Angels and Demons Banned By The Vatican

Published 7 years ago by

angels and demons Angels and Demons Banned By The VaticanEverybody loves Tom Hanks, right?

The everyman actor has a box office golden touch stretching back almost 20 years, and with The Da Vinci Code Hanks made his first film with sequel potential. Okay, I know that we could have seen Turner and Hooch 2 by now, but we won’t get into that!

Hanks returns as Robert Langdon in Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, but one guy who isn’t happy is The Pope.

Sure, he had to have been pretty miffed over the contents of The Da Vinci Code movie (and book) but he isn’t willing to turn the other cheek. His Holiness has now banned the production from filming on the grounds of The Vatican or in any church in Rome.

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, the head of the Vatican’s Prefecture for Economic Affairs said:

“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.”

I’m sure that De Paolis could also have said that he has possibly the longest title that anyone, in any job could ever have. However to my knowledge he didn’t. Although, he might have. At some point.

The new film follows a secret organization called The Illuminati who plan to elect their own member as pope and blow up The Vatican.

The Catholic Church wasn’t so hot on The Da Vinci Code, so it’s no surprise that this has happened. Howard and company now plan to build the church interiors on sound stages in the blasphemous depths of Hollywood. A place where sin runs deep.

Meanwhile it is good to note that Hanks has shed that terrible hair from the previous Brown adaptation, and he now looks pretty respectable.

Angels and Demons opens on May 19, 2009

Source: The Times

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Personally I can’t say I blame the Vatican on this one. They have the right to say what can and cannot happen on their property.

    If someone was going to make a movie about my family and call us a bunch liars and conspirators, then asked me if they could shoot the film in my home, I’d tell them to get lost as well.


  2. Vic,

    I was going to make that exact same point in my article!!!

    Of course, I didn’t

    Great minds…


  3. Ah, well from your statement “he isn’t willing to turn the other cheek” I thought you were finding fault with the Pope’s decision.


  4. No, I understand why he wouldn’t. I’m pretty amazed that they would even dare ask the Vatican! After the reaction of the church to the book and film.

    To use a Tom Cruiseism – I was just being glib! :-)


  5. Hey, will you guys get a room? :)

  6. While I do think the Vatican should be free to do whatever they wish with their property. I feel that if a belief is as true and flawless as they would have us to believe then no simple book film could discredit it.

  7. lol @INK – VERY funny.

    We’re just one big happy family here at Screen Rant. 😀


  8. all that matters is that the Da Vinci Code was one of the worst movies ever and the first time I actually thought Tom acted poorly in.

    I hope this prequel is of better quality, directing and acting

  9. They tried to fit too much material into the movie and it all ran together and just confused everyone (especially if they had not read the book)If I had not read the book i would have been lost…hopefully they learned from that and this one will be much better…

  10. Good one Ink!

    They may have a flawless belief, but I’m sure that they don’t want people insulting them in their own backyard!

    I do hope that it’s better than Da Vinci though.


  11. I heard they were planning to shoot the interiors in Naples .

  12. I was all set to write the same thing as Vic and Niall. If someone came knocking to ask if they could film a movie slagging me off in my house, my reply would be very short!

    To be honest, even though I’m not Catholic, nor even leaning to them, I would find the Vatican allowing filmaking distasteful. You’d like to think there are certain places you can’t use like that.

  13. I agree that they have the right to not allow filming on their property. I don’t it will matter, I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code so if this is similar, no matter were its filmed, I think I will enjoy.

  14. “I don’t think there should be places which aren’t allowed to be filmed”

    Um, you’re kidding, right? Ever hear of this thing called “private property?”


  15. No, they’re not public property. Public property is that property which is bought, owned, and maintained by the government. Period.

  16. Although I agree that they had their reasons for not allowing film, I don’t think there should be places which aren’t allowed to be filmed. I’m just not sympathetic towards religion in that way I guess.

  17. Oh, I didn’t mean private property, I meant in the form of what is supposedly public property. I thought all churches and cathedrals although have opening times, were safe places for the public. I may be wrong, I just thought the cathedrals and churches that they would probably film were public property in some shape or form.

  18. The next set request by Howard is to film a Klan propaganda film at the Loraine Motel praising the savior of civilization, James Earl Ray. He’s following that up with a heroic bio-pic on Sirhan Sirhan and is going to cry “censorship” if the Kennedy’s don’t allow him to film a musical celebration number at Hyannisport. Ron Howard has, however, abandoned plans to film a child rape scene involving Mohammed and will not be asking for permission to film in Mecca.

    I guess that makes him a cowardly POS.

  19. @jerseycajun fair doos, wasn’t sure either way.

  20. @baker2d – ah, ok. Gotcha. :-)


  21. I don’t think it’s weird at all, especially considering how anti-church The Da Vinci Code was. The Harry Potter movies didn’t try for religious filming sites because they expected this kind of reaction; plenty of cathedrals are government-owned and look fantastic on film. I know Dan Brown’s books are generally set in a particular historical location, but surely they can work some CGI magic.

  22. Greenknight333,

    When you open a building to tourists you will have people who are there simply as tourists. Like you said there is beautiful architecture, artwork and sculptures to behold and that is sometimes the sole reason people go there. My guess is the tourists that you saw on the altar are not religious at all. Almost any religious person, be they Christian or any other religion, would recognize an altar and treat it with respect.

  23. I agree with you as well. And it was right that they be escorted out. Bloody tourists. :)

  24. I’m kind of confounded that anybody could even ask to film such a thing. With several scholarly books written repudiating Mr. Browns “The Da Vinci Code” one wonders why all the Hollywood interest?? They would have better success filming a sequel to “GANDHI!”

  25. I think a lot of people are forgetting that Dan Brown’s books are works of FICTION. Yeah, they may be based on mythology/rumor/legend, but otherwise are completely made up. Seems he has a gripe with Catholicism – that’s his right.

    I’ve read both books and enjoyed them immensely. I thought Angels was a bit more far-fetched than Davinci. The movie was confusing for those that didn’t read the book, but I enjoyed it ( I actually didn’t like how they changed the very end, but no biggie). Angels was even more confusing as a book, so hopefully Opie is more careful in the storytelling.

    I have to agree with everyone else, the Vatican has every right to not allow filming in their churches. I’m sure if the film makers really wanted some authenticity, they could try some other denomination church from the same historical period.

  26. Oh, it’s fiction all right be he says quite strongly that everything in the book is based on extensive research and implies that there’s more fact to his story than there is (which is almost none).


  27. Vic’s absolutely correct, the books that Dan Brown wrote were said to be factual based. Meaning that the characters are fictional, but the background is nonfiction. Now I’m not Catholic, but I totally understand their anger with this book. I just wish they would show at least the same amount of emotion with what’s really happening in their churches in California, instead of getting a little pissed about a work of fiction. On the other hand I loved the books I just wish that Tom Hanks not playing main character.