I don’t really have a lot to say about this except to post an image of the most loveable idiot to never deserve a sequel. Let alone two sequels.

MovieHole.net said:

In an article discussing the presidential selection of Hutch Parker to both 20th Century Fox and Fox Animation, Variety mentioned that one of Hutch’s first flicks, whilst in the captain’s chair, is an “Ice Age 3”.

Yep, Fox have plans to bring nut-chasing Scrat and the gang back for a third “Ice Age” movie.

So they are making another Ice Age?

I know the equation is that if the movie makes money, make another. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. But do we really NEED a third movie?

I thought the Ice Age has actually ended? Is this the chapter where we get to see Manfred and his new found Mammoth mate have little kiddie mammoths, they pass the torch and a whole new generation of sub zero heroes? What story is there left to be told?

This is like the Land Before Time. Or the Land Before the Land Before Time.

I can’t wait for Ice Age 36: The Industrial Revolution.

Bob Hoskins was outstanding in the Garfield sequel but he will be most remembered in my twisted mind as Professor Challenger in the campy tv version of The Lost World. More to the flavour of his academy nominated stature, Bob Hoskins is announced to be joining the cast of Doomsday set to film in South Africa early February.

MoviesOnline sums it up as:

In DOOMSDAY, a lethal virus spreads throughout a major country and kills hundreds of thousands. To contain the newly identified Reaper, the authorities brutally quarantine the country as it succumbs to fear and chaos. The literal walling-off works for three decades – until Reaper violently resurfaces in a major city. An elite group of specialists, including Eden Sinclair (Ms. Mitra), is urgently dispatched into the still-quarantined country to retrieve a cure by any means necessary. Shut off from the rest of the world, the unit must battle through a landscape that has become a waking nightmare.

This idea sounds like it will make a great movie. Sort of an Outbreak for a new generation, with less monkeys. Well maybe there will be monkeys.

Back almost a month ago, I posted how I wasn’t too hyped up about Delta Farce, despite having DJ Qualls in it. It starts out with a great premise, but then goes into zany left field with a badguy who is a Kareoke singing warlord in South America named Carlos Santana.

MoviesOnline.ca recaps:

Down on his luck after losing his job and his girlfriend on the same day, Larry decides to join his neighbor, Bill (Bill Engvall), and his combat-happy buddy, Everett (DJ Qualls), for a relaxing weekend of drinking and target practice. But when the three hapless guys are mistaken for Army Reservists by the hard-nosed Sergeant Kilgrove (Keith David), they’re loaded onto an army plane headed for Fallujah, Iraq – and mistakenly ejected in a Humvee somewhere over Mexico. Convinced they’re actually in the Middle East, the clueless wannabe soldiers save a rural village from a siege of bandits and become local heroes. But when Carlos Santana (Danny Trejo), a ruthless, karaoke-loving warlord, strikes back, Larry, Bill and Everett have to lay down their beers and take up their arms – and prove they just might be real soldiers after all

Well they just put up a trailer over at MoviesOnline.ca and you can click here to see it.

I have to say, this trailer changes my mind. This looks like it might be some goofy fun afterall. Of course the trailer overlooks the part where the warlord is a Kareoke nut, but maybe thats a good thing.

The funny plasticine characters Wallace and Gromit are going to be seeing you in some new ways soon, or so says Aardman spokesman Arthur Sheriff this week. The good folks over at yahoo.com has this to add:

The filmmaking partnership of Aardman Animations Ltd and Hollywood’s DreamWorks Animation SKG may have ended on Tuesday but Nick Park, creator of the animated pals, is busy at the drawing board creating a Wallace and Gromit sequel. “Wallace and Gromit are alive and kicking,” Arthur Sheriff said on Wednesday. “There is a project on the table right now. “It could be television, it could be a feature film. That depends on how the storyline develops.” DreamWorks and Aardman ended their seven-year partnership on Tuesday, saying their “ambitions have moved apart.”

This is nice to hear, Wallace and Gromit are so cool with the old school claymation effects and I’ve always found the writing very witty. I was wondering if we’d be hearing from them again. I have to say that a television show would be my pick. I think they have enough life in them for a show. A film would be good but I have to wonder if it would be any more successful than the first, which, while turning a profit did not make as much as hoped.

It is sad that two such creative teams like DreamWorks and Aardman have spit up but creative chemistry is fickle, as are finances within the movie industry so it is never a shock when two companies split.

I’m just happy that the kids are ok in this divorce.

John Cusack will be starring in the new movie adapted from the Stephen King short story 1480, and now you can catch more than a glimpse of it in the new trailer. The good folks over at filmjunk.com made us aware of the trailer.

Click here to see 1480.

Here’s the premise:A man who specializes in debunking paranormal occurrences checks into the fabled room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel. Soon after settling in, he confronts genuine terror. It also stars Samuel L. Jackson and Mary McCormack and it is directed by Mikael Hafstrom.
Ok so it’s pretty much your standard fright style Stephen King movie but…the trailer does look pretty cool. With most of King’s books as well as his movies it isn’t usually the stories that are so interesting as the characters in them, this is no exception. I think that Cusack is the right choice and just from the trailer I can see some effort being put forth on his part to do something interesting with his character. The trailer itself is a bit too long, gives a little too much information, there is nothing worse than when you feel like you’ve already seen the film at the end of a trailer.

The movie looks alright, nothing too get excited about, but it will probably be one of those rainy day, matinee, lets go out and scream kind of movies.

I just flat out loved the first “Meet The Parents” flick. The concept and the execution were almost flawless, and it was one of those rare comedies that made you laugh AND had a pretty decent little story to go along with it. I still try to watch it once or twice a year. But my love of the first film is almost equaled by my disappointment in the second one (Meet The Fockers). Don’t get me wrong, there was nothing wrong with the casting or the performances… but the film felt far more contrived, forced… and just plain old not nearly as funny. oh well… it was worth a shot.

But not it appears that they’re getting ready to go back to the well once again (which isn’t all that surprising since Fockers still made an ass load of cash). The good folks over at Yahoo News give us this:

Teri Polo is set to reprise her role as
Ben Stiller’s wife in “Meet the Little Focker,” the third installment of the movie franchise. “I think he cast me in the role because I play a great straight man,” she said. “Actually, I think I’m funnier off-camera.”

I don’t HATE this idea… but it does sort of make me scratch my head. The second film was understandable… but it didn’t work. It was done, you’ve told the story, and even took it a little further than you should have… so it’s time to let it go right?

I don’t know. I guess I can see some people being excited about this I suppose. I’m just not one of them. What do you think? Do you like the idea of another Meet the Parents movie? If so, why or why not?

Ok, this isn’t a movie post at all… but I don’t care because it’s got me excited. The Grammys are a total joke. A 100% useless and totally meaningless pre-arrange, fixed and contrived “awards” show. Everyone knows it, and it seems like the don’t even try to hide it anymore… so there ya go.

But, I’ll be watching them this year for sure. Why? Because holy hell… THE POLICE are going to be playing to open the damn show. These 3 guys who i think once vowed they would commit MURDER on each other if they were ever even in the same room again. But I guess big money brings bygones.

The hows and whys aren’t important to me though. Even though I’m not a big “classic rock” fan myself, I still fricken LOVE The Police, and the fact that they’re playing together again has me a little pumped.

A couple of years ago during the Super Bowl you were assured of 2 things. Lots of ads for DOT-COM companies, and plenty of ads for upcoming big movies. Well… we all know what happened to the DOT-COM boom, and it looks like movie ads at the big game are heading in the same direction. According to the folks over at M&C, just a couple of films (and not the ones you’d expect either) are going to be featured:

Super Bowl XLI fans will see only two ads for movies during Sunday`s Chicago Bears-Indianapolis Colts clash in Miami. Lionsgate scheduled time to advertise the Terrence Howard-Bernie Mac film ‘Pride,’ about an inner-city teacher who turns troubled kids into champion swimmers. The movie has a March 23 release date. Disney will advertise ‘Wild Hogs,’ a comedy starring John Travolta, Tim Allen and Martin Lawrence

It’s not that the Super Bowl doesn’t get a big audience. As a matter of fact it is the single biggest television event of the year. But apparently the spots aren’t cost effective (the last I heard a 20 second spot was running $2.5 million US). The studios just seem to feel they’re getting better bang-for-your-buck with ads they run for big prime time TV shows like Heroes.

Personally I don’t care. I like the crazy Super Bowl ads… less trailers means for time for those.

I felt this strip held a deep significance to me, as I am still bitter about being tricked to see The Musketteer so many years ago. The trailer looked SO good. The movie was SO bad.

I still contend, despite this trickery, that there should be an Oscar for Trailer Editors. A bad trailer can cause confusion or outright disinterest in an otherwise good movie, or it can drag droves of innocent movie patrons into seats they wouldn’t otherwise occupy if they really knew how bad the movie was.

These guys are the MAGIC behind the movies. At least until you actually SEE the movie.

Get your daily dose of Frazz by Clicking Here. Try to imagine Frazz is a grown up Calvin & Hobbes (minus the Hobbes).

Seth Rogan is an actor who, once you see him you just want to see more, and now it seems he’s finally starting to get starring roles, like in the new comedy Knocked Up. The kind folks over at cinemablend.com has this new poster and two more on their webpage for our viewing pleasure. So far the only plot outline is this: A young guy finds out he impregnated his one night stand. Not bad, it’s really every man’s nightmare, and every woman’s as well, fear and humor often go hand in hand so this could be good.

Ever since Freaks and Geeks I’ve been waiting to see Rogan get hired for something closer to a leading role again, the guy is so great to watch, yeah he’s just a twenty something male comedic actor but he has such a style. Do I think he can pull off a leading role? I’m not sure, he has always been a supporting character but he’s played those parts very well.

If he can pull one off this will be a good movie to try. It is written and directed by The 40 Year Old Virgin’s Judd Apatow, who worked with Rogan on the Virgin set, it’s a comedy and since it isn’t super high budge there won’t be too much pressure. The premise isn’t much right now but I’d rather hear too little than too much. The new posters are pretty funny and unless the trailers are horrific I can definitely see myself going to this movie.

An Inconvenient Truth is in trouble with some angry parents who don’t want their children to be watching the film at school. The folks over at cinematical.com have more on the story:

An Inconvenient Truth was the cause of a recent controversy in a suburban Washington school that drew great attention in the community at large, and specifically within filmmaker and activist circles. A science teacher in the Federal Way School District was set to show the Oscar-nominated documentary in class, when an angry parent’s email put an end to all that. the parent in question, Frosty E. Hardison. (Frosty? Oh, they can’t be serious!?) Not only do they believe that there is no truth behind this whole global warming thing, but that it is also relatable to the second coming of Christ — this was in the email,

Wow there is so much more to the story as well. Because of this ridiculous e-mail there is now a checklist that teachers all have to follow before showing the film. it is as follows:
1. The teacher must receive written permission from all parents for their children to see the film.
2. The film materials must be approved by the principal and the school board.
3. Students must be shown an opposing view giving the kids “two sides.” In this case, that would be the global warming argument.

So what is the opposing view to global warming? Revelations? Or is it a war between Hobbits in middle earth?

Sad so very sad. That this film would have to jump through so many hoops just to educate children about something that may in fact save their world. What kind of parents are these? It is this sort of head in the sand, protect my kids until they are completely unself-reliant, pain in the neck mentality that has screws up earth to this extent in the first place.

This movie is not scary, it is educational, it is even a little boring. If you let your kids play video games or watch the news or see religious violent films like The Passion of The Christ then a film about global warming done by the former Vice President of the United States should be pretty much ok.

This stuff just drives me bonkers. I have lived in Canada for 25 years and am now living in Los Angeles, I see climate changes everywhere; it didn’t snow in Canada this year until late January, but earlier this month Malibu had their first snowfall since 1963. This is happening and anyone who doesn’t want to acknowledge it is being completely obtuse.

An Inconvenient Truth is a good film, it is educational and it belongs in schools, lucky for us they are actually getting funding to put it into schools. I think the parents that are complaining about that might need some educating of their own.

The first lady of Scientology used to rank among my more interesting actresses in Hollywood. No, I didnt think Katie Holmes was overly outstanding, I just liked her quirky charm and I find her terribly hot. Then Tom Cruise ebay’d her soul, and the rest is history.

So to see her do such a mediocre job in Batman wasn’t surprising, but disappointing that they didnt do MORE with her. Maybe they tried. But since I wasnt too trilled with her in Batman Begins anyways, I wasnt to distressed to read this on MSN Entertainment today:

Katie Holmes has turned down a $2.3 million deal to star in the ‘Batman Begins’ sequel.

The actress, who was expected to reprise her role as Rachel Dawes alongside caped crusader Christian Bale for ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’, has pulled out because of “scheduling conflicts”.

Rumours have already circulated that Katie has been replaced by ‘Wedding Crashers’ actress Rachel McAdams for the comic-book adventure, which will star Heath Ledger as The Joker.

I think Katie’s “scheduling conflicts” were a direct result of the $2.3million that she was offered for the role. In a movie this big, I would have thought a bigger paycheque was in order, but this is in Holme’s tax bracket. Perhaps she wanted more. I wonder what shes getting paid to be in a Queen Latifah movie.

Other rumours include troubles related to being a tabloid topic and her contraversal faith to Scientology.

Now would a different actress in the role of Gothams hottest DA make the role any different?

My only fear is that they will write in that the new actress is a different person (instead of replacing Katie’s character) instead of playing off that “I have known you since we were kids” angle that grounds Batman so effectively. IMDB lists her as only a “voice” of Rachel Dawes, so it sounds like this is where they are going with the character despite rumours saying they will replace Katie, not Rachel Dawes.

But we all know IMDB can be unreliable BEFORE a movie comes out.

It’s going to be a bit of a slow news day since I’ll be traveling most of it (I’m heading to LA today). But something came up yesterday that kind of surprised me. In my post about the stupidity of Harold and Kumar, a couple of people actually suggested it was a better movie than Wedding Crashers. So, I thought why not open it up to discussion…. so what do you think? Which is funnier: Wedding Crashers, or Harold and Kumar?

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry but like or not folks Barbarella may be showing up in a theater near you, a new Barbarella that is. The nice folks over at cinematical.com give us this on the story:

Dino De Laurentiis wants to update the classic story of the lady who nearly dies of pleasure while taking sex to outer space. I’m not sure how, but this new franchise will not be a remake, but “a completely new Barbarella,” according to De Laurentiis

Ok, ok this is not the best news of the day but if there was anyone who had to produce this movie at least it is De Laurentiis, the guy has been around. I’m actually surprised that he didn’t have a production credit on the first Barbarella because he was certainly making movies similar and around the same time. From Thee Day of the Condor to Flash Gordon and the Conan the Barbarian series this man has done some of the most fun b-movies and a few straight A types since long before many of us were born. So we know that this movie will be funded properly but…how exactly will this go?

Thankfully they don’t want to use the original script, or the actors (somehow I do not think Jane Fonda would be on board even if they did want her). If they made a new action comedy that just had the flavor of Barbarella (and the costumes of course) with a sparkling sexy girl who knows how to play comedy then it could be a fun romp, but they really would have to find someone spectacular. If there was a good cast and a fun script it could be a super popcorn flick.

I fully approve of a remake of this movie because really, at least with Barbarella we are not treading on anything close to sacred film ground.

You probably don’t recognize this man’s face, although his name might sound a touch familiar but Jackie Earle Haley, above everyone else who has been nominated this year deserves an Oscar. For those of you movie goers luck enough to see Little Children (which also garnered Kate Winslet a best actress Oscar nomination) you will know what I’m talking about. Haley plays the supporting character Ronnie J. McGorvey, a recently released sex offender who comes back home to live with his mother in a neighborhood full of children. His performance is astonishingly good.

You can see my earlier review for Little Children here.

Jackie Earle Haley’s history leading up to this role is pretty amazing. He started out as a child star, he was in TV commercials at 6 years old, was in the original Bad News Bears and played side by side with a young Dennis Quaid in Breaking Away. But then like a lot of child stars he lost work as he aged. People in the know in Texas knew where to find him, they would call for pizza, he delivered it for quite a while in that state. He also worked as a security officer, limo driver and a furniture refinisher. Life was starting to take on a different but nicer turn for him when he started to direct commercials and such for a local cable station when someone in Hollywood finally remembered his talent and gave him a call.

When Haley saw the script he knew he had to play the role and he also knew that he was going to have to do something huge to win the producers over. So, he made a 20 minute film focusing on the life of his character. The production value on it was so good that when this story was told at a local SAG screening Q&A the director joked that he was worried when he watched it that he might be out of a job. Luckily all Haley wanted was to act, so he was cast.

So, why is Haley most deserving? His background is hard and his performance is good but there have been wonderful performances this year by many actors and actresses. From Helen Mirren to Peter O’Toole to newcomer Jennifer Hudson, they are all fine and worthy, and most have had long hard roads and fabulous characters to work as in their pictures this year.

The difference is Haley was given the role of a sex offender, not a singer, or a Queen, he got one of the most feared and hated types of people there are today. And he created a character that has such soul that you start thinking about your own. The character journey this man goes through and the things that he does…he make us see that no matter who you are or what you have done you are still a human being. People make terrible mistakes and sometimes they have deep dark secret habits that they hate but haven’t found a way out of the cage, it’s frightening what this caged animal does to escape.

Jackie Earle Haley deserves the Best Supporting Oscar for this role in Little Children not because of what he went through to get the role but because his performance is truly the best of the year.

I always get excited about seeing a classic movie for the first time. A few years ago I was pumped when me and a friend of mine finally picked up The Godfather to watch for the first time… and I was blown away by it’s pure brilliance and shocked at how much cinema has been influenced by it (you just can’t appreciate that until you’ve seen it for yourself). Lawrence of Arabia was the same sort of thing for me too. Damn, the list goes on and on.

So the other day I finally sat down to watch the original “The Wicker Man“. Man I’ve heard so much about this movie… about how it’s a horror classic, about how brilliant it is… about how eerie it is… yadda yadda yadda. So all excited I put the dvd in… and then proceeded for wait for an hour and a half for anything interesting to happen… then the credits rolled.

I mean holy crap… that was one of the most boring snooze fests I’ve ever seen in my life. Not once did I care about the little girl, not once did I feel a sense of mystery or eeriness, not once did I feel “shocked” or frightened or even nervous. Whheeeee… singing dancing naked ladies. Whoopie freaking do.

And look, please don’t hit me with the “You have to understand in it in the context of it’s time” argument. I understand that. But a great film is a great film and withstands the test of time. Like The Godfather or Citizen Cane or Sparticus or Ben Hur. Great stories transcend time and can overcome cultural and era changes. The Wicker Man didn’t do that… at least not for me. I mean, seeing Christopher Lee with that crazy hair was almost worth watching the movie for… but not quite enough.

The film was just straight up boring. They set up the premise right away (which is something I appreciate) but they never really move on from there. A police officer comes to an isolated island to investigate reports of a missing little girl… only everyone on the island claims to know nothing about such a girl. Good idea to start with… but as I said nothing really transpires after that until the big anti-climactic finish.

So help me out. Am I the only one here who thinks The Wicker Man is horribly overrated? If you’re one of the people who appreciates it, what is it that I missed?

I like my stupid comedies as much as anyone. I think Anchorman is cinematic gold. 40 Year Old Virgin and Wedding Crashers should have both been nominated for Oscars, why more people don’t love Dodgeball is totally beyond me and Zoolander deserves it’s own star on the walk of fame. So never let it be said I don’t appreciate stupid comedies. But… even I have my limits. Harold and Kumar was just plain moronic, unfunny brain dead filmmaking at it’s worst.

At least with films like 40 Year Old Virgin, you get some intelligence behind the silliness. The silliness becomes just a tool for communicating the humor… not the whole point of the humor in and of itself. That’s all Harold and Kumar was… stupidity for the sake of stupidity. “oh I’ve got an idea… let’s put in ANOTHER joke about being high”. Yeah… fun.

Anyway, ComingSoon has this for us:

the sequel to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle has begun shooting in Shreveport, Louisiana. Eric Winter (ABC Family’s “Wildfire”) has joined John Cho (Harold) and Kal Penn (Kumar) in the untitled follow-up at Mandate Pictures and New Line. Winter plays a politician’s son who is engaged to Kumar’s ex-girlfriend.

I just don’t get it (but then again, that’s the beauty of subjectivity in film), can someone explain to me the appeal of this movie?

Ok now look. I’m one of those people who really doesn’t mind the idea of remakes and sequels. Sometimes they can be amazing… often not… but the point is you take each movie as a movie… and judge each one on it’s own merits… original or sequel or remake.

However, even I have my limits. Word it that they’re actually looking at producing a Poltergeist 4. Oh sweet heavens. Our good friends over at Horror-Movies.Ca give us this:

So much confusion. A few months ago a rumor was circulating the web that their was a Poltergeist remake in the works. You will recall that MGM debunked the rumor by saying and I quote:

“there is NO truth to this…it is all bullshit…”

NOW the word from MGM is we are going to be getting a Poltergeist IV. Charles Cohen told our friend David quote:

“We are working on a Poltergeist idea, and hope to have some news to announce shortly. Stay tuned.”

My question is… “What’s the point?” Why bother making a Poltergeist 4? What… what the epic saga not drawn to a proper close? Where the subsequent Poltergeist movies huge blockbusters? Did Poltergeist 3 leave us with too many unanswered questions that we’ve all been DYING to have answered? I mean come on… does anyone other than myself have the misfortune of even remembering parts 2 and 3?

Look, if you’ve got an idea for a good solid horror flick with ghosties… then just do it as it’s own film. I know sometimes attaching a movie to an existing franchise can help marketing… but this is ridiculous. And to be honest, calling it Poltergeist 4 could actually HURT it’s marketing.

What do you guys think?

“The Ten” is a movie I’ve been dying to see for a long time (I first wrote about it way back in August”). The basic idea is that the movie is a collection of 10 separate mini stories each revolving around one of the Ten Commandments. fantastic idea, backed up by a great cast which includes: Jessica Alba, Famke Janssen, Winona Tyder, Amanda Peet, Rob Corddry, Ron Silver, Paul Rudd, Adam Brody and Oliver Platt. Not bad.

The good folks over at Yahoo News guve us this:

The indie partnered on the $4.5 million deal with City Lights Home Entertainment, which will handle DVD and digital distribution. Both companies will share all revenues. An August theatrical release is planned.

Damn! An August release?!?! Oh well, I guess I’ve waited this long… why not another 6 months. On the upside I’m glad to see the movie did actually get made and that it’s been picked up. I think for potential for this concept is almost limitless. Can’t wait to see it.

The Screen Actors Guild handed out their annual awards the other night. The winners were all solid, with one glaring exception. As I mentioned in a previous rant, some fool decided it was ok to nominate Leonardo DiCaprio as best SUPPORTING actor for his role in The Departed… a role in which even the blindest of people know he was clearly the lead. So how can they compound their stupidity? By giving the award to Eddie Murphy over him.

Don’t get me wrong, Eddie was quite good in Dreamgirls… I’ll even go so far as to say that if SAG hadn’t of acted like morons and nominated Leo for SUPPORTING actor, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the idea of Eddie winning the award (he wouldn’t have been my pick to win… but he was good enough that I certainly wouldn’t have a “problem” with him getting it). But to even suggest that Eddie Murphy’s performance was better than the one Leo gave in The Departed is just dumb.

Who knows… maybe the people at SAG realized how stupid it was to nominate Leo in that category and decided to turn a blind eye to him being in there. If that’s the case… then I actually applaud the SAG voters for the move. Anyway, here’s your list of the SAG winners. Expect to see this list of winner duplicated EXACTLY for the Oscars.

Actor:

Forest Whitaker, “The Last King of Scotland”

Actress:

Helen Mirren, “The Queen”

Supporting actor:

Eddie Murphy, “Dreamgirls”

Supporting actress:

Jennifer Hudson, “Dreamgirls”

Cast:

“Little Miss Sunshine”

I have just witnessed the single greatest trailer of all time (ok I’m exaggerating a little bit… but it’s a damn good one). Below you’ll find the Black Sheep trailer. Now, this has actually been around a little while but I’ve never gotten around to actually posting it up. I remember first writing about this movie about a year ago when I first heard about it’s premise, but then it sort of fell off my radar.

Well, a few people have written to me over the last week to remind me about it, and here it is.

Ok, I laughed my freaking ass off at this. It’s the new Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Moive Film For Theaters trailer. Damn I love that flaming chicken.

The Great Geek Manual posts:

Every since J.K. Rowlings revealed the title of the seventh and final installment in the Harry Potter series, speculation over how the series will end has been flying thick and fast. However, I predict that, like many other twists in the series, you won’t see the end coming.

7. Voldemort finally reveals the truth to Harry, “Dumbledore told you I killed your father. He lied! I, Voldemort, am your father!” Hermione later turns out to be Harry’s long lost twin sister.

6. Harry retrieves the final five Hoarcruxes, only to enter into an amicable agreement with Voldemort whereby they postpone their showdown for seven more books.

5. Dumbledore returns, cloaked in robes of white, at which point the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien intervenes and the rest of the book is withheld by a court ordered injunction.

4. After learning the truth of the prophecy as told to Harry by Dumbledore, Neville Longbottom decides to take matters into his own hands. He neatly finishes off Voldemort in one book, then seriously fucks up Harry for stealing the seven book franchise that should have been his to begin with.

3. After waiting a decade for conclusion of the saga of the Boy Who Lived, millions of fans around world wait in line the night before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows only to receive a notice that the final book will not be made available to the public until J.K. Rowlings is made the new reigning monarch of England. The British parliament has a good laugh … until the fighting breaks out.

2. Harry Potter does indeed die, and, as in all British literature, the butler did it. That’s right. Doby finally shows his true colors.

1. In a satellite-broadcast world event, J.K. Rowlings appears before her millions of fans on the night before the announced release of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”, holds her hand-written manuscript aloft, and in one supreme demonstration of the disdain she holds for all of her readers, casts the manuscript into a great cauldron of fire, declaring, “Now, you’ll NEVER know how it ends, you little bastards!”

“Seven Endings you didn’t See Coming for Harry Potter Seven” was written by Pipedreamergrey and originally posted to The Great Geek Manual. It may be reposted so long as this notice remains intact. Copyright 2007 Pipedreamergrey.

When you think of the movies the director Ron Howard usually does, comedies don’t really come to mind, but that is about to change with his new film The Emperors Children. The good folks over at movieweb.com give us this:

Universal Pictures has bought the rights to the Claire Messud novel, The Emperor’s Children; Imagine Entertainment will co-produce.

Ron Howard is looking to direct the comedy set in New York in the months before and following September 11, 2001. Variety reports it centers around three Brown University students, raised in upper-crust surroundings and expected to do something important; they hit 30 and struggle to fulfill that promise

So we don’t really think of Ron Howard as a comedy director but the ones he has done have been pretty enjoyable, like Edtv, Parenthood, Night Shift and Cocoon. Do I think this movie will be good? Probably yes. With the money the Universal should be willing to invest, a talented director like Ron Howard and an interesting plot about how spoiled rich kids are affected by 911 this is almost sure to be a winner.

The casting will be key, it would be a nice change if they used all unknowns for the roles, bring in a new crop of talent to let us really fall into the characters and the story. I’m not sure if this is even really done anymore with big directors with big studios…but it should be, they are the ones who can afford the risk.

Either way though I think this movie will be successful, there are just too many good things going for it.

Pierce Brosnan is now talking about the long awaited follow up film to The Thomas Crown Affar; The Topkapi Affair. The good people over at monstersandcritics.com give us the infor from Pierce Brosnan:

The long in development project looks like it’s a go, according to Pierce. “Thomas Crown 2 for all intents and purposes, will happen. The script came in two days ago and it’s good. We’ve announced it, we’ve said to the world that we’re going to do it, come hell or high water, we’re going to do it. The bar is high on this one, the expectation is high on it.”

“The Topkaki Affair” is the title, and would be a loose remake of the 1964 MGM film Topkaki about the heist from an Istanbul museum. Brosnan has stated that actress Rene Russo will not be in this “Affair.”

So finally there is going to be a sequel but…will anyone go out to watch? The Thomas Crown Affair was a very popular movie, esspecially with the under appreciated 35 plus demographic. I have to wonder though if Renne Russo’s absence will decrease the box office numbers, there was such a fantastic chemistry between Brosnan and her and I don’t know who they could get to bring such a spark to the screen.

If the makers are smart they will NOT bring in a ridiculously young woman to replace Rene, it would be much more appealing if they had in a man to bring a buddy sense to the film. Brosnan and Greg Kinnear in The Matador were great together, there was no need for a romantic lead with the those two hamming it up together. If the makers are actually taking a quality amount from the original Topkapi then the buddy system would work very well.

If you want to check out a hilariously dated trailer for that movie click here.

This film could be good, it still has Pierce Brosnan which will get a good amount of people out and if the script is good then it really is just a matter of casting someone to complement the story and Brosnan. Or they could just throw a flavor of the week hot actress in with him and insult the older women who loved the first movie so much because they had themselves represented in Rene Russo.

By the first trailer it should be pretty easy to see which way this flick will go.

I have to say that a lot of M.Night Shyamalan’s movies are in my dvd collection, and I enjoy all of them (except Lady in the Water..its not on my shelf). I even liked the Village even if I did see the plot coming before the end of the trailer. As many predicted, M.Night couldnt keep doing these intelligent plot twist movies because we all look for it now. We are wise to his shenanigans, and wont fall for it again. The love is gone.

Film Junk

A couple weeks ago the web was swirling with news of M. Night Shyamalan’s next film: an adaptation of the Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender. But what we didn’t know is that he has apparently been shopping around another script to a number of studios, and most of them have turned up their noses at it. The movie is supposedly called Green Planet, and it involves some sort of alien presence trying to teach humanity the error of its ways by using nature to strike back at us. According to film ick, the movie is about “the emergence of a New Eden when our flora and fauna come under the influence of something alien and make moves to take back the planet. Think The Day After Tomorrow with more smarts… a strange, upside down way of looking at ecological destruction.”

Well there it is. He was still trying to hit us up with a movie of his own makings. Don’t get me wrong, it does sound like an interesting premise, and might have actually made a good movie. But his name is like the stench of bad socks when attached to a movie like this.

No wonder he is attached to the Avatar project now. He couldn’t GET another job!

I think the guys at Robot Chicken can sum this up far better than I ever could.

I like Brendan Fraser as much as any fun loving action guy would. The guy is just so darn likable. I especially like him in the Mummy series.

Cinematical had an interview with Fraser:

On the production front, I asked if he was shooting Mummy 3 right after Inkheart, to which he replied: “I’m still waiting for the call, so we’ll see … ” And when I asked if he would once again be co-starring alongside Rachel Weisz: “I haven’t talked to Rachel yet, but it’s all on the page.”

Yes, that means her character is in the script, and so chances are very likely she’ll be back alongside our hero. Finally, Fraser did not confirm nor deny rumors that Rob Cohen had been asked to helm the third installment — I take it he’s a bit out of the loop right now, and is waiting to finish up Inkheart in order to dive head first into Mummy action.

I don’t know about you, but it sounds a little vague like Fraser was attempting to dodge the question and still answer it. “Its all on the page” could mean that they have a contract no one has signed yet either.

IMDB lists only Fraser as “attached” to the project and no one else, so who knows what’s in the works. Sounds like Brendan isn’t willing to spill the beans about it yet either.

Either way, I hope Fraser and Weisz are both in it. Its guaranteed to be some light fluffy comedic action fun.

Oh man… this looks just terrible. Just keep in mind it’s just one little clip. Maybe it’ll get better. Here’s your first look at the Rush Hour 3 teaser trailer.

Oh good grief. Alvin and The Chipmunks is being made into a live action movie with the Chipmunks as CGI characters. The folks over at Moviehole give us this:

80s phenomenon (though they actually first popped up in the 1950s), “Alvin and The Chipmunks” are headed to the big screen, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Tim Hill, who directed kiddish efforts “Muppets in Space” and “Garfield 2”, is being lined up to direct.

It’s funny, at the Films 4 Food Fest live Audio Edition we actually talked about old 80’s cartoon being made into modern films. I think this one is just a plain bad idea. Almost as bad as the Smurf trilogy coming our way (no, I’m not kidding). I think this has suck and disaster written all over it.

The problem is, as bad as the Garfield movies were (and believe me they were BAD), they made money. As long as a formula looks like it’ll make money… the studios will pump out more (and who can blame them? If I was making millions off of selling bags of my own crap… I’d keep selling bags of my own crap. Wouldn’t you?).

I’m so 1998. I’m one of the few people I know to still have not seen a major film on IMAX. Everyone I’ve talked to says it’s an amazing film watching experience. I need to get off my lazy ass and get to one soon. Maybe March 9th when 300 hits theaters… regular and IMAX!!!

Our good friends over at MoviesOnline give us this:

“Warner Bros. Pictures and the filmmakers are very excited to bring this unique cinematic experience to both conventional and IMAX theatres this spring,” said Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution at Warner Bros. Pictures. “The immersive IMAX Experience will transform this film, offering audiences an alternative way to view this highly-charged picture.”

“300 is an exciting event film which includes many aspects that we believe will appeal to commercial audiences,”

So I just marked it down in my Google Calendar. March 9th I’m going to see my first major film on IMAX. I can’t freaking wait.

Michael Douglas is one of the most diverse actors working. The guy can be in a craptastic movie, and yet still pull off something special. Hell… he was the only whatchable thing in You, Me and Dupree. Now he’s got this great looking little indie film by first time writer and director Mike Cahill called “King of California“. Here’s a quick synopsis:

The dark comedy stars
Michael Douglas as a father who returns home after being released from a mental institution, much to the chagrin of his beleaguered 16-year-old daughter (Evan Rachel Wood). She reluctantly embarks on one of her father’s long string of crazy schemes: a plan to unearth gold buried by Spanish missionaries in California.

I had a chance to talk with director Mike Cahill yesterday when I was on Hollywood Babel-On. This film really has one of those “Little Miss Sunshine” feels to it. Story driven character movies (that we don’t seem to get enough of these days). I can’t wait to see it.

As of this moment, King of California doesn’t have a distributor yet, but they’re at Sundance right now and getting close. Make this one of my “movies to see in 2007″. Check out the trailer below.

Poor Katie Holmes, not only is she married to Tom Cruise and has born his spawn but now it appears that she’s just been dumped from the new Batman movie Dark Knight. The good people over at cinemablend.com give us this

It’s no secret that everyone was pretty unhappy with Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. I think we’d all assumed though that she’d either be back as Rachel Dawes, or Rachel Dawes would be replaced by some other babe of the moment for The Dark Knight. It looks like Chris Nolan has found a third option. The Latino Review says that Rachel Dawes will be back for The Dark Knight, but she will not be played by Katie Holmes. Katie is right out, and they’re recasting the role.

So this is not fully confirmed by the studios as of yet but it is all over the net and nobody is denying anything so far. What do I think of this? Well…I feel sad for Holmes. Frankly it seems that her life has done a nosedive in the fun department ever since she met Cruise, being dumped from a movie is a pretty bad blow to the last remnants of her career, not to mention the only escape she might have had from the scientology babysitters her hubby has on her constantly. That has to be devastating. What do I think it will do for the movie? Good things. Depending on who they get to replace her, it could do fantastic things.

It’s not that Katie is a terrible actress, I think she is fine for certain types of roles, but she never really fit into Batman’s tone for me, she’s too light on screen still. Who would be good for her replacement? Gretchen Mol comes immediately to mind for some reason, for those who haven’t seen her in The Notorious Betty Page, she is a fantastic actress and a hell of a looker and she just has that Michelle Pfeiffer/Kim Basinger sexy batman girl thing about her.

Who would you all pick, or… are you sad to see Katie Holmes go?

Cineplex Odeon, Canada’s largest movie exhibitor will now start selling naming rights to the highest bidder, it’s going to be the Staples movie theaters and McMovies very soon. In fact it is already starting. The folks over at imdb.com give us this on the news:

Borrowing a page from sports arenas and stadiums, movie theaters may be next to sell naming rights to advertisers. Canada’s Cineplex Entertainment, the country’s largest exhibitor, announced Wednesday that it had sold naming rights to five theaters in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver to Scotiabank. As part of the deal, movie patrons who use a specially branded Scotiabank debit card to make purchases at the theater will be able to earn free movie tickets and combos at concession stands.

Ok this is bad, but…it’s also good. It’s bad because we will now have even more advertising thrown at us when we go to the theaters, but it is also going to help us save a few bucks and possibly keep theaters going for a little while longer.

We all know that theaters are in danger of closing down completely, people just don’t like being in the dark with strangers anymore, we are an isolating society, everything is cubicalized, home delivered, air kissed and hand sanitized these days. This movie/bank idea might just help us put our butts down in the gum chewed common man’s theater seat for a few years more.

It will be giving the movie theaters a whopping load of cash, which means we won’t have our ticket prices go up for a while, theaters will have better projectors and sound equipment and properly paid projectionist to run things. And yes if you are with Scotiabank you’ll get a break on your ticket, and you know what? That is enough for me to change banks, because a bank that gives me a break on the things that I like to do, like watch movies is being aware of my needs as a consumer.

Yes it will suck to have yet another advertising image in the theater but it’s everywhere now anyway, we might as well get some benefit from it.