Google+ Cinema Viewfinder: Ron Howard
Showing posts with label Ron Howard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Howard. Show all posts

Friday, September 27, 2013

Movie Review: Rush (2013)

by Tony Dayoub


Rush—the first great movie of the fall—hits theaters today, and it's by Ron Howard? The journeyman director has always been competent, but hardly impressive. With no particular distinctive qualities to distinguish him stylistically from any other filmmaker, Howard has had a difficult time earning the respect of critics, though this has been less of an issue when it comes to his peers or audiences. In years to come, Rush may prove to be the key work in understanding Howard's invisible style.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Movie Review: Angels & Demons

I'm beginning to think Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) should stick to adapting non-fiction. Then he can avoid taking the blame for the types of contrivances and general absurdity so prevalent in Angels & Demons, the sequel to The Da Vinci Code (2006). Or he can at least try harder to sell the viewers the preposterous mechanics that move this thriller. If it weren't for Howard's talent for directing actors, and his fascination with capturing the nuances of Catholic ritual, the movie would be completely without merit. But in this respect, the film manages to avoid some of the less realistic nonsense that pervaded his earlier Dan Brown adaptation. The film starts intriguingly enough, with Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) recruited by the Vatican police to help fight a threat from the Illuminati against the Vatican. The secret society's timing is particularly dangerous because this attack coincides with the papal conclave convened after the mysterious death of the pope. Langdon's skill in translating symbols will come in handy as he tries to solve the riddles that will lead him to a canister containing a rather unusual weapon of mass destruction, antimatter. Yes, that's right. Who would have thought that antimatter would be the MacGuffin in this summer thriller instead of Star Trek? While much lip service is paid to the science vs. religion aspect of the plot, recent reports that the Vatican find little to object to in Angels & Demons are a good indication that this film is only a superficial exploration of the subject. Say what you will about The Da Vinci Code, but at least that movie's controversial assertion that Christ was the patriarch of a whole line of descendants had some bite. Angels & Demons starts and ends with a bit of science fiction hokum, and it's not a strong bit at that. If anything is diverting in the first two-thirds of the film, it is Howard's look at the intricacies of Vatican culture. From the rituals associated with the papal conclave to the hierarchy among the Vatican security forces, a good deal of time is spent devoted to what almost amounts to a sociological examination of a subculture often ignored by American cinema. The cast is uniformly excellent. Tom Hanks is comfortable with this brainier riff on Indiana Jones. Ewan McGregor displays a clean-scrubbed boyish charm that seldom finds its way into his other roles (Big Fish being the only exception that comes to mind). Howard is an actor's director, after all. Notice the natural way he gives even minor parts like Chartrand (Thure Lindhardt) - one of the Swiss Guard - their due, endowing them with distinct personalities in a modicum of time. Meanwhile, crap like X-Men Origins: Wolverine can't even make its main character three-dimensional. But the film falls apart in the third act. Like the first film in this franchise, it suffers from multiple climaxes. That is a particular pet peeve of mine, and always a signal of insecure screenwriters. It is like they feel they must keep building on the ending trying to top each preceding scene with a more suspenseful scene after. Except when the climax involves a priest flying a helicopter, the utter absurdity of such an act means that anything that follows is pure contrivance. Angels & Demons opens in theaters nationwide this Friday.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Movie Review: Frost/Nixon - Performances Sharpen after Transition from Stage to Screen

Strong performances continue to clutter up American cinema in 2008. Three strong contenders emerge from Ron Howard's latest film, Frost/Nixon. Written by Peter Morgan (The Queen), the movie is based on his play which debuted in London's West End. The original London cast returns, with Frank Langella (Superman Returns) in his Tony award-winning role as disgraced former president Richard Nixon, and Michael Sheen (The Queen) as famed TV host David Frost. The film depicts the behind-the-scenes events surrounding Nixon's 1977 television interview with Frost. In obtaining an interview with the former president, talk show host Frost saw an opportunity for fame and glory. The embattled Frost was losing ground in his fight to keep himself on the air in Australia and Britain after already having lost a broadcast in New York. This would be a chance to regain relevance in his industry. For Nixon, it would be an opportunity to rehabilitate his reputation after the Watergate debacle, submitting himself to an interviewer that in all likelihood would refrain from hard-hitting questions. Langella and Sheen prove to be evenly matched onscreen, even if their characters don't seem to be at first glance. Langella's Nixon is crafty, hiding a keen intellect underneath a deceptive mask of age and lumbering physical non-agility. Before one interview session, he innocently makes small talk with Frost. Just as the floor director counts down to camera rolling, Nixon slips in a question to Frost in order to unsettle him, "You have a pleasant evening last night? You do any fornicating?" But Sheen's Frost is not as overmatched as everybody thinks. After agreeing to avoid any questions on Watergate until their fourth session, he leads into their first conversation with the question, "Why didn't you burn the tapes?" Though only slightly ruffling Nixon's feathers with his impatience, the incident seems to encapsulate Frost's showmanship. This quality is later demonstrated to be invaluable in preserving the attention focused on the interviews, as he deals with criticism from the journalistic establishment for his lack of credibility, and wrestles with raising financing for the endeavor. Yet despite the larger than life characters that front the film, its emotional heart is Sam Rockwell's interpretation of James Reston. One of Frost's researchers, it is Reston who seems to inspire Frost to reach beyond just the banal anecdotes that, as Reston puts it, would fascinate a "talk show host." Reston believes it is their job to give Nixon the "trial he never had." Rockwell (Choke) is explosive in this small role which essentially serves as Frost's conscience, and I predict an Oscar nomination in his near future. The most surprising achievement director Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind) accomplishes is staying out of the way of his actors. Instead, he focuses on broadening the play to cinematic scale. Some of it doesn't work, like an annoying framing device where some of the peripheral players in the drama relate the story from the future. In this case, I'm unaware if this was a device used in the play, but it seems to be a pretentious attempt to inject a false historical grandeur to the proceedings. Some of it does, like shooting at expansive locations in California and curiously, tightening the frame with frequent closeups, revealing nuance that would be difficult to see onstage. Perhaps it is Howard's own experience as an actor that serves him best in this film, trusting his cast to act the heck out of their parts. Frost/Nixon is easy to recommend. It transcends its stage roots to become a quite gripping example of the power of performance, and how filmmaking can hone it to an even sharper degree than the theater can. Frost/Nixon is in limited release.