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 Tuesday:

• In a career-defining move, Hilary Swank is set to play a character who, from what I understand, will spend the entire movie as an actual female. Deciding to throw aside the "butch' roles for the time being, Swank has signed on to star in P.S., I Love You, based on the novel written by Cecelia Ahern. Story focuses on a widow who finds notes from her dead husband that then send her on a series of adventures.
• Reunited ... and it feels so good. Heath Ledger and wife Michelle Williams (They're married right? Or, do they just have a kid together?) will star in Todd Haynes' "If I have 47 men playing Bob Dylan, I wonder if it will confuse people" biopic, I'm Not There. Ledger will replace Colin Farrell as one of the many Bob Dylan's featured throughout the film. A slew of people are already attached including Julianne Moore, Richard Gere and Christian Bale. However, according to Martha, Oprah and Venus Williams will get in on the action too. Yeah, let me know when that happens -- I'll be over her by the window waiting for the dogs and cats to start falling.
• As we told you the other day, seeing as The Da Vinci Code cracked an assortment of box office records this past weekend, a sequel is already in the works based on Brown's Angels and Demons novel. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jesus marries Satan in that one?) Though there's no word on whether Ron Howard and/or Tom Hanks will be involved, Sony has already tapped scribe Akiva Goldsman to pen the script. The studio is probably so ecstatic about Dan Brown right now, it wouldn't surprise me if they assigned a few executives to be his servants so that the man can pump out a book a month. Marry me Dan Brown!

Even though critics are extremely lukewarm over Ron Howards's The Da Vinci Code, pic has reportedly taken in over $30 million domestically in its opening day. Though it hasn't broken any records yet (in the US), the film does join ten other films that have opened with $30 million or more, including Star Wars Episode I, X-Men 2, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

If Da Vinci stays strong, most are estimating the controversial pic will earn between $80 and $85 million by the time the weekend comes to a close. Internationally, it's taken in $43 million so far. Despite massive protests in Italy, Da Vinci broke an opening day record there, previously held by Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful. And, with $1.9 million, had France's second largest opening this year. With Japan opening up on Saturday, this film could potentially crack the $200 million dollar mark worldwide by Monday morning. Damn. Perhaps my Magic 8-Ball was right -- Da Vinci could be this summer's overall box office winner.

I'd been interested in seeing The Da Vinci Code for a long time (I am one of those people who actually enjoyed the book, so I guess that makes me a dork). I found the critical reaction to the film at Cannes earlier this week quite fascinating. There has been so much buzz and controversy around this film that I suppose it was inevitable the bulk of critics would hate it (or at least pretend to hate it), but the feeding frenzy after the press premiere of the film struck me as being a little overboard. Critics have been practically falling over each other right and left in some kind of bizarre critical pissing contest over who can say the cleverest and snarkiest things about Ron Howard's little film, and having seen Da Vinci  tonight with a sneak preview crowd, I'm honestly at a bit of a loss as to why. I mean, the film is sitting at a dismal 16% on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment -- 16%! For comparison, consider, for a moment, that Britney Spears' crapfest Crossroads has a 15%. The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl? 20%. Dickie Roberts (which, for the love of God, starred David-freaking-Spade!) has a 23%. Even Big Momma's House got a 30%. Is The Da Vinci Code a worse movie than Shark Boy and Lava Girl or Dickie Roberts? Seriously?

The Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard's controversial adaptation of the best-selling novel, failed to impress critics at its press debut at the Cannes Film Festival. Perhaps the coterie of critics who got an early look at the film a day before its big premiere were tired and jetlagged, or maybe the movie just really does suck. At any rate, response to the film from the critics thus far has been decidedly lukewarm. Cinematical's erstwhile Editor-in-Chief James Rocchi was quoted in an AP piece on the film with this memorable tag: "I kept thinking of the Energizer Bunny, because it kept going and going and going, and not in a good way."

Now, you can take the critics' response for what you will, but I personally take it with a grain of salt. The thing about press screenings -- and I say this as someone who is lucky enough to get to review movies for a living -- is that they are packed with critics, who are, by their nature and by virture of the fact that they see 89,000 movies a year, perhaps a wee touch more cynincal than your average moviegoer. It's not surprising to me, really, that a theater full of critics would snicker and laugh outright at melodramatic lines in a film like Da Vinci -- they've been waiting to sink their teeth into Ron Howard's baby from day one. The real test, for me, is how the film plays to an audience of people who aren't paid to be, well, critical. I'll be seeing The Da Vinci Code myself on Thursday with one very excited guest and a theater packed with real people, and I can't wait to see how this audience will react to the film. The sneak preview audience tends to be a pretty good barometer, and I'm curious to see if they will snicker and titter like the Cannes critic crowd. Be sure to check back here on Friday for my review and the reaction of the real-people crowd.

How about you? Are you pumped up to finally see The Da Vinci Code play on the big screen? Does the critics' reaction impact your desire to see the film? Does Tom Hanks' hairdo creep you out? Would you have cast Audrey Tautou in the role of Sophie? Or could you not care less about Da Vinci and all the hype around it?

 

If you've read The Da Vinci Code (Seriously, it's okay to admit you never read it -- we won't make fun of you.), then you're familiar with the mysterious Opus Dei featured prominently in the book. Well, the real-life organization, which is made to look like some sort of freaky Catholic cult in the novel, is protesting Ron Howard's refusal to include the "this movie is fiction" disclaimer they requested in his film.

The director, who has already faced a ton of criticism from the Vatican, states that there's really no need to have a disclaimer since it's obvious the film is fiction. You know, because it's, um, a movie. Sure, there will be groups and organizations featured that are real, but the characters and story are not. Howard says, "It's not theology. It's not history. To start off with a disclaimer ... spy thrillers don't start off with disclaimers."

And he's right. I think. However, seeing as the book and film's themes are so controversial, do you think it would be wise to throw up a disclaimer to keep the peace? I mean, I chose not to watch The Passion of the Christ for my own personal reasons -- I'm curious, did it open with a disclaimer? One that said something like, "We're not sure if this whole thing actually happened this way because we weren't there ... but you never know?"

Reuters has an interesting piece up on a panel at the Tribeca Film Festival called "What Would Jesus Direct?" The gist of the piece is that Hollywood has long ignored the large Christian market, which The Passion of the Christ tapped into to the tune of some $370 million in the United States. Michael Flaherty, whose production company was behind The Chronicles of Narnia and Because of Winn-Dixie, two family films with moral messages underlying their entertaining surfaces, noted that people in the "faith community" are looking for films that are "uplifting." The article goes on to quote Jonathon Bock, head of a company that specializes in marketing movies to religious audiences, as comparing the potential for low-budget films with a faith theme -- "Godsploitation" films -- to films targeted at African-American audiences.