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. 

One of the greatest things about a controversial film is that it sparks debate. It shocks us. Scares us. Changes us. And helps us to look at the world differently. Be it about war, religion, politics or pop-culture, a good controversy will often lead to a colorful discussion. However, Hollywood doesn't really care about discussion or debate -- to them, controversy equals big box office numbers ... some of the time.

Take, for example, recent films like The Da Vinci Code and United 93. One was controversial for its belief that Jesus Christ was married and fathered a child -- an idea that goes against what many feel is a proven truth. The other was about a horrific event that took place only five years ago, and raised questions over whether or not it was too soon to come out with a commercial film about what actually took place. While The Da Vinci Code took in millions at the box office, United 93 didn't do as well. However, both were engulfed in controversy. What does this tell us? Well, for starters, Jesus will always be Hollywood's number one superstar.

This week's Entertainment Weekly ranks the 25 most controversial films of all time. Not surprisingly, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came in at number one. Also on the list are JFK, A Clockwork Orange, Natural Born Killers, Basic Instinct and Fahrenheit 9/11, among others. Some of these films are controversial because of only one or two scenes. I mean, Clockwork is number 2 on the list, mainly because of its one violent scene. Does it belong there? On a list that spans the entire history of film?

So, I ask you: How should we rate controversial films on a list like this? Also, what makes one stand out from the next. Oh, and for fun, what are some of your favorite controversial films of all time?

For those who care, a flap has developed over whether or not film critics are actually needed. The string of events goes something like this: 1) Since January, several studios have opted not to screen certain movies (something like 17 titles in all) for the press, and said movies have mostly gone on to box office gold; 2) Longtime, established, intelligent critics like Jami Bernard and Michael Wilmington have lost their jobs; and 3) Despite crushing reviews, The Da Vinci Code went on to make a small fortune.

As a film critic, I'm obviously biased in this argument, but here's what I think. Firstly, those 17 movies that were not screened for the press will have a shelf life of about a year. After they make their run on DVD, airplanes and cable, they'll gather dust and disappear into the mists of time (all except Ultraviolet, which I will cherish as one of the year's great guilty pleasures). Secondly, the reason Bernard and Wilmington lost their jobs is not because they were not needed; it's because the internet (no offense intended) is killing the newspaper business. Newspapers can't afford to keep "frivolous" staff members around when it can't pay the bills, and this has happened to many of my colleagues (myself included) over the past several years.

I promise this is the last daily update on the X-Men: The Last Stand demolition of the American box office. Seriously. Yesterday I reported that, after a wild first 24 hours, the movie continued to go completely bonkers, and ended Sunday with the fourth-highest three-day total of all time. And, if possible, it looks like sales actually picked up on Monday: Now that the numbers are in for the whole weekend, it turns out that X3 made a cool $120 million in four days, breaking the Memorial Day weekend record (previously held by Shrek 2) by over $20 million. Take that, you stupid donkey.

Overseas, however, people were more interested in codes than mutants. The Da Vinci Code lost only 40% from its opening weekend, and still took in almost $93 million from just over 12,000 foreign screens. X3, meanwhile, had a solid open with a total of $76.1 million from about 8500 screens, a total that, according to Fox numbers, is about 15% ahead of how X2 opened abroad. The movie topped several foreign charts, and was particularly popular in Mexico and Brazil, when its earnings made it the studio's second-biggest open ever in both territories.

Remember, last week, when everyone was all fired up about how The Da Vinci Code, with $77 million, had scored the year's biggest open? And how all the haters were being told to stick it? Well a bunch of mutants went out this weekend and just beat the crap out of Robert Langdon and his stupid code. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the new champion of 2006: after that crazy first 24 hours, X-Men: The Last Stand went on to make $107 million in three days, giving it not only 2006's richest debut, but also the fourth-biggest North American opening weekend ever. Yeah, you could say that the folks at Fox are pretty happy.

Though most studios will send out their official weekend estimates later today, the three day totals have The Da Vinci Code in the second spot with about $33.5 million through Sunday, followed by Over the Hedge with $27.2 million and Mission: Impossible III, which looks to be running out of domestic gas, in the fourth spot with just $6.6 million in its fourth week of release. Though its numbers are down about 50% from last week (a fairly typical decline), The Da Vinci Code, which cost about $120 million to make, is now into profit on US sales alone, with total box office returns over $136 million.

When it comes out, I'll add the four day chart (the numbers on which will differ slightly from these) after the jump. The full top 10 is after the jump.