It was only a matter of time. Justin Theroux started his behind-the-scenes career normally enough by directing 2007's Dedication, an indie that had a limited release before heading to DVD. But then he grabbed a pen and exploded into the mainstream, writing both Tropic Thunder and Iron Man 2. So what comes next? A more high-profile directorial gig, although not quite as epic as his Thunder and Iron, with big shoes to fill.

Variety reports that Theroux will helm the upcoming comedy Chief Ron, and according to The New York TImes, Ron Howard used to be attached as director. It's also a weird little project. It seems that there's a blue-eyed, blonde-haired man who claims that he has native Mohegan heritage, and fought his way through court for the right to build a casino in upstate New York (which is currently being built). The trade also says he's a conman, although I'm not sure how that fits in since this is a real guy and story, one who considers himself and his tribe "the last of the Mohegans." To top things off, it's written by Jordan Roberts -- and there's no word on whether there's a relation.

Had this been a Theroux project from the start, it might be easy to imagine what this project will be like, but moving from Ron to Justin, I'm at a loss. Anyone have any ideas?

It looks like a huge Howard family affair could be brewing, where daughter Bryce Dallas Howard pens a feature for dad director Ron Howard. The Hollywood Reporter posts that the actress wrote a script with Dane Charbeneau called The Originals, a drama that would be a potential helming gig for Ron, and one that boasts a scent that's a bit similar to The Big Chill.

Originals is an ensemble project that follows "a group of twentysomethings who reconvene for a weekend in New York after learning that the teacher who shaped their childhoods has fallen into a mysterious coma." So, not as finite (at least in summary) as Chill, which is good. However, the most notable parts of this production are behind the scenes. As if the daughter/dad team wasn't enough, Charbeneau starting dating Bryce's sister while they worked on this script, and the pair are now engaged. Now we just need Rance, Clint, Cheryl, and Paige to jump on board and this will be a family affair like no other.

Ron has some other projects he's focusing on right now, but I can't imagine him saying no to his family. That being said, this project probably won't get off the ground for a while either way, unless they slip it in between Ron's Colossus and Bryce's Spider-Man. Stay tuned!

Over 4,000 Cinematical readers chimed in last week on our Star Trek 1-10 poll (um, wow), and though it's extremely close, as of now Trek is hanging in at the number 9 spot -- which, I believe, beats both X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Watchmen. That's a pretty tough number to top for any film, but Angels & Demons might be able to summon a whole bunch of good vibes from the gal upstairs and inch away with a perfect 10. Perhaps director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks combined to make a stellar sequel that takes the addictiveness of Dan Brown's novel and times it by twelve. Or not. All that's entirely up to you.

From Eric D. Snider's review: "Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. Angels & Demons, the Da Vinci Code sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the audience?"

But that's just one dude's opinion ... now tell us yours.

Part of the problem with the movie version of The Da Vinci Code was that it took itself too seriously. You had these people dashing around Europe, investigating obscure clues and uncovering outrageous conspiracies, but the only person who seemed to be having any fun with it was Ian McKellen. "Tom Hanks has never seemed so dull," I wrote in my review.

Well, say what you will about Ron Howard as a director, but at least he's consistent. Angels & Demons, the Da Vinci Code sequel, is as overly serious as its predecessor, and poor Mr. Hanks -- the world's most likable man, for crying out loud! -- is still dour and intense. I get that saving the world from disaster is important business, and the characters may not have time to smile and joke and enjoy themselves. But is it too much to ask for it to be fun for the audience?

Not having read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel (which actually came before Da Vinci, not after), I was able to find some entertainment in the mechanics of the plot -- not knowing how the mystery would be unraveled, curious to see what the clues would mean. The screenplay, by veteran action writer David Koepp (Panic Room) and Ron Howard regular Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind), basically adheres to a limited point of view -- we don't know any more than the Hanks character, Robert Langdon, does. For viewers who already know where things are going, there may not be much pleasure in watching Langdon figure it out, unless the movie has deviated significantly from the book.

Is there really much enthusiasm for a religious thriller this weekend? I realize that The Da Vinci Code made eleventy billion dollars worldwide despite widespread critical negativity, and that legions of fans support Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, and Ron Howard, but I'm not feeling the love for Angels & Demons, which opens on Friday.

I admit I'm biased. I managed to finish The Da Vinci Code, which was one of the most turgid, tortured, self-important works of fiction I've ever read, and don't have much regard for the movie version. I can understand why so many people went to see it, with the unbeatable combination of sensational subject matter, the promise of a thriller, and Tom Hanks' mullet. Yet how many came away satisfied, and demanding a sequel?

Early critical reaction to Angels & Demons has been tepid (54% at Rotten Tomatoes), but that didn't dissuade people before, so that probably won't be a factor. Our ace prognosticator Matt Bradshaw predicted that Angels & Demons would top the box office this weekend with $60 million, with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek dropping to the #2 spot after last weekend's $79.2 million haul. But could Star Trek retain its #1 position? The Movie Blog agrees with me on two points -- disappointment with The Da Vinci Code and lack of buzz for the sequel -- and also suggests that Star Trek's quality, excellent word of mouth, and expected repeat business could make the difference.

What do you think?

(Clockwise, from upper left: Splash, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Castaway, The Ladykillers, The Da Vinci Code.)

Our last two polls covered Star Trek : anticipated box office returns (most folks guessed too high) and 1-10 rating (most folks were very impressed). Those polls are still open, but we thought it was time to let our hair down and move on to this week's big opener: Tom Hanks in Ron Howard's dramatic thriller Angels & Demons.

Based on the novel by Dan Brown, Angels & Demons follows Professor Robert Langdon as he again uses his expert knowledge of symbology to uncover an international conspiracy involving the Catholic Church. Though the book was written before The Da Vinci Code, the events take place afterward. When Hanks and Howard previously teamed on the film adaptation in 2006, Hanks' hair got plenty of attention. As Eric D. Snider noted, "If you recall nothing else about The Da Vinci Code, surely you remember that Tom Hanks sported a ghastly mullet in it. So the important thing to know about Angels & Demons ... is that Hanks' hairstyle has been corrected. So that's a relief."

But did you love Hanks' "ghastly mullet" in The Da Vinci Code? Or are you a bigger fan of his earlier, funnier hairstyles in movies like Splash, his first collaboration with Howard? How about the Forrest Gump flat top? The Castaway outgrowth? Or the Colonel Sanders hair from The Ladykillers? Inspired by a classic post at TheJay.com, please take our silly little poll and tell us: What's your favorite Tom Hanks hairstyle?

When you're finished with that poll, head on over to Moviefone and vote for your favorite Tom Hanks performance.

I actually think this is sort of clever, in a "we can afford to do this" kind of way (which is more than I can say for The Da Vinci Code, am I right?!). Apparently, when the production of Angels & Demons had been refused permission to shoot key scenes in the Vatican, special effects director Ryan Cook had a team of people blend in with tourists and take about 250,000 pictures and shoot hours of video to use as reference back in Los Angeles.

Said Cook in an interview with an Italian movie magazine (then excerpted by The Scotsman, and further excerpted here): "The ban really put us in a lot of trouble because we could not use the precision instruments which are used to take photographs and make reconstructions in the computer."

On a mild tangent, I have to ask whether or not our readers are getting excited for the film itself. Of all the anticipation for summer blockbusters, and especially out of the May offerings, this seems to be the quietest title of the bunch (though twice-baked, half-volume controversy and the lack of a Cannes bow will do that to a film). I've only been assured that this book was better than its predecessor (I know, this one's a prequel), so did anyone here like Da Vinci? And whether you did or didn't care for that film, are any of you specifically psyched for round two?

[via MCN]

Dan Brown will finally get his Robert "he looks like Harrison Ford" Langdon film franchise as according to Variety, Columbia is already prepping to buy Brown's latest symbolist installment, The Lost Symbol. They have first rights to the book, as Sony already owns the rights to the character of Robert Langdon. (Were they able to actually buy Tom Hanks for all eternity, I wonder?)

Symbol was originally supposed to be published in 2006, but has been delayed repeatedly. Now Doubleday has the manuscript in hand, swears its thrilling, and has set a publication date of September 15. It already has a first print run of five million copies, which is actually small fry compared to the 81 million copies The DaVinci Code has sold.

No one knows what Symbol will be about other than it will feature the Freemasons, Washington D.C., and the Kryptos sculpture at the CIA . But where there's a secret organization, I think we can hazard a guess that we'll also find a religious coverup and the Catholic Church! I can't imagine that Brown will ever disappoint fans in that regard. I hope that Langdon runs around Washington D.C. with a copy of the Declaration of Independence which, when rubbed with lemon juice, tells where to find the True Cross, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Spear of Destiny. Throw in a beautiful brunette and an evil monk, and no one will remember Nicolas Cage.

Angels & Demons, Brown's latest Langdon film adaptation, will hit theaters on May 15.

Can I ask you a question: When did we lose Ron Howard? Was it EdTv? How the Grinch Stole Christmas? Did these two films back-to-back force Howard to re-direct his career so that every film he made was either an Oscar-poised drama or a Dan Brown adaptation? Today, Variety tells us that Universal and Imagine Entertainment are now looking to strap Howard down to the director's chair for an adaptation of The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft -- which is a graphic novel from Mac Carter and Jeff Blitz that takes elements of Lovecraft's struggles in real life and combines them with a fantastical element that includes transforming all of his darkest nightmares into reality.

Sounds pretty cool and creepy, but is it the type of film we want from Ron Howard? I appreciate that he's looking to play with another genre (even though this kind of story seems perfect for Tim Burton), but am I the only one who would love to see Howard return to comedy? Arrested Development was brilliant, sure, and I really do hope that movie gets made -- but I'm talking along the lines of Splash, Gung Ho, Nightshift or even Parenthood. Heck, Willow wasn't that bad either. Where did Ron Howard's playful side run off to? Since when were we interested in the dark and disturbing side of Ron Howard?

Seriously, are you liking Howard's career choices right now? Do you think he's a good fit for this H.P. Lovecraft comic adaptation, or would you rather see a sequel to Gung Ho?