ron howard Tagged Articles at Cinematical

In Austin, you can set your watch by the fall film festivals. We don't just have SXSW in the spring. Starting around Labor Day, it feels like we have a film festival practically every week, from Austin Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival (aGLIFF) to the Austin Polish Film Festival, Austin Asian American Film Festival and of course Fantastic Fest. One of the oldest and biggest of these local autumn fests is Austin Film Festival (AFF), which spans eight days and seven screening venues, and includes a screenwriters' conference. In 2009, AFF celebrated its 16th year.

AFF focuses on screenwriters even in its film programming selections, as was evident with the opening-night film. Serious Moonlight is best known as the last script written by the late actress/filmmaker Adrienne Shelly. I admit I wasn't fond of the movie, but director Cheryl Hines was a trip -- mock-vampy on the red carpet (as shown above), and full of excitement about her film. Her screening was up against heavy competition: Matthew Weiner brought an episode of Mad Men to the festival and didn't reveal which one until just before it screened. (It turned out to be this season's "Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency" episode.) Weiner also was featured in panels during the conference portion of AFF.

We've run numerous Arrested Development stories since the series was canceled in 2006, and you can probably file this one in the same land of "Yes, sometime soon!" But it never hurts to keep fueling the fan fire, and remind Fox that we'd really really like the Bluths to return. It might be closer than we all think as according to The Hollywood Reporter, Mitch Hurwitz and James Vallely are actively working on a script for an Arrested Development movie. Hurwitz will direct the film.

Hurwitz has said in the past that he wouldn't even begin to write a script unless all of the actors were committed, and THR notes that schedule conflicts remain one of the biggest hurdles of a big-screen Bluth reunion. But perhaps this is a sign that Hurwitz and Vallely know something we don't, and that the super careers the show spawned (notably Jason Bateman, Michael Cera, and Will Arnett) will leave enough of a gap for a movie.

When Cinematical caught up with Arnett in New Orleans, he confirmed there wasn't a script, but was optimistic that the film would begin shooting by the end of the year. "It's really just a matter of getting a script. I know that the studio is ready to go and everyone's kind of ready, but there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of people in the cast, a lot of schedules and stuff, but we're in that process now of figuring it all out, actively." Let's be optimistic and hope we see them start filming Arrested Development: The Movie by December or January. I just want my Bluths back!

Our brothers and sisters over at TV Squad have busted through the boob tube and brought with them the following juicy bits of must-see eye candy.

• While a lot of people don't see anything funny about filing their taxes, Ron Howard is hoping to find comedy at the IRS in his new sitcom.
• Is that guy really saying "plucking?" Here's a news anchor using some questionable language. Check out the look on his co-anchor's face.
• I'm probably one of the few people with fond memories of Greg the Bunny, but MTV is producing a spin-off series called Warren the Ape.
• The Newly Wed Game is going to feature its first gay couple: Star Trek's George Takei and his partner Brad Altman.
• Jenna Elfman is playing pregnant in her new show Accidentally On Purpose, which is convenient because the actress is in fact expecting.
• ...and finally, we end on a sad note with Laugh-In alulmni Henry Gibson passing away from cancer at the age of 73.

Despite the fact that my family members should have owned stock in Dan Brown's bibliography given how much of it they read, and of course the rest of the world devoted years to discussing the historical possibilities of his fiction, I never read The Da Vinci Code. Quite frankly, I'm not much of a reader, owing primarily to the amount of time I spend writing, but the last book I curled up with was one about the diminishing intelligence of the American people, although for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

In any case, I had no particular feelings about the fact that Ron Howard was adapting Brown's best seller into a feature film, with the possible exception of my superficial determination that Tom Hanks' hair was simply terrible. But when I didn't have to review or cover it professionally, I decided not only that I would save my money for something more worthwhile (I mean, Poseidon came out two weeks prior), but that The Da Vinci Code was going to be a movie that I would never, ever see.

I was just looking over the current release list and came upon two movies that seem to have been pretty much forgotten already, Ron Howard's Angels & Demons (247 screens) and Tony Scott's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (383 screens). The first one is a sequel and the second one is a remake. The first one is absolutely terrible, earning a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second one is merely mediocre, earning a 52% rating. But what's truly astonishing is that Angels & Demons is a box office smash, with $133 million to its name, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 has earned less than half that, with $64 million.

Let's look at little closer at this. These are two of the summer's only movies that may have been aimed a little above the heads of young boys. All three of the name-above-the-title stars, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, are in their 50s. This ostensibly means that the studios wanted to entice older audiences out of their comfortable homes and into theaters. But unfortunately, if you're a fifty-something and you go out to see The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, what's the first thing you get? You get one of Tony Scott's quick-cut, jumpy, razzle-dazzle openings with Jay-Z boasting "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." Not to mention the rest of the breakneck movie, which practically reaches out from the screen and slaps you in the face.

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?