Bad Review: Vatican Bans Tom Hanks From Filming Sequel to the Da Vinci Code on Church Grounds

It seems that Tom Hanks may have to ask the Lutherans for a backdrop to the sequel to The Da Vinci Code. The Vatican has banned him from church grounds in Rome after calling his last movie “an offence against God.” I have heard some bad reviews, but this one takes the cake. What is most interesting is that I had previously concluded that the movie was an offense to me after putting down almost $20 bucks for myself and my wife. The Vatican movie review indicates that viewers can expert poor writing, mediocre acting, and guaranteed damnation.

The most severe critic of Dan Brown’s work turns out to be Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, the head of the Vatican’s Prefecture for Economic Affairs, who said that he “turned the gospels upside down to poison the faith”. But that is not all: “It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into films in the name of business,” he said, adding that Brown’s work “wounds common religious feelings.”

Joining De Paolis as the Vatican’s Siskel & Ebert is Father Marco Fibbi, the spokesman for the Diocese of Rome. Fibbi put it simply in giving his thumbs down: “Normally we read the script but this time it was not necessary. The name Dan Brown was enough.”

The Vatican asked the faithful to boycott the film of The Da Vinci Code.

This clears the way for Kung Fu Panda to sweep the Vatican box office this season.
For the full story, click here.

12 thoughts on “Bad Review: Vatican Bans Tom Hanks From Filming Sequel to the Da Vinci Code on Church Grounds”

  1. I still think the funniest movie I have ever seen was The Pope Must Diet (1991) – IMDb
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102691/?licb=0.4260944742709398

    it was not exactly an A lister but it was just funny as hell – I loved Alex Rocco as Cardinal Rocco runs the Vatican Bank and he and the new Pope Robby Coltrane run the Vatican for the mob which pretty much is how all of Italy has been run for years and the way the Vatican operated in the old days.

    who knows how it is now – probably now quite that outrageous but there really are no controls over teh “Holy See” are there?

  2. 1L:

    You certainly have mastered the concept of a tautology, now I’d work on rhetorical irony. By the way, not all promotion is positive. I give you those annoying cartoon-like human figures who are pushing some brokerage house in the TV commercial as just one glaring example.

  3. Maybe it’s not the movie, but Tom Hanks playing Prof. Robert Langdon that made them ban the filming. I don’t know how a good actor could be so badly miscast, that the movie is ruined before it’s even released.
    He doesn’t even remotely fit the description, he’s 10 yrs older than the character (and looks it). Bad fit! No wonder the Vatican wants nothing to do with it!

  4. “It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into films in the name of business,” he said, adding that Brown’s work “wounds common religious feelings.”
    ******************

    I guess the good Cardinal never saw Anthony Quinn as Pope Kiril I in the Catholic feel-good film “The Shoes of the Fisherman.” That square with the thousands of pious Pope fans sure looked like Rome, and I didn’t see any timbers holding up the facade of St. Peters. Well I guess its promoting the faith when its favorable, and “poisoning the faith,” when its not. I also must conclude the Church was dead set against artistic travesties like “The Assisi Underground,” Knute Rockne-All American,” “Going My Way,” and “The Song of Bernadette.” All cynical bashers of the faith, indeed, and we know that the Catholic Church is above such mundane earthly endeavors like “business.”

  5. Ask Obama his opinion. Judging by the number of pictures of him at a pulpit lately I would guess he would object to this movie, this year anyway, also…….

  6. Seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction. They didn’t advocate blowing up theatres or other violent action, just avoiding the movie. A refreshing change from the responses of other religious groups to being criticized in various forms of media in recent years (and from this group over the centuries).

  7. If the church were smart they’d let them make the movie, then put it on Magnum Mysterium Theater 3000! (I see this movie as more of an offense against mammon than the diety.)

  8. It is probably just a negotiating tool by the Catholic Church to squeeze more money out of the producers. They have no problem using he church facilities for religious events like Bingo and other fund raising activities, but they draw the line when it comes to supporting someone who doesn’t believe everything they do. Sounds a bit like the Bush Administration. I do agree with you Professor that the first movie wasn’t too good, but I think the Church doth protest too much.

Comments are closed.