Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:51 pm**

They've already destroyed what would have been a solid popcorn movie, let's see the misery they will wring from (the superior and more complex) Angels & Demons.

edit: It feels strange calling A&D "complex", and "superior" to DVC...but I can't deny I enjoyed it more, reading it after DVC.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:14 pm**

OscarGuy wrote:You mean like Paul Haggis and Akiva Goldsman go through life thinking they're great writers?

and brian grazer thinks he is a great producer...and keira knightley thinks she is a great actress...and adam sandler thinks he is funny...and jack nicholson thinks he is desirable to women...and tyler perry thinks he is good at everything...etc.

Posted: **Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:07 am**

I think the only truly fabulous film Ron Howard has directed is Parenthood, mostly because he assembled a fabulous cast and then let them do their thing. The scene with Keanu Reeves discussing masterbation with Dianne Weist is priceless, as is Steve Martin's birthday party rambunctiousness. Everything else has been a disappointment.

And of course, his work on Arrested Development was priceless.

Posted: **Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:09 pm**

rolotomasi99 wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:
flipp525 wrote:And Angels and Demons is not a "follow-up" to The DaVinci Code. It's a prequel. Who wrote this article for Variety?

Actually it's neither. It was a book written prior to The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown and takes place in the Vatican but its religious background aside is totally unrelated to the other work. I read it before the world-wide success of The DaVinci Code made it a "must read" and liked it better, though on screen, especially in Howard's hands, it will probably be an overheated mess.

actually, the article is correct. howard and co decided to rewrite the book as a sequel to the film.

i hate, hate, hate ron howard. he made one good film his entire life (APOLLO 13) and has spent the rest of his career destroying the art of cinema.

sometimes i wish we had film censorship like they do in china, but instead they would only release films that were well made. i know that is completely subjective and no one would agree, but you can smell a ron howard crap film a mile away. sorry for the rant, i just hate that ron howard goes through life thinking he is a good director.

While I agree that these remakes/sequels are absurd ideas, I would not say that Apollo 13 was Howard's only good film.

Audiences have loved such films as the Oscar-winning Cocoon, Willow, Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind and Oscar-nominated Cinderella Man.

He's a good director. Perhaps not in the pantheon of the greats, but he can make good films.

The Da Vinci Code was a huge mistake on his part, and a sequel is just his and Brian Grazer's way of saying "screw-you" to all the critics who (rightly) blasted it. They should go back to lighter fare for a while and see if they can regain their senses.

Posted: **Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:51 am**

You mean like Paul Haggis and Akiva Goldsman go through life thinking they're great writers?

Posted: **Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:27 am**

Big Magilla wrote:
flipp525 wrote:And Angels and Demons is not a "follow-up" to The DaVinci Code. It's a prequel. Who wrote this article for Variety?

Actually it's neither. It was a book written prior to The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown and takes place in the Vatican but its religious background aside is totally unrelated to the other work. I read it before the world-wide success of The DaVinci Code made it a "must read" and liked it better, though on screen, especially in Howard's hands, it will probably be an overheated mess.

actually, the article is correct. howard and co decided to rewrite the book as a sequel to the film.

i hate, hate, hate ron howard. he made one good film his entire life (APOLLO 13) and has spent the rest of his career destroying the art of cinema.

sometimes i wish we had film censorship like they do in china, but instead they would only release films that were well made. i know that is completely subjective and no one would agree, but you can smell a ron howard crap film a mile away. sorry for the rant, i just hate that ron howard goes through life thinking he is a good director.

Posted: **Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:24 am**

Ron's remake of Birth Of A Nation will, I think, be better even than Far And Away.

Posted: **Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:20 am**

The same objection deserves to be applied to the initiative without sense to film the remake of Hitchcock´s The Birds.

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:59 pm**

Good Lord! Was Howard going to remake East of Eden? We must do anything we can to keep him away from it!

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:43 pm**

What happened to East of Eden?

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:27 pm**

Big Magilla wrote:
flipp525 wrote:And Angels and Demons is not a "follow-up" to The DaVinci Code. It's a prequel. Who wrote this article for Variety?

Actually it's neither. It was a book written prior to The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown and takes place in the Vatican but its religious background aside is totally unrelated to the other work. I read it before the world-wide success of The DaVinci Code made it a "must read" and liked it better, though on screen, especially in Howard's hands, it will probably be an overheated mess.

I haven't read Angels & Demons in a long time, but I seem to remember Robert Langdon (the character Hanks played in The Da Vinci Code) performing some physical stunts, especially toward the end of the story, that would give Indiana Jones pause. If Goldsman decides to stay with the book, I wonder if Hanks would be the right actor.

Incidentally, I thought Hanks was fine in Da Vinci. I was just not a fan of the book or film.

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:03 pm**

flipp525 wrote:And Angels and Demons is not a "follow-up" to The DaVinci Code. It's a prequel. Who wrote this article for Variety?

Actually it's neither. It was a book written prior to The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown and takes place in the Vatican but its religious background aside is totally unrelated to the other work. I read it before the world-wide success of The DaVinci Code made it a "must read" and liked it better, though on screen, especially in Howard's hands, it will probably be an overheated mess.

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:01 pm**

Let´s the Goddess come to help Swank´s limitations.

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:54 am**

Hustler wrote:
Penelope wrote:
Hustler wrote:Oh My God! Will be able the vulgarity of Howard to approach the subtility of Haneke?

Proportionally, I would think, yes.

This is an absolutely repulsive idea. The only thing that could possibly make it any worse is if Howard casts Hilary Swank in the Binoche role.

So, let´s wait for Winslet´s call.

No, I hope the Goddess stays far away from this project.

Posted: **Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 am**

Penelope wrote:
Hustler wrote:Oh My God! Will be able the vulgarity of Howard to approach the subtility of Haneke?

Proportionally, I would think, yes.

This is an absolutely repulsive idea. The only thing that could possibly make it any worse is if Howard casts Hilary Swank in the Binoche role.

So, let´s wait for Winslet´s call.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

A Remake That No One Asked For