The Da Vinci Code Tagged Articles at Cinematical

A below-expectations turn-out for Angels & Demons and good word-of-mouth for Star Trek helped make it a surprisingly close battle for the weekend's #1 spot. Studio estimates have the Dan Brown sequel at $48 million, beating out Trek by about $5 million. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but The Da Vinci Code opened to $77 million in the same weekend two years ago, which indicates that the anticipation for the sequel probably wasn't there to the extent necessary to sustain a blockbuster franchise. I am sure that the third Robert Langdon novel due this fall will see its way to the screen -- but maybe it'll be a little cheaper, and released sometime other than the summer.

Star Trek, on the other hand, is turning out to be the perfect summer film. It dropped off just 43% in its second weekend, which is bloody fantastic for a movie that opened to $75 million. It's already the highest-grossing Trek entry, but that's kind of a no-brainer. If word-of-mouth keeps it afloat, it will end up as one of the biggest movies of the summer.

With no new contenders hitting their demographic, the holdover family offerings -- 17 Again and Monsters vs. Aliens -- saw tiny drops, but that may change next week. Monsters vs. Aliens is also currently the biggest grosser of 2009, but that will change soon too.

The full top 10 after the jump.

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]

I'm not exactly sure what notes Ron Howard received from the studio following his adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, but I imagine it went something like, "More dead, bloody people hanging in churches!" Indeed, this time around -- for his adaptation of the Da Vinci prequel, Angels & Demons -- there appears to be a lot more ... creepiness. The first couple of teasers and TV spots did nothing to excite the summer movie watcher in me, but I have to say they did a bang-up job with this full-length trailer (watch it below, or in HD over at MSN).

Tom Hanks reprises his role as Dr. Robert Langdon, and he's once again summoned to Rome where he'll need to solve a few puzzles, run around with a beautiful woman and talk a lot about The Illuminati -- all while risking his life, but not dying (because we already know he shows up in the sequel). Perhaps that's not the best description, but I didn't read this particular book -- so head after the jump to get a full, official synopsis. Angels & Demons hits theaters on May 15.

Warning: This post contains spoilers for The Da Vinci Code.

I read about fifty pages of The Da Vinci Code before hurling it across the room. I sat through the stupid movie – the whole thing – and hated every miserable moment. It now faces some stiff competition from Twilight, but before this year I would have been hard-pressed to come up with a less interesting pop culture phenomenon. At least for a non-Christian like me, who has no reason to be stunned by the notion of Jesus Christ having procreated, The Da Vinci Code simply had nothing to offer.

I don't consider myself a masochist, but I don't mind being a guinea pig. So I thought doing Angels & Demons in this column would be fun, in a way.

It would have been great to be able to say that Angels & Demons was some sort of revelation (no pun intended); it certainly would have made this post easier to write. Alas, it ranks among the dumbest things I've ever read: an adventure book for fourth-graders, seemingly written by a sixth-grader. In an effort to make itself "accessible" to absolutely everyone, it makes its characters into nitwits – which is problematic since its characters are Harvard professors and world-class particle physicists. Dr. Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks in both films, has never heard of a particle accelerator – or maybe he has, and is just astounded to learn that it's an enormous underground structure. Antimatter is a new concept as well. At one point, the novel helpfully explains who Galileo was. You get the idea.

Though production was just pushed back due to Akiva Goldsman's script not being ready, it appears casting for Angels & Demons is still moving ahead. According to the New York Post, Naomi Watts has landed a starring role in the flick opposite Tom Hanks, which, like The Da Vinci Code, will once again be directed by Ron Howard. An insider told the Post that production has been put off "until at least February," which means we'll hopefully see the film arrive in theaters at some point in 2009 (it was originally scheduled for release on December 19, 2008). Though it was critically panned and, let's face it, not that good, The Da Vinci Code ultimately went on to gross a ridiculous $758 million worldwide.

Angels & Demons, which was also written by Dan Brown, is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code. The book once again follows Robert Langdon (Hanks) as he races against time to find a hidden bomb and hunt down a serial killer in Rome. Joining him in his quest is the adoptive daughter of a physicist who's strange murder (in which his chest is branded with a symbol) sparks a hunt for the truth. The girl's name is Vittoria, and we presume this is who Watts will be playing ... though Watts is not Italian, and doesn't exactly fit the character description. However, she is a high profile name and a damn good actress, so it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. Watts is also attached to star in the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, which is currently eying a Summer 2009 release. For those that have read Angels & Demons, is Watts what you had in mind for Vittoria? Good choice? Bad one?

To me, Audrey Tautou will always be Amélie. To others, soon, she will be Coco. The French actress, who is actually best known now for playing opposite Tom Hanks in The Da Vinci Code, has been cast as Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel in a film about the legendary fashion designer's life prior to her becoming famous. And because it only focuses on the first half of Chanel's life, producer Caroline Benjo describes it as not really a biopic. Although it will begin with Chanel's childhood, the plot will mainly follow her as a young woman, during the time she worked as a cabaret singer and became involved with the wealthy horse breeder Étienne Balsan and then the English polo player Arthur "Boy" Capel, both of whom were instrumental in leading her to a career in fashion.

Partly based on the book L'Irrégulière: Ou, Mon Itinéraire Chanel by Edmonde Charles-Roux, the film will be scripted by Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liasons) and Anne Fontaine (Nathalie ...), who will also direct. Apparently the project was conceived with Tautou in mind, and Fontaine had said she'd only be involved if the actress was interested. Tautou does seem to be perfect for the part, at least if you only know of Coco Chanel, the woman, from photographs like the one above (If only I could also find photos of the two lovers, so I could imagine which actors would be best to play them).

Fortunately for everyone else associated with the project, Tautou liked the idea of playing Chanel. Although, if the film didn't work out, audiences and fashion fans would still have two other movies based on the designer to look forward to. One, about Chanel's relationship with Igor Stravinsky, will reportedly be directed by William Friedkin and will star Marina Hands (The Barbarian Invasions); the other is being written by Oscar nominee Danièle Thompson (Cousin, Cousine). All three films follow the 1969 stage production Coco, starring Katherine Hepburn in the title role, as well as the new play from writer William Luce and Broadway director Philip William McKinley (The Boy From Oz), titled Creme de Coco: A Portrait of Coco Chanel. So, I'm wondering, which of the films will end up being "Chanel, No. 5"?

Though I feverishly tore through the book like a man who hadn't eaten in weeks, when I first watched the big-screen version of The Da Vinci Code, I fell asleep twice. Not once. Twice! And I never fall asleep during a film -- it's, like, against everything I stand for ... or something like that. Regardless, Dan Brown's books are as addicting as your favorite drug. And, right after Ron Howard's film snatched up a truckload of money at the box office, a big-screen version of Angels & Demons was all but certain. While the follow-up was first announced almost a year ago, we haven't heard much about it recently, save for Akiva Goldsman's $4 million payday to pen the script. Now, Cinema Blend reports (via one of their top secret inside sources) that Tom Hanks has officially signed on to reprise the role of Robert Langdon.

Not only has he signed on, but Sony has reportedly shelled out "the biggest salary ever paid to an actor in the history of Hollywood" in order to lock up Hanks in the main role. I'm sorry, but his performance in Da Vinci didn't exactly grab me by the throat -- I hate to say it, but the character is pretty damn boring. It was the story I found fascinating, not Hanks. But, since the moviegoing public is used to seeing Hanks play Langdon, Sony knew they would have to bring him back if they had any chance at another explosive box office take. (Personally, I'd rather see Clive Owen -- the man can stare at a wall for two hours and I'd find it Oscar worthy.)

Angels & Demons takes place one year prior to The Da Vinci Code story. Professor Langdon is summoned to analyze the mysterious symbol that's carved into some dead guy, then winds up pairing up with yet another foreign beauty (apparently, supermodel Gisele Bundchen is up for that role) in an attempt to save the Vatican from a time bomb. Supposedly, Sony was interested in rushing this puppy through in order to release it in 2008; if that's the case, then I expect the deals (will Howard return to direct?) to be announced soon, with production to begin later this year.

2006 was the first full year of Cinematical, and it was a very busy year for its bloggers. A lot of big news, shocking news and ongoing news kept us busy as we followed the important stories and passed the significant bits onto you. There was good news, bad news, unexpected news and unbelievable news. There were deaths, births, rebirths and remakes. There was so much going on that it takes an amazing film geek to recall everything (have you tested your memory yet?).

But what was the most important story for film in 2006? The end of the box office slump? The Weinsteins' devilish pact with Blockbuster? Peter Jackson's possibilities of directing The Hobbit? Uwe Boll boxing his critics? Sorry, but none of those affected the consciousness of cinema as much as these other stories from the past 12 months:

• Disney Buys Pixar - When 2006 began, the future of Disney's relationship with Pixar was still uncertain. There had been hint of a new deal between the two companies in the last few days of 2005, but nothing was concrete. Three weeks went by, in which time the new year came in and Pixar's stock prices went up, and then finally the first installment of news came through on January 19: Disney would buy Pixar. Three days later, we were reminded that the deal was not yet done, that it was still awaiting approval from Steve Jobs and the rest of the animation studio's board. On January 23, however, it was in the bag: Disney bought Pixar for $7.4 billion. And John Lasseter was named head of Disney animation.
  
  The story didn't end there. Throughout 2006, the effects of the acquisition continued to be felt. First, Toy Story 3 was killed. But then it was greenlit again. Disney closed its new computer animation studio, Circle 7. Then many months went by before Disney fired a whole lot of people working in its animation departments. Finally, just a few weeks ago, the company announced they'd be trying out the ol' hand-drawn stuff again. By year's end, it felt as though Pixar was the one who owned Disney.
  

I stood where James Dean stood before he got "stuck" in Rebel Without a Cause. I know that it's been many years since his feet were there but just the idea is still exciting. I also turned into a huge geek after seeing Casino Royale at the famous Grumman's Chinese Theatre when I stuck my hands in Sid Caesar's. That's the fun part of living in Los Angeles; nearly everywhere has been used as a location for a film. It makes the city potent with history and lore and I simply love it. But more and more filming is done outside of California (Vancouver may be the new Hollywood) and this past year outside the United States.

This year filming in Europe and Africa was bountiful. Marie Antoinette and The Da Vinci Code were two that rolled camera in France and Catch a Fire and Blood Diamond are two out of many that were filmed in Africa. The Hollywood Reporter attributes it to filmmakers' rising interest in creating more complex films about the difficulties existing in our world (globalization for one) as well as tax incentives that are stealing filming from California.

It also is incredibly fun for everyone involved in the production to travel to new places. I wouldn't mind going to France, Africa or Vancouver -- especially if it were to make a film. But I wonder if all this traveling to the real Champs Élysées is making the sound stages at the Universal Studios back lots really dusty. ...

Odds and ends from Monday:

• Hey, what do you know -- a story about Johnny Depp that isn't pirate-related. (Does that mean I can't call him Captain Jack? Nah.) Captain Jack's production company has tapped director Terry Zwigoff (Bad Santa) to helm Happy Days (no relation to the popular TV show), based off the French novel. Zwigoff will also co-write the script along with Jerry Stahl, with Depp's Infinitum Nihil and Graham King's Initial Entertainment Group producing. Story revolves around a man who leaves his wife and children in order to check himself into a rest home. However, while there, he forges a special bond with a terminal cancer patient and ultimately helps to fulfill her last wish.   
• Here's one way to get people to go see your movie -- just compare it to The Da Vinci Code. P.J. Hogan has signed on to direct Chasing Vermeer, based off the best-selling children's novel which is said to be like The Da Vinci Code, but for tweens. Having never read Chasing Vermeer, I cannot say how similar the two are. But I can tell you the story centers around two sixth-graders who attempt to solve the mystery behind a stolen Johannes Vermeer painting. Last I checked, the Catholic Church had nothing against sixth-graders, right?
• So, it turns out those rumors about Gwyneth Paltrow teaming back up with the Farrelly brothers were completely false. Oh well, I couldn't see her playing a bride from hell anyway. She's way too sweet. Ya know, like an apple. Instead, Peter and Bobby Farrelly have signed newcomer Malin Akerman to star alongside Ben Stiller and Michelle Monaghan in Seven Day Itch. Not much is known about Akerman, except that she's best known for her role in Lisa Kudrow's horrific HBO show The Comeback. Yes, it was horrific. And if she somehow wins the Emmy, I will officially ban TV in my apartment forever.