Is Ron Howard considered a good director? (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

my dislike of Ron Howard the director has actually fallen a few more notches.

Al, I love how you express yourself. Did you mean to say your dislike has RISEN a few more notches, ie grown more intense (like the pain machine in Princess Bride)?

 

[Rich Malloy]

Yes, risen! That is, my estimation for him has fallen, and thus my dislike has risen... or something... er... know what I'm saying?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

A historical inaccuracy in the form of a biographical inaccuracy? Hmmm, interesting. Alright, Pearl Harbor historical inaccuracy complainers, listen up!
My preliminary reading of the production notes revealed the following:

The filmmakers treated every step of the production of A Beautiful Mind with respect. "There is a lot of creativity in the story-telling and we've taken license to try to condense a lifetime into a film, but we are presenting a real world," said (Ron) Howard. "We approached this story as truthfully as possible and tried to let authenticity be our guide."

We shall see. I like dissecting these kinds of films.
~Edwin

 

[Jack Briggs]

"Al, I love how you express yourself."

I must say I agree. Man, I wish I had had the guts earlier to say that I think he's a terrible director. But, then, "movie mechanic" is a pretty damning phrase, too. Good posts, Mr. Brown.

 

[David Oliver]

It must be noted that it is hardly unprecedented to simply use real people and events as "guides" for a fictional story, like The Untouchables for example.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Here is an interesting article from today's USA Today:

It's 'Beautiful,' but not factual
By Andy Seiler, USA TODAY
Whose life is it, anyway?
That's the question many are raising about A Beautiful Mind, a new movie about mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., a 1994 Nobel Prize winner who struggled with schizophrenia. The film, from director Ron Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman, is very loosely based on the award-winning biography of the same name by Sylvia Nasar.
Nash won't comment, and his wife defends the film, but observers and friends say the movie takes such liberties with the facts that it hardly depicts Nash's life at all.
Even star Russell Crowe has had his doubts. Before shooting began, the actor said that he decided to play the part based on Nasar's "great book," but that he was surprised to get the script and discover that the character in the movie was so different.
"What I would consider to be the most interesting parts of his life are not going to be part of our movie," he said at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas last March. He added that he would have to rethink his performance: "I haven't let go of the things that I'm not allowed to use yet."
Crowe more recently has praised the film, which received six Golden Globe nominations and is an Oscar front-runner.
The screen version all along was said to be "inspired" by events in Nash's life and never intended to be factually accurate. "We certainly took a lot of license to compress, to synthesize it and ultimately make it accessible and expressive to an audience," Howard says.
Adds Goldsman: "The movie is a working metaphor for what it might feel like to be John Nash. This is about what it might feel like to have this disease."
Nasar, who wrote the original book, approvingly calls the movie "historical fiction." She stands by the accuracy of her book, however, which in its latest edition has replaced a photograph of Nash with one of Crowe as Nash.
Some changes no one disputes:
• Nash's first son and his mother are not in the film. Nash has one and only one relationship, with his wife, Alicia, in the film.
• The film depicts the Nashes as having a loving, supportive marriage, and there is no mention of their 1963 divorce or subsequent remarriage last June.
• The film shows Nash as a staunch anti-communist during the Cold War, but in reality, many of his colleagues were suspected of being communist sympathizers.
• Nash is shown being deep in the grip of visual hallucinations in graduate school, long before he did his greatest work in game theory. He is shown believing that he could see, talk to and even be driven in cars by imaginary people.
The timing of the hallucinations has some who knew Nash, and some mental health professionals, particularly concerned. Colleagues say that Nash developed schizophrenia years later and that, once under its grip, he was not able to do serious work.
"He arrived in Princeton in 1948," says longtime Nash friend, supporter and colleague Harold Kuhn, editor with Nasar of The Essential John Nash (Princeton University Press). Kuhn was the Princeton adviser on the film and saw it before its release. "He was never delusional until 1959. No schizophrenic in the world has ever done creative work while he was fully delusional."
The fanciful depiction of Nash's mental illness could have severe social consequences, say experts in schizophrenia. "When you are that horribly psychotic, you can't be productive," says Peggy Nopoulos, a specialist in schizophrenia and associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Iowa. "You're not organizing your thoughts well. You're not in touch with reality." She fears that the film will breed a "false hope" for people who have friends or family with schizophrenia.
Adds Mark Kopta, chairman of the psychology department at the University of Evansville in Indiana: "Edgar Rice Burroughs was schizophrenic and turned his delusions into creations such as Tarzan. That was the closest thing you could come up with. But that's very different from trying to deal with reality — and mathematics is reality."
Both Nasar and Goldsman say health professionals should applaud the film because there are no villains and the disease is presented sympathetically. "This movie is the best thing to happen to people with mental illness in 20 years," Nasar says.
The book-to-movie alterations receiving the most publicity, however, are the chapters on Nash's supposed bisexuality.
Gay activists object to the omission. "John Nash is a very complex, flawed human being," says Scott Seomin, entertainment media director at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). "By dismissing his inner conflict about his sexuality, this cheats the audience."
But whether Nash ever had sexual relationships with men is a matter of dispute.
In a statement released last week, Alicia Nash said: "My husband, John, says that it is not true, and I say it is not true. We have been together since before we first married, and to call him a homosexual is a lie."
Nasar defends the accuracy of her book but also agrees with the filmmakers' change. Bisexuality, she says, is "not on the same planet" as schizophrenia when it comes to importance.
Goldsman says he dropped the bisexuality because he dropped everything in the book that wasn't about Nash's "genius, mental illness or the Nobel Prize."

I will be seeing this film today.
~Edwin

 

[Jack Briggs]

Charles, sorry for the delay--

Apollo 13 is very Spielbergian, and contains gratuitous embellishments. No need to "spiffy" up a true story that is in itself--and by virtue of its subject matter--exciting enough. Too, the principle actors simply weren't right for the roles of Lovell, Haise, and Swigert; the real astronauts did not emote anywhere near the level as shown in the film. Too, Howard took lots of liberties with the facts.

Technically, there are some terrific scenes. In fact, as the docked spacecraft loop around the lunar farside, it has some of the most realistic space imagery in a film this side of 2001.

I have the DVD, but I use it as a reference disc to show off my system.

 

[Terrell]

I'm not surprised in the least the gay community abhors the deletion of the gay aspect. They probably feel cheated. Personally, i don't have any wish to see anything about homosexuality in this film. I'm more interested in his life as a genius, and his paranoia.

 

[MickeS]

I'm not surprised in the least the gay community abhors the deletion of the gay aspect.

NAd if it HAD been included, I'm sure some people would have complained that there would have been a connection made between being gay and being mentally ill.

When it comes to biopics, I always treat them as fictitious except for the names used. It makes things a whole lot easier.

/Mike

 

[JohnS]

Ever since "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", Ron Howard has really pissed me off. He completely ugly-fied Grinch and now he has baster-dised "A Beautiful Mind".
THe trailer for a Beautiful Mind is really decieving. I felt like I was douped.
Ron Howard, you owe me big time!

 

[Trace Downing]

I find Howard to be competent, but at times a bit of a generic director. His films are kind of like "movie" in a plain white package.
I did like Night Shift, Apollo 13, and Backdraft, but I can take or leave the rest. He's kind of like Chris Columbus, Frank Oz, Leonard Nimoy, or John Badham. And, should I be so bold...to a point, John McTiernen.
And...Terrel, GLAAD merely objected to the omission of his possible bisexuality, not the entire Gay community obhorring it. Let's not get into a rant about whole classes of people here, and what your not suprised in the least with.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

It's not a biography.

Having just seen the film, it is a biographical account of the life of John Nash spanning almost 50 years.

~Edwin

 

[JonZ]

I dont know if I can ever forgive him for The Grinch

 

[JohnS]

I think Clint Howard has more talent then Ron Howard.

 

[Jin E]

I go to a movie to be entertained, and Ron Howard is a entertaining director. Please take the holier-then-thou artistic crap (i.e. AI, Bringing out the dead) and keep it in your boutique little art-house theaters where they belong. While you're at it... take the garbage like Tomb Raider, TPM, and Ghost Dog (The way of the Samurai). Leave me the mega-plex THX theaters for the good stuff like Moulin Rouge, LotR, and A Beautiful Mind.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"Please take the holier-then-thou artistic crap (i.e. AI, Bringing out the dead) and keep it in your boutique little art-house theaters where they belong."

Oh, come on Jin. Far better is a film (or book or musical work or play) that entertains as well as edifies. That used to be typical of American cinema before the popcorn/big-opening-weekend era transpired.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I can never hate the director of my beloved Willow !!! I must say, though I liked Ransom when it came out, I've never really loved any of Howard's films except Willow. Apollo 13 bored me. Didn't see The Grinch. Didn't see Backdraft or Parenthood. But hey, it's not like he's Michael Bay!
-Tom

 

[Chuck Mayer]

While I see both sides, Jack is right. I'll gladly toe the line against all of the pretentious windbags who believe subtitles and strangeness are the hallmarks of great movies, but I would be just as quick to claim that Hollywood is raping the film industry for quick summer cash. We won't ever completely agree on a movie, and that's fine. That's better than fine, that's freedom.

The point is to not attack each others personal taste. I enjoyed AI myself, although it was not shattering to me. It didn't teach me a lot, but it DID present questions, and I applaud movies that ask intelligent ones. Usually we have to settle for any questions at all.

As for Howard, he wants to be Spielberg. He certainly has talent and the mechanical skills, but he tends to play it safe. There is nothing wrong with that...it's just the way he is.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Brian Lawrence]

I thought I was the only here who liked 'The Paper', But reading through these posts I'm starting to think that maybe I am the only one here who has even seen The Paper.

It's not a great film or anything, But I found it to be an enjoyable 2 hours.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Brian,
I SAW The Paper. Marisa Tomei was hot. It was a decent movie, but typical of Howard, it aped other successful movies competently. It was enjoyable to watch.
Take care,
Chuck