Y’know, we took a couple of weeks off to let Hollywood come to its senses and quit making these kind of announcements. (Well, that’s at least part of the reason we’ve been gone. Family business and other things have also been the cause of some delay, but hopefully all of that is taken care of for awhile.) Obviously we were wrong…

from variety:

Columbia Pictures has set an untitled comedy that will star Sacha Baron Cohen as master detective Sherlock Holmes and Will Ferrell as Watson, his crime-solving partner.

Etan Cohen (”Tropic Thunder”) is writing the script, and Judd Apatow and Jimmy Miller will produce.

“Just the idea of Sacha and Will as Sherlock Holmes and Watson makes us laugh,” said Col co-prexy Matt Tolmach. “Sacha and Will are two of the funniest and most talented guys on the planet, and having them take on these two iconic characters is frankly hilarious.”

Apparently Matt Tolmach has confused the meanings of the words “hilarious” and “hideous”.

OK, we’ll be back in a bit with more catching up, as soon as I can find my puke bucket…

Yep, it’s catch-up day again…

OK, first let’s get those pictures we posted a couple of weeks ago out of the way…

This one, of course, is easy if you took a look at the Dr Who: Planet of the Dead preview that we put up last week. Yep it’s one of the new monsters from the upcoming Easter special. Originally these were identified as the Tritivore, but now there seems to be some confusion as to whether that is the name of these creatures or the flying things also seen in the preview. Either way, we should know come Saturday.

Saturday should also bring more fun as we catch up with Lister, Rimmer, the Cat and the rest of the crew of the Red Dwarf courtesy of Britain’s Dave TV which will be airing a new three part special this weekend beginning Friday entitled Red Dwarf: Back to Earth. That, of course, would be the source of these pics:

Finally, there was this picture which we posted as perhaps the worstest of the worster ideas coming out of hollywood lately:

Despite some good guesses, no one was able to identify the subject of the shot as Nic Cage in his costume as the Sorcerer in the all-new live-action adaptation of Disney’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Yep, you read that right. Remember the short from Disney’s original Fantasia? Well it’s getting an updating, set in New York, with Jay Baruchel (see picture below) in the Mickey Mouse role, and Alfred Molina as an evil sorcerer.

No word yet on the rumors that Paul Reubens is being cast as the out of control broomstick…

Ok, so things started out bad enough when rumors began surfacing about a biography of the Three Stooges. Especially when we ran across a quote from the screenwriters/directors of the project stating that the movie was to be “not a biopic, but rather a comedy built around the antics of the three characters that Moe Howard, Larry Fine and Howard played in the Columbia Pictures shorts.” Oh, and that quote? Yeah, it was from the Farrelly Brothers… you know, the high-class crowd that gave us Dumb and Dumber and There’s Something About Mary, and are currently attached to the movie version of the children’s book Walter the Farting Dog. (Amazon link provided only so you know that I am NOT making that one up. Oh, and just in case you think I’m kidding about there being a movie version, here’s the IMDB entry for it.)

Of course, the more I think about it, with qualifications like that, maybe they ARE the right ones to make a pic about the Stooges. Still, today from Variety comes word that the cast for the movie is now pretty well set, or at least as far as the main trio is concerned. So, you ask, who are the three? How about Benicio Del Toro as Moe, Jim Carrey as Curly (reportedly he’s agreed to gain 40 pounds for the role) and Sean Penn as Larry.

Let’s run over that one more time… Benicio Del Toro (who just finished playing Che Guevara in Che and is in post production now on Universal’s new interpretation of the Wolfman) as Moe. Jim Carrey (alright, I’ll admit in some ways he’s been prepping for this role all his life, but at the same time I’m not sure he’s proven he can play anyone except Jim Carrey when it comes to comedies… dramatic roles, I’ll grant you he’s gained my respect… but that’s a “whole ‘nother thing”…) as Curley. And Sean Penn (personally I suspect the man had a funnybone-ectomy after playing Spicoli) as Larry.

Gee, maybe if we get lucky they can get Hugh Jackman to play Shemp and Leonardo DiCaprio to play Curly Joe.

This one is for the papoose who, thanks to hulu, has become a huge Mary Tyler Moore show fan and was asking just the other day if Ed (Lou Grant) Asner was still with us…

Like I said earlier, catching up today:

ComingSoon.net has just published a set visit report and interview with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law concerning their upcoming turns as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Guy Ritchie is directing the film, and considering Downey’s recent wonderful takes in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, this should definitely be one to look forward to.

A short excerpt from the interview:

Downey Jr.: This is my take on it: Arthur Conan Doyle in a movie has to be Watson because unless you’re doing this story about Charles Dickens talking about Victorian London, but you’re not. If you’re doing a story about Victorian London and these characters, then the writer has to be the person who started writing. So it’s that kind of thing where I really feel that there’s a lot of similarities with both where they’d been schooled and influences on Conan Doyle, wasn’t it a Scottish doctor or something like that? But the mythology–not to get too Joseph Campbell about it or anything–is that if there’s an origin story to be told, it’s at what point did these friends realize that one of them has to, if for a bunch of reasons, just to get it off his chest or because no one will believe it…

Law: There was a line you found that said, you know, early on when Holmes asked, “What are you going to do? What are you doing with all those notes?” And he said, “If I don’t write something, someone else will. So I have to write.” Just as Robert said, it’s clear that the storyteller, maybe Conan Doyle, maybe the audience, but it’s Watson’s POV because Holmes’ brilliance being – he’s so special that it has to be observed as opposed to seen through his eyes if you like.

Downey Jr.: But like “Huck Finn” and “Tom Sawyer,” everybody knows – who’s the one who’s getting people to paint fences? It’s Tom Sawyer. Everybody knows the guy who you’re like, “You know what? It’s kind of f*cked up that he does that, but you wouldn’t ’cause most of live these lives in the center where we’re–present company excluded… well included lately–where you’re objective enough to say, “Well, I couldn’t live and be in that extreme. I couldn’t just have a life dedicated to nothing, but date and tracking down criminals.” It’s like a half-psychotic workaholic, but the idea that he keeps throwing Watson into adventure I think again, that brings me back to what Watson represents, the aspect of people who have done their time in “society,” whether you want to use military or being essentially a blue collar worker, being a doctor, being someone who aspires to the Hippocratic Oath. All these things that we buy into that also has a sense of adventure that I think Conan Doyle was using both these guys to say, “Look, there’s this other thing. It shouldn’t be the mainstay of your life.” Watson is settled enough, he has a proper job and he’s happily married midway through their stories, but they have the adventures, you know?

Law: And there’s a wonderful sort of moral code that they both keep. I think some of that may be… with Holmes it’s a sort of fascination, it’s a science, and with Watson it’s a much more human sort of approach to scum, but it’s not vigilante, it’s almost sort of a law enforcing element to the two of them.

Downey Jr.: They’re not bound by the same things that typical law enforcement would be and also we’re talking about a time where law enforcement was still different, and forensics was still kind of not quite where it’s at.

Sounds like Warner Brothers may have quite a Christmas present in store for us Holmes fans…

So yesterday we took a look at movies that at least look interesting that are coming out in March and April. Guess that means today we should pick up with

May, and the return of the blockbuster. Whereas April was full of smaller films, May opens quickly with X-Men Origins: Wolverine on the 1st, and J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek on the 8th. Don’t know that I really need to say much about either of these at the moment, though of course we’ll be keeping you updated on whatever news there is between now and their debuts. Slipping in somewhat under the radar also on the 1st is another 3D animated feature from Lionsgate called Battle for Terra. The main reason this one caught our attention is because of the voice cast which includes Justin Long, Brian Cox, Evan Rachel Wood, Luke Wilson, David Cross, Amanda Peet, James Garner, Dennis Quaid, Chris Evans, and Danny Glover. With that much talent involved it certainly seems like it could be something special. Here’s a peek:

Moving on into May we get Angels and Demons on the 15th. Ron Howard returns as director, and Tom Hanks returns to star in Dan Brown’s follow-up to the immensely popular (and at least in this moose’s mind, rather overrated) The Da Vinci Code. Honestly, this is one I didn’t even know they were working on until the preview popped up during the Super Bowl. Shall we take a look?

Obviously, I haven’t heard much buzz about this one one way or another, but I suspect it’ll be one of those “If you liked the first, then…”

What’s that? You want MORE May movies? Ok, well how about Terminator: Salvation, opening May 21? Picking up where absolutely nothing left off, it places Christian Bale in the role of John Connor in the year 2018, fighting the good fight against the titular machines. For a fight of a different kind (perhaps a fight to stay awake?) just wait for the next day when Ben Stiller and everyone else from the first movie come back to bring us Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

Finally, May 29 brings us two movies that… well, let’s say it’ll be interesting to see how the box office revenues fall this particular week. First up, we have Drag Me To Hell, Sam Raimi’s return to the horror genre. After having spent so much time in the Spideyverse and working so much on the big blockbuster type movies it’ll be interesting to see how Raimi sort of returns to his roots. Unfortunately, despite a short clip being shown at comicon, we have yet to get an actual trailer for it. Opening the same weekend is yet another animated 3D entry, this time from Disney/Pixar, called, simply, UP. Honestly, the draw here really is Ed Asner. Here’s a quick preview:

Wow, that’s eight movies in May alone. Hmmm… let’s stop there for a bit and pick up June in part 3.

Well, ok, the truth is, we’re not watching them yet, but we are keeping an eye out for news on them and anticipating them as the year moves on. And with yesterday’s announcements of release dates for DC’s Green Lantern and Jonah Hex movies (12/17/10 and 8/6/10 respectively) and the news today that Marvel has signed Samuel L Jackson to play Nick Fury in an unprecedented NINE picture deal, (Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, an apparently previously unannounced S.H.I.E.L.D. movie plus whatever sequels there might be) the schedule becomes both clearer and murkier. So I thought maybe it was time to sit down with the calendar and see just exactly what it is we’re looking at…

(Of course, any of these dates and details are subject to change, especially as we look farther into the distance, but as of today they are good.)

March, of course, kicks off with a bang with Watchmen on 3/6. Then, the week after, on 3/13, Disney releases Race to Witch Mountain. I’ve gotta admit I don’t remember that much about the original, but Dwayne Johnson has turned into a very I’m willing to give this one a chance. One other March movie that I’m not personally planning to take a chance on is the remake of Last House on the Left which also releases 3/13. The 1972 Wes Craven original was a truly disturbing movie and yet very much a product of its time. This remake seems also perhaps a product of its time if you count it along with all the other torture porn movies that have come out lately, yet it also seems a cheap cash-in on a somewhat legendary title. The moose says “pass”. Finally in March, the end of the month (3/27) brings us Monsters vs Aliens in IMAX, 3-D, Supersensurround, Smell-O-Vision, and every other technology they can possibly work in. Honestly, if it weren’t for all the technology they’re cramming into the release it looks like it’s be a fairly generic movie. Still, I’m sure it’ll have its fans…

April… well, April is an odd month, with not much in the way of potential blockbusters, but a number of at least intriguing-sounding titles most of which appear to be getting limited releases (in other words, rotsa ruck actually seeing them in the theaters, though I’ve gotta admit we’ve been getting ruckier lately here in Nashville, so we’ll see…) First up, on the 3rd is one we told ya about a couple of weeks ago, Alien Trespass. This one just looks like some good old-fashioned spoofy fun. Releasing the same week, again in limited venues is The Escapist. Starring Brian Cox and Joseph Fiennes, this British import looks to be quite a thrilling actioner. According to IMDB, “Frank Perry is an institutionalized convict twelve years into a life sentence without parole. When his estranged daughter falls ill, he is determined he make peace with her before it’s too late. He develops an ingenious escape plan, and recruits a dysfunctional band of escapists - misfits with a mutual dislike for one other but united by their desire to escape their hell hole of an existence. Much of the action takes place within the tunnels, sewers and underground rivers of subterranean London.” Let’s take a look, shall we?

Also on the action front, April brings us the return of Vin Diesel to the Fast and Furious franchise. Hey, if you’re a fan, you know what you’re in for. If not, well, like me, you can always take the pass… The same also goes for Hannah Montana The Movie… you’re either a fan or the parent of a fan (dunno if the papoose is gonna insist on seeing this one or not) or you really don’t give a care. Either way, it opens 4/10. Finally, on the seriously WTF front, April 24 brings us Mutant Chronicles. This one has apparently been bouncing around the internets for awhile now, but somehow yer loyal moose has missed it. Anyway, it’s finally getting at least (again) a limited theatrical release. With a cast that includes Thomas Jane, Ron Perleman, and John Malkovich, and a fairly intriguing trailer, this one looks like it could at worst be a fairly decent way to pass a bucket of popcorn. Here’s that “fairly intriguing trailer”:

Hmmm… this is turning out a bit longer than I’d expected, so maybe we should stop there for a moment and pick up with May in part 2…

Ok, so monday after the Academy Awards I took the show to task for the abysmal way they produced the memorial tribute during the show. Apparently they are now taking a “never happened” approach as all links to the way the segment actually appeared have been pulled and the only version that I or my researchers could find is a direct shot of the monitors which simply shows the tribute the way it should have appeared in the first place.

On the flip side, I also took the Academy to task at the time for excluding Heath Ledger from the memorial. I’ve since been reminded that his death actually occurred in January of 2008, so he was in last year’s tribute.

On the third hoof, that doesn’t excuse the incredible number of other performers that were left out such as:
Patrick McGoohan
George Carlin
Eartha Kitt
composer Neal Hefti
Harvey Korman
Mel Ferrer
Alexander Courage
John Phillip Law
George Furth
Beverly Garland
Ellen Corby
Lawrence Tierney
Bernie Brillstein
and many others, including perhaps the most egregious exclusion, Don LaFontaine, who may not have been a household name, but certainly was responsible for putting more “butts in seats” than many of the so-called “superstars” of today.

Well, whether the Academy chooses to recognise these people and their accomplishments or not, we here at moose central salute you all…

So Watchmen had it’s World Premiere in London over the weekend, and, though there is supposedly a press blackout on reviewing the movie until after the American premiere, nonetheless, the first reactions are beginning to come in… so what are people saying?

Well, Kevin Mayer of the London Times opines:

It’s not for the faint-hearted — and, despite the preponderance of Spandex outfits, capes and costumes, not for the kids either.

The movie, a 2¾ hour epic… is a mesmerising and brutalising experience, and will be, for some at least, more than worth the wait. Set in a mid-Eighties Manhattan of the comic book imagination, where “costumed vigilantes” have changed the course of US history (Nixon is saved, the Vietcong defeated, etc), the dense narrative unfolds as a whodunnit in the head of a psychopathic do-gooder called Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley). In Stygian nightscapes reminiscent of Taxi Driver and Seven, Rorschach visits his four former crime-fighting buddies, including Matthew Goode’s brainiac businessman Ozymandias and Malin Akerman’s killer femme Silk Spectre, in an attempt to expose a secret assassin who’s nurturing apocalyptic plans for the entire Eastern seaboard.

Along the way, limbs are broken, bones are smashed and skulls split as the film earns its unprecedented 18 certificate (the supposedly ultraviolent Dark Knight was a 12A). And it’s not just blood and guts. There is unwanted pregnancy, erectile dysfunction and deep sexual anxiety too. Patrick Wilson’s Nite Owl, for instance, cannot “perform” unless he has beaten up some criminals first, while Billy Crudup’s fluorescent blue Dr Manhattan, complete with exposed genitalia, offers kinky yet loveless sex to Silk Spectre.

Add to this some startlingly incisive monologues on fascism, free will and American democracy, and you have a movie that is reaching utterly beyond the confines of its genre.

Meanwhile, Mike Ragogna of the Huffington post tells us:

From the moment we see The Comedian’s blood streak across his seventies Happy Face button, we know that the movie version of Watchmen and its caretakers were going to be as respectful as possible to the vision of the original comic miniseries… But unlike the thought-provoking Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, and John Higgins 1986 creation that demanded one’s imagination stretch beyond a page of panels, this thoroughly-engaging incarnation of Warner’s DC Comics property attempts to achieve that level of examination through a more stylized, literal approach.

For much of the movie, a Sin City-esque rain washes over a dystopian, mid-’80s New York City whose World Trade Center’s twin towers control a skyline filled with Veight-logo’d zeppelins and his own corporate high-riser. The city hates its “heroes,” mostly because of The Comedian’s non-discriminating assaults on both villains and innocent citizens, and Doctor Manhattan’s omnipotence. On one occasion, Nite Owl — the movie’s sanity compass — confronts Comedian/Edward Blake on his aggression; Blake justifies what he is doing as the fulfillment of the American dream. Of course, this is a universe where Nixon was elected five times, we won The Vietnam War (thanks to Doctor Manhattan’s intervention, accompanied onscreen by an Apocalypse Now nod and Wagner’s “Ride Of The Valkyries”), Russia and the US threaten nuclear exchanges over Afghanistan, and Ronald Reagan (differing from the comic’s other “RR” reference) runs for president in 1988. The movie exhibits about four world views, touching on pacifism, militarism, evolutionism, and interventionism.

Overall, comicdom probably will embrace this movie, but its critics are going to compare it to The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Sin City , though it would be unfair to use those familiar templates. This kind of film hasn’t been done before, it has no clear “right” or “wrong,” that, even in current Batman movies, still is very well-defined. Also, it’s pretty refreshing to see a “superhero” movie with no superheroes — well, there is one, the omniscient Doctor Manhattan. But he is so powerful and above human logic that the terms “hero” and “super” are inadequate to describe what he really is. Watchmen purists, whose expectations will be off the chart, shouldn’t be too disappointed because whatever scenes seem to be omitted (especially the Halloween murder of the original Nite Owl, Hollis Mason) most likely will be included on a planned four hour or so special version whose DVD release is rumored to be nothing short of The Lord Of The Rings expansions.

And for those still craving more, you can run out and buy the “absolute edition” of Watchmen, the graphic novel, that includes additional sketches, and the whole shebang. But focusing back on this mythic movie, on every level, it will demand your attention and intelligence as it entertains; it’s sophisticated and sensationally sophomoric; and for those just watching Watchmen for the Watchmen without any expectations or knowledge of the comic’s storyline or historical importance, this really will be a blast.

Matt Selman of Time gives us this somewhat more personal reaction:

I’m not allowed to talk details, but let’s just say it is astounding how much of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ graphic novel is in this movie. (Really, the absence of Alan Moore’s name on this is like Stan Lee’s being missing from Spider-Man, because 95 percent of the words and ideas in this movie are all Moore.) Has there ever been a movie adaptation of a comic book (or book book) this close to its source material? Probably the two Frank Miller movies, Sin City and 300. But, while awesome, Frank Miller’s comics didn’t solve my Rubik’s Cube of a 1980s teenage heart every single time I re-read them the way Moore’s and Gibbons’ did.

Sitting in that screening room and watching the visual world of the Watchmen movie unfold was one of the most powerful experiences I’ve ever had. Not film experiences. Just EXPERIENCES. I don’t think I realized how close I was to the original book until I saw such a loving, detail-rich, almost obsessive recreation of that universe. It had my heart pounding and head swimming. I barely slept that night. Someone took the most special personal thing of my adolescence and put it on a movie screen. That doesn’t happen every day.

What will people who’ve never read Watchmen even think of this film? What will it be like for them to sit through these crazy, violent, colorful three hours and not recognize almost every line – almost every image? Will they be utterly baffled, bored, or totally love it? Is Watchmen even a good or bad movie? I have no idea. I stand powerless before the Gods I once worshiped in my attic bedroom, now moving and talking and fighting and loving on a giant screen. And I find myself unable to judge them.

Finally, Moviehole’s Clint Morris sums thing up like this:

Part detective story, Part Superhero adventure, and Part Portrait of the Imperfect Human, ‘’Watchmen’’ is a must-see movie. It rarely trips up, and though a little long (there’s a lot of content to bring over from the comic books though; one fellow journalist said a lot wasn’t in the movie that was in the books – an impossible task to bring everything over though), running at about two-and-a-half-hours, it’ll keep you entertained until the brilliant, didn’t-see-that-coming conclusion.

Now, obviously, these early reactions are coming from folks who are fans of the original material. And just as obviously, they’re giving the movie a hell of a lot to live up to. Still, even taken with a pretty sizable lump of salt, they definitely give the impression that this movie may just live up to all the hype in just the same way that last year’s Dark Knight did. But in the end, I guess we here in the states won’t really know for about another week and a half when we finally get our chance to watch for ourselves…

(for the full texts of these reviews please click on the links above…)

I’ll be honest and admit i didn’t see much of the academy awards show last night. Generally, though sometimes i enjoy the glitz and some of the presentations (for instance, I thought Hugh Jackman’s opening number last night was a LOT of fun), I think most of these award shows are rather irrelevant. And I’d submit that even the movie studios agree. After all, think back to the commercials that ran last night. On the one night that’s supposedly all about the movies and when you’d think they might be promoting all of the upcoming new movies - how many of the commercials were previews for upcoming features? Now like I said, I didn’t really watch that much of it, but from my observation and that of the few people I’ve talked to that caught any of the show the answer is ZERO! And again, this is the night that you would think they’d be trying to reach people who go to movies. Except the studios realise that the people who ACTUALLY GO TO MOVIES, Joe Here’sMyTenBucks if you will, are more likely to be watching the Super Bowl (which was full of previews) than the Academy Awards.

Anyway, like I said, I didn’t watch much of the show, but one part that I always try to catch is the memorial section, where they pay tribute to those who have passed in the last year or so since the last show. But last night, OH MY GOD WHAT WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE? Was that a tribute, or the Academy’s attempt to make the viewers seasick? Not only were the images so small that it was impossible to read half of the names being presented, much less what they were being recognised for, but the constant camera motion made it impossible to watch for long at all.

Not only that, but unless I missed it while I was leaning over the rail losing my dinner, there was no mention of Heath Ledger at all during this section, Yes, I realise he was given the posthumous oscar but that should not have been a factor as to whether he should be included in the memorial section. As a matter of fact, presumably they shouldn’t have known that he was a winner when they were putting together the video package. Even more than that, I’d argue if his performance was THAT good, then that’s all the more reason he should have been included instead of being completely snubbed like that.

All of this from the people who are trying to tell us who the Best Director and Best Editor are? Obviously they weren’t the people behind last night’s memorial montage.

Just in case you missed it, you don’t have to take my word for how horrendous it was: just click below… but i’d suggest waiting if you’ve eaten in the past 30 minutes or so…