own — but tiresome, vernacular-riddled articles are a constant source of displeasure for me. Entertainment, or information, or even informed opinion (or whatever this is trying to be) doesn’t spontaneously erupt out of cynical self-serving writing.

  7. says

    You mopingly say “tiresome, vernacular-riddled articles are a constant source of displeasure for me”, but in your other sentence, which you cite in reference to hecklerspray’s panning of that film, you reveal that you actively seek out “tiresome, vernacular-riddled articles”. I call your post overlong, boring, and full of rubbish exposition. You should probably assume I haven’t read it, if that would help your strangely-bearded ego.

    I don’t wish to defend either you or the author — I haven’t met them and so I don’t yet have an opinion of my own — but entertainment, or information, or even informed opinion (or whatever your comment is trying to be) doesn’t spontaneously erupt out of cynical self-serving writing.

    The only eruption I predict happening is from the end of your willy as you raid your sixth form English essays for tedious, overblown, pretentious phrases to stick together.

  8. Conspiracy Exposer says

    The Illuminati Catholic Freemasons are going to put gps-nanutech containing insects into the theaters showing the film. You will see the movie, and itch alot afterward. It makes me scratch just thinking about there devious schemes.

  9. Tricky Nicky says

    Louis, your picture says it all… you know what they mean… but, hey, don’t let that get in the way of a bit of flowery affectatious bloggy blah blah eh? You don’t have to actually see something to know it’s crap now do you? Less of the old puff and more of getting the bigger picture old chap! 100 lines, on my desk first thing tomorrow, you silly boy – I shall stop being a pretentious bloggy blah blah and get the picture sir.

  10. says

    I don’t like to say this, but Dan Brown is defending the books as reality (a reality that could be debunked by a amateur in history, or science, or art, or anything). The problem isn’t in the books, because there are worst, but by people that thinks this is reality.

  11. Shooty* says

    Stu, you should watch The Da Vinci Code. you’d p1ss yourself laughing at the last 5 minutes where everyone suddenly starts wearing lots and lots of tartan to show that they’re in Scotland.

  12. diedye says

    You have no idea what I believe… and vice versa. This isn’t about the Bible, it’s about Dan Brown’s book. When people stray from that point, that’s when the trouble starts. Harry Potter, anyone?

  13. Conspiracy Exposer says

    I betcha, most really hard core conspiracy theorists will tell you that the illuminati already infected them with insects.

    The latest being morgollens via chemtrails. This one definitely shows how the government and the illuminati are intertwined.

    Thankfully, I don’t itch much myself. Just thinking about it makes me itch, but mostly I don’t think about what the Catholic-Freemasons are doing. I have heard from some evangelical theorists that these insects have 666 written on them, so that you get the mark of the beast without knowing it. Dang sneeky Illuminati.

  14. Dan H. says

    Ron Howard will never see another dollar from me. I believe that this series of movies are in fact anti-Catholic and would never be tolerated against another religion. It’s ok to abuse Catholics I guess. Fictitious drivel masquerading as fact. What comes around, goes around Opie.

  15. Simon R. Gladdish says

    I gave Dan Brown a very wide berth until I read somewhere that he had seriously upset the Vatican. The following day I went out and bought every single book that he had ever written and, to my surprise, enjoyed them all.