Batman V. Superman: Ultimate Edition


Released: June 28,2016(Digital Only), July 19, 2016(Blu-Ray, DVD)

Director: Zack Snyder

Run Time-Extended Cut: 3 Hours; Theatrical Version: 151 Minutes

Rated R(Extended Cut), PG-13(Theatrical Version)

Composer: Hans Zimmer, Junkie XL

Distributor: Warner Bros.

Henry Cavill: Clark Kent/Superman
Ben Affleck: Bruce Wayne/Batman
Amy Adams: Lois Lane
Jesse Eisenberg: Lex Luthor
Holly Hunter: Senator Finch
Jeremy Irons: Alfred
Laurence Fishburne: Perry White
Diane Lane: Martha Kent
Gal Gadot: Diana Prince/Wonder Woman

As a general rule, I tend not to revisit movies that I have reviewed unless a certain circumstance arises.  That circumstance being the release of an extended version of a film.  I don’t review extended cuts as another rule, unless they add something significant to the actual like say…Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, which added an entirely new subplot which changed the overall movie.  THAT’S what compels me to revisit a movie on this blog.  When I reviewed Batman V. Superman a couple of months ago, I gave it a 7/10.  I enjoyed it for what it was, but there were so many problems with the movie, that I couldn’t give it my full recommendation.  It had a lot of plot points that didn’t seem to go anywhere and some of the stuff that seemed to be important was cut short.  The thing is that before the movie was released to theaters, Zack Snyder announced that an R-rated Extended Cut of the film would be released several months after the film’s theatrical release.

I already went over the story in my previous review of the film, so I won’t really go over the whole thing again here.  What I will say, is that the story in Batman V. Superman isn’t actually bad, it just suffered from not having enough room to explore the characters and themes that Zack Snyder wanted to show the audience.  It felt like there was too much going on.  This is where the extended cut of the film comes into play.  A lot of the issues that some people had with the film are mostly fixed.  30 minutes have been re-introduced into the film, and it bugs me as to why this stuff was cut out.  It further explains why things happen and actually allows for character development.  The theatrical version of the film felt more like a Batman movie than a Superman movie, and when you have a film that features both superheroes, you need to give them equal amounts of attention.

The 30 minutes that have been put back into the film don’t significantly alter the plot in a meaningful way, so if you’re expecting that to happen, it won’t.  This version of the film actually gives you more information as to how Lex Luthor has been manipulating the situation from day one.  His plan to destroy Superman is further fleshed out right from the get-go in the scene in the desert.  But that particular plot point is actually further explored later on in the movie, especially after the courtroom gets bombed.  This is also where Lois Lane as a character gets more to do and actually has a purpose.  While she was investigating the incident in the desert, she actually puts everything together during the entire film and ends up with proof that Lex Luthor is behind everything, especially the bombing.  People had complained about Superman’s reaction to the bombing, but Lane’s investigation concluded that the bomb has concealed by lead, so Superman didn’t do anything about it, because he literally couldn’t see it.  THAT is a significant chunk of information that helps the movie considerably.  It also shows Superman saving some of the people that got caught in the blast.

We also got to see Superman as Clark Kent also doing some investigation into Batman’s activities in Gotham City.  We discover that Lex Luthor has also been manipulating issues in Gotham City to basically have Superman and Batman start pointing fingers at each other.  Plot-wise, things are more clear and we get a better sense of what’s happening.  Characters have room to breathe.  Even Lex Luthor is given a little bit more room to shine.  The more I see Jesse Eisenberg as Luthor, the more I actually like him.  Peformances across the board really haven’t changed much, except during the scenes that were cut out.  We even get to see Clark call his mother to check up on her and that adds a lot more to his character, and shows that he’s not a scumbag.  Superman was never a scumbag, but the theatrical version of Batman V. Superman painted him in a very different light.  The extended cut of the film changes that.

While the extended cut doesn’t add a whole lot more action to the film, it adds a little bit just to hit that R-rating.  The film does get very violent, especially when Batman is involved.  That scene where he takes on the mercenaries is exceptionally brutal, but it is definitely something one can see Batman doing.  The best parts of Batman V. Superman are enhanced by the additional footage, but the negative of the film remain.  There are still issues with the third act of the film.  I still don’t like what they did with Doomsday, but it’s not as much of an issue for me anymore.  It’s a hell of an action sequence, and Snyder really hits it out of the park.  Big explosions, big special effects, that’s what you can and should expect from a movie of this kind.  The pacing of the film is actually improved and it feels a little more complete.  Make no mistake, the bad parts of the movie still remain, but that’s largely due to the script, and that’s not an issue you can fix with editing and additional scenes.

Ultimately, if you hated the film in the first place, the extended cut of the film is not likely to change your mind.  But, you’re like me, and you saw that there was a good movie in that mess somewhere, this is the version that you need to see.  It is the superior version of the film, and is what Zack Snyder had wanted the audiences to see from the beginning.  Yeah, the film’s three hours long, but it IS a more coherent experience.  I still stand by my score for the theatrical version of the film which was a 7/10.  The extended version of Batman V. Superman gets an 8.5/10.  It’s more of an operatic epic and far superior film to the theatrical version.  I’m one of the people that really enjoyed Man of Steel, so my initial reaction to the follow-up was one of disappointment.  The extended version of Batman V. Superman is the version to see.  I think that Batman V. Superman is now mostly a proper set-up for the upcoming Justice League films.  This version comes highly recommended.

I Will Not Support Ghostbusters 2016.

Before I start in on why I refuse to support the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot, I would first like to discuss why I’m such a huge fan of the franchise.  I didn’t actually see the original movie in theaters, because it came it out in 1984, and I was only a year and a half old.  I started watching The Real Ghostbusters cartoon on Saturdays when it was on my local Fox station.  It was colorful, fun and loud.  It was one of the greatest cartoons I ever saw as a kid.  No, I caught the movie on TV and subsequent home video rentals.  The original Ghostbusters film was and still is one of the best comedies ever made.  It combined comedy, action and horror all into one.  It was not entirely kid-friendly with some pretty off-color jokes, but it was just so much fun.  It had the talents of three of the funniest comic actors in the industry: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis.  There was so much chemistry between the characters, it was hard to take your eyes off of them.  Even when Bill Murray’s character is jabbing at William Atherton’s Walter Peck was brilliant.  The writing was super-sharp and the jokes came one right after another, and they were all funny.

The special effects themselves were simply astounding.  The proton pack streams were incredibly well-animated.  Slimer was just….well….Slimer.  It looked like it was actually there.  The terror dogs actually gave me nightmares when I was a kid, they were that scary.  Even today, those damn dogs give me the creeps.  Everything about the movie was incredible.  It was funny and exciting all at the same time.  It also remains one of the most quotable movies in history:

Well, that clip has quotes from the first two movies, but you know what I’m saying.  Speaking of Ghostbusters II, it was not a terrible follow-up.  It was essentially more of the same, but not as refined.  It felt a little rushed, but it was still a ton of fun, and the characters were still memorable.  However, one should always remember this important tip:  If someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “yes!”

Unfortunately, Ghostbusters II was met with fairly mixed reviews and lacked the energy and spirit of the original film.  Personally, I still loved it, but nothing topped the first Ghostbusters film.  The one thing that really tied the both of them together was it’s theme by Ray Parker, Jr.:

It was catchy, it was funny, and it was iconic.  After the success of the original Ivan Reitman film, the song was adapted for the cartoon series.  It was #1 on the charts for several weeks.  The music video even featured the main characters in a dance sequence.  It was quite a sight.  Even if you haven’t seen the movies, you know the song.  It’s a part of pop-culture and is not something that can ever be forgotten.

After Ghostbusters II, there were really no plans for further sequels or entries, despite the franchise’s popularity.  There were a couple of games for the NES, but they were pretty terrible.  After a while, though, there were grumblings that a third live-action film was possibly in the works.  In fact, in the early 2000’s, Dan Aykroyd himself expressed a desire to return to the franchise that helped create.  Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson and director Ivan Reitman were surprisingly open to the idea.  The problem was that Bill Murray really didn’t want to come back to that role.  He’s been on and off again about whether or not he wanted to return.  The ideas for Ghostbusters III were many.  One iteration had the ‘busters going into Hell itself or an alternate dimension.  During the interim, though, Dan Aykroyd managed to convince the others to voice their characters for a full-blown video-game which was released in 2009.  It had a fairly positive response.  It had the charisma and charm of the original film, while exploring new areas of the franchise.  I thought it was awesome, and about as close to a third film was we were going to get.  The response to the game actually got people to really start thinking about a new Ghostbusters movie.

In fact, there were plans to do TWO separate films.  One of them had an all-female cast, and the other was going to be the original guys, passing the torch to a new generation of Ghostbusters.  Sadly, Harold Ramis passed away in early 2014, so any plans for an official sequel were shot.  The film with the female cast was allowed to continue.  Some people had reservations.  I know I did, but you know what, I would give it a chance.  Then they announced the cast for the film:  Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon as the Ghostbusters.  These were pretty funny, so it could work.  Then, they started releasing pictures from the film, and some people seriously lost their shit.  Personally, I was hoping for a little more than this:

It still wasn’t terrible.  Then they cast Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, the receptionist.  Things are starting to become a little more dubious, but I’m still rolling with it.  Then Sony released this:

Can you say, “shitstorm?”  The response to the first trailer was extremely negative.  Aside from the really awkward vagina joke, most of the jokes really fell flat and just came across as embarrassing.  It has become the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube history with nearly 1,000,000 dislikes.  Now, understand that while there is a vocal minority that hates the idea of female Ghostbusters anyway, the reason that most of us hated the trailer was because it looked like garbage.  It was poorly put together with some really lame in-jokes and pop-culture references.  The backlash was IMMEDIATE.  So they released a second trailer.  The response wasn’t much better.

Oh, things get worse.  The film’s director, Paul Feig, along with Sony’s CEO, Tom Rothman, and some of the crew of the film have lashed out at the fans for deriding the trailers and essentially the movie before its release.  Let me tell you something:  If you’re trying to win fans, you don’t fucking insult them.  That’s exactly what’s been happening over the past several weeks.  Leslie Jones has actually come out and defended her role in the film, so there’s that, but nobody else has.  Paul Feig and Sony have essentially said that people who complain about the movie are misogynists.  The massive amount of negative publicity surrounding the film is astonishing.  Paul Feig and company deserve it.  They’re taking a beloved franchise and ruining it with terrible visual effects and lame jokes.  Now, after all that, I was still willing to check out the film to see if it was any good or not.  That was before the music group known as Fallout Boy released the “official” theme song of the new film:

I just…I just can’t.  Listen to this crap.  It’s terrible.  Fallout Boy hasn’t been relevant for over a decade, and even then their music wasn’t all that good.  The fact that this is a part of the official soundtrack makes me sick.  This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  I can’t support this movie.  No chance in hell.  Ghostbusters fans should be insulted that this movie was allowed to be green-lit, especially with somebody like Paul Feig at the helm.  This moron has no clue as to what makes Ghostbusters so special to so many people.  While I’m sure it will make some money on its opening weekend with people curious about the movie, but I can almost guarantee you the drop-off for the following week will be….bad.  This movie won’t even open in China, due to their restrictions on anything supernatural-related, so you can bet your bottom dollar that Ghostbusters 2016 will most likely be the biggest flop of the year.  It’s going to fail.  That much is clear, and Paul Feig deserves to fail.  I don’t want the cast to fail, they’re not the problem.  The problem is everything and everyone else associated with the movie.  I should tell you that Dan Aykroyd has voiced his support for the film on Facebook:

“As originator of the original: Saw test screening of new movie. Apart from brilliant, genuine performances from the cast both female and male, it has more laughs and more scares than the first 2 films plus Bill Murray is in it! As one of millions of man-fans and Ray Stantz, I’m paying to see that and bringing all my friends!”

That’s all well and good, except for one reason, and this was brought up by YouTuber, Mundane Matt:  Dan Aykroyd created Ghostbusters, so he has a vested interest in seeing a movie being made.  There is definitely some bias involved with his response.  I’m not bashing Mr. Aykroyd for having an opinion.  I’m not.  He’s talented and he’s funny.  I’m sure he’s being honest, but his opinion alone shouldn’t be the bar to measure for a movie like the new Ghostbusters.

Because of my love for the franchise, I cannot support a Ghostbusters film that has been made by people who have treated the fans like garbage and continue to insult them.  I really wanted another Ghostbusters film, but this isn’t going to be it.  I honestly think that the franchise has hit a low-point from which it may not recover.  There are a LOT of people out there who share my opinion.  While some may still go see it, the rest of us are going to be busy either watching the original film or playing the 2009 video game which are going to be infinitely better regardless.  To quote YouTuber Angry Joe:  Sony, you done fucked it up.




Independence Day: Resurgence

Released: June 2016

Director: Roland Emmerich

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 120 Minutes

Distributor: Fox Studios

Composer: Harald Kloser

Jeff Goldblum: David Levinson
Liam Hemsworth: Jake Morrison
Jessie T. Usher: Dylan Hiller
Bill Pullman: President Whitmore
Maika Monroe: Patricia Whitmore
Sela Ward: President Lanford
William Fichtner: General Adams
Judd Hirsch: Julius Levinson
Brent Spiner: Dr. Brakish Okun
Vivica A. Fox: Jasmine Hiller

1996 saw a number of films ranging from decent to bad-ass.  The Rock, Dragonheart, Twister, Mission Impossible, Jerry Maguire, and Eraser were some of the biggest movies to be released that year.  But none of those movies made nearly as much money as Roland Emmerich’s Independence Day.  ID4 was the highest-grossing film of 1996 with a gross income of over $800,000,000.  It broke records, and it won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.  I was barely a teenage when the movie came out.  It was great.  I had so much fun with that movie.  20 years later, I’m still a huge fan of Independence Day.  Why?  I’ll answer that question a little later in this post.  Most people, myself included, assumed that Independence Day was a one-and-done movie, with no sight of a sequel.  It didn’t really need one.  Well, 20 years later, we have ourselves an honest-to-God sequel: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Many things have changed since the War of ’96.  The world has become united in a common cause.  Alien tech has been combined with human technology, and as a result there is a base on the moon, and there are outposts throughout the Solar System to watch for any sign of alien intruders.  David Levinson has become the Director of the new Earth Defense Force, which employs alien-improved weaponry.  There has been peace throughout the globe for nearly 20 years.  The son of Captain Steven Hiller, Dylan, is a captain himself in the EDF and is being sent to the moon for a televised celebration flight when an outpost near Saturn goes dark.  Before long, an impossibly massive alien ship arrives to claim Earth for its own.  The story in the first Independence Day wasn’t anything original, but the way it was executed was phenomenal.  It had its serious moments, but it was also peppered with a lot of humor and other light and emotional moments.  The story in Resurgence is essentially the same, with another massive mother-ship causing havoc around the globe.  When it comes to coincidences, this movie is chock-full of them.  It’s ridiculously convenient when some of these characters and objects just show up in the nick of time.  Cliche is a word I’ll be using a lot here.  Make no mistake, the first movie had plenty of cliches, but the film knew it and had fun with it.  Resurgence seems to take itself a little too seriously.  Oh, there’s some pretty funny moments, but there’s no real sense of urgency here.  It takes about 30 minutes before things start getting wrecked.

While it was certainly inevitable that we would see new characters, we also got to see some of the main characters’ children grow up.  Patricia Whitmore and Dylan Hiller show up as military officers.  We also have members of the old guard show up.  Jeff Goldblum returns in fine form as David Levinson, with Bill Pullman as former President Whitmore.  He seems like a grizzled old man that appears to be off his rocker.  Vivica A. Fox has essentially an extended cameo as Dylan’s mother, Jasmine.  Brent Spiner returns as the eccentric Dr. Brakish Okun, who has apparently been in a coma for the past 20 years, due to alien telepathy.  William Fichtner is one of the new faces as General Adams, and he’s pretty good.  It’s always fun to see Fichtner in a movie.  Sela Ward plays the new President Lanford, and she doesn’t do a damn thing.  If there’s a problem with the casting, it’s with the complete lack of Will Smith.  Will Smith was one of the reasons why the first Independence Day worked so well.  When he was on screen, he commanded it.  Yeah, he was very funny a lot of times, but when he needed to be tough, he was very convincing.  He’s not here, and according to some marketing gimmick, his character was apparently killed during a test flight.  They didn’t really mention that in the movie.  I understand that Will Smith didn’t come back, because he demanded a sizable paycheck.  They didn’t want to pay, so they killed him off.  Very nice.  The complete lack of Will Smith actually hurts this film in the long run.  He was kinda the glue that held the whole thing together in the first movie.  Judd Hirsch shows up and not a whole lot happens with him, other than trying to outrun that giant ship in the screenshot above.  The movie throws a lot of new characters at you in the span of two hours.  The acting is fine, but the characterization is not that good.  The chemistry between these people is almost non-existent.  The characters have none of the charm that they did in the previous film and it shows.

So…the characters and the story took a bit of a dive, how about the action?  It takes a good 30 minutes before the good stuff starts to happen, but when it starts, it doesn’t stop at all.  Not even to let you breathe.  You know what?  I’m fine with that.  With a two-hour movie, it needs to grab your attention, and it does when that huge alien ship starts flying over the moon.  The action and the visual effects are out of this world.  If there’s one thing that Roland Emmerich can really do, it’s to destroy the world.  When the alien ship shows up on Earth, it has its own gravity, so it picks up cities and drops them on others.  It’s a sight to behold.  With the humans using alien technology, they actually don’t have to worry about getting around the shields this time.  The action is nuts.  The dogfights are fantastic, even though it seems to throw a lot at you.  We do actually get to see the aliens themselves in action at a few points in the film.  That was really, really cool to see.  The designs of the aliens haven’t changed, but thanks to modern CG technology, they move a lot better and seem more organic.  Don’t get me wrong, I loved the way they did the creatures in the first movie, but these feel a bit more threatening, because they can move and fight.  The alien queen herself was a fairly interesting design.  So, yeah, the visuals are stunning.  However, there really isn’t anything here that screams “iconic.”  In the first movie, you had the alien ship blowing up the White House, and that became a marketing tool.  We don’t have anything like that in here.

For all the crap that I’m throwing at this film, it might seem like I possibly hate it, but I don’t.  In fact, I really enjoyed it.  I love movies like these.  It definitely isn’t as good as the first movie, but it does to try to up the ante quite a bit with bigger action sequences.  But those action sequences don’t mean a thing if you don’t have the heart behind it, and that’s what this movie lacks the most:  Heart.  There’s also the fact that the movie is deliberately setting up for a much larger sequel.  I really don’t like sequel-baiting like this.  It happened with Warcraft, and I didn’t like it then.  The first film worked, because it was a self-contained film.  It had a beginning, middle, and end.  Independence Day: Resurgence is essentially a set-up for a much larger and grander conflict.  I have no problems with movies setting up for sequels, if they do it properly.  Here, it was pretty blatant.  That being said, I’m hoping this movie does well, because I want to see an Independence Day 3.  I really do.  With what I hope they have planned, ID4-3 could be a massive sci-fi epic the likes of which we haven’t seen since Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.  My final recommendation for Independence Day: Resurgence is this:  If you liked the first movie as much as I did, you may like this as well, just don’t set your expectations to high.  It won’t meet them, unfortunately.  With that in mind, it is still a solid sci-fi actioner that should be seen on the big screen.

Before I give my final score, I would like to point out that I caught this film in a double feature with the original Independence Day.  I hadn’t seen the first movie in theaters for 20 years, so seeing it again on the big screen was like being a kid again.  It was phenomenal and held up nicely.  It was a ton of fun and I’m grateful that I managed to see it on the big screen again.  I’ve been a fan of the original film since it came out and that’s not likely to change.  The sequel and it’s possible follow-up are not going to diminish the first film for me.  With all that in mind, my final score for Indepence Day: Resurgence is a 7.5/10.  It could’ve been a lot better and the pacing could’ve been a little bit quicker, but it’s still movie that’s fun as hell with some really stunning visual effects.

Best Directors: Ron Howard

Ron Howard is a genuine talent, not only in front of the camera, but behind as well.  While he first started off in front of the camera with TV shows like The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days, his real talent was behind the camera where his ability to direct became apparent.  His first real success came with the science fiction film Cocoon.  While he has had a number of hits and misses, some of the best movies in the world exist solely because of Howard.  While he ain’t much to look at, this guy knows his movies and how to craft ’em.  For this edition of The Best Directors, we will be examining some of Ron Howard’s best movies.


Besides Star Wars and Star TrekWillow was one of my favorite movies growing up and it still is today.  From a visual standpoint, this is a very unique film.  The main hero of the film is a “little person” named Willow, played by Warwick Davis and is one of my favorite actors.  Val Kilmer plays the bad-ass Madmartigan, and is one of the most charismatic characters put on screen.  Willow had a surprisingly dark and bleak tone to the whole affair, because the story revolves around a child that’s destined to destroy the evil queen Bavmorda, who is more than willing to slaughter each and every newborn so her reign of terror can continue.  The visual effects in this movie were simply way ahead of their time, and used a lot of stop-motion animation, miniatures, and a little CG in a groundbreaking morphing sequence.  Willow is one of the most interesting fantasy films to date and has some of the best acting I’ve seen in a movie of this kind.  This is definitely one I can easily recommend.  Ron Howard did an amazing job with this one, even though it bombed at the box office.  That’s a shame, really, I would have loved to have seen a sequel.

The Missing

The Missing is quite possibly one of the most riveting and intense Westerns I have ever seen.  The film stars Cate Blanchett as a widowed rancher when one of her daughters disappears.  She then enlists the aid of her father, played by Tommy Lee Jones.  Together they set out to find the missing girl.  This is probably one of the grittiest Westerns out there.  It doesn’t shy away from the violence or some of the really bizarre happenings that take place throughout the movie.  It’s a Western, but it also has some supernatural elements to it that make it stand out from the pack.  The performances from Blanchett and Jones are simply astounding.  Ron Howard clearly knows how to build tension and emotion to the point where it becomes cathartic.  It’s not going to be a film for everyone as there are some disturbing scenes in the film, but rarely do you find a Western that’s so gripping.

Apollo 13

“Houston, we have a problem.”  Ever since the real Apollo 13 incident, these words of been immortalized in history.  This was one of the most terrifying events in human history.  While a film could have easily exploited the near-tragedy, Ron Howard managed to craft a solid, believable and incredibly thrilling film about one of the biggest challenges ever to face NASA.  Perfectly cast with the likes of Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris, and Gary Sinise, Apollo 13 is one of the most memorable and intense dramas released in the last twenty-five years.  The film won MULTIPLE awards and is highly regarded as one of Ron Howard’s best movies.

The Da Vinci Code

This one’s going to be a bit controversial for some.  The Da Vinci Code is a movie that I really, really like.  Here’s the thing, though:  I’ve also read the book by Dan Brown.  The book garnered a lot of controversy, because it questioned a lot of the dearly-held beliefs of the Catholic Church.  In fact, the book AND the movie really jabbed the Church in the eye.  The Catholic Church was very quick to condemn the book, because they felt it was blasphemous.  The movie, on the other hand, was controversial because people thought it was pretentious, preachy and boring.  I didn’t.  I loved every minute of it.  The acting was fantastic, and while some of the puzzles and solutions in the film seem kind of coincidental, it’s still a really great story.  Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, and Jean Reno star in one of Ron Howard’s more controversial movies.

In The Heart of the Sea


In The Heart of the Sea is based on the actual events of the Essex, the whaling ship in 1820 that was destroyed by a whale.  The story of the Essex, in turn, inspired the fictional story of Moby Dick, written by Herman Melville.  This is absolutely one of the most stunning movies released last year.  It features a very strong cast that includes Chris Hemsworth, Ben Wishaw, Brendan Gleeson, Benjamin Walker, Tom Holland, and Cillian Murphy.  This is one of those epic sea movies that strangely didn’t get a lot of attention.  It’s a shame, because it’s an incredible story.  While many have complained about the excessive use of CGI, I thought the film engrossing and extremely riveting.  This one is definitely a must-watch if you’re a fan of Ron Howard’s work.

While Ron Howard made many more films than what I’ve covered here, there is no doubt in my mind that he is one of Hollywood’s most talented directors, despite a few….misfires.  I think his movies are incredibly worthwhile and very entertaining while telling a great story.  Ron Howard is an amazing story-teller and I can’t wait to see what he does next.