Oscar surprises - the good, the bad and the ugly

Actually, before I get into any of that, and it really was a pretty great year for interesting movies getting deserved Oscar nominations, there are three tidbits of perhaps fresher news out there that caught my eye this morning.

First up, with "Red" hitting DVD shelves this week (and my home player this weekend), Summit has announced that a sequel to the octogenarian comic book hit is on, and to that I can only say bully. If you happened to stop by yesterday, you know I pretty much love the original, which captured the comic book feel nearly perfectly and was just a whole lot of fun.

So far for the sequel, Summit has hired brothers Erich and Jon Hoeber, who wrote the script for the first movie, but as yet no actors. I have to assume, though, that if they come up with anything even pretty good, Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and hopefully even the great Brian Cox will all be back for more. Stay tuned.

In other news, fresh off his Oscar love for "The Social Network," it seems that Aaron Sorkin is headed back to TV with something that could be fascinating - at least if its a lot more "Sports Night" than "Studio 60." He has told the BBC he's working with HBO on a series that would be set back stage at a cable news show.

Now, I can only take those shows in very small doses, and the only one I watch with any regularity is "Morning Joe," but they're still certainly an interesting petri dish of ideas and bombast for Sorkin to play around in, assuming this is happening as he says. Unfortunately, it seems that Keith Olberman, who I was hoping was now gone from TV pretty much for good, may be back on this as a character of some kind.

And finally, before I get into the Oscars, buzz has been building about an Alfred Hitchcock biopic, which I'd be hesitant about if it weren't coming together so well so far. Though it's hard to call it high art, there are very few documentaries that I've seen in the past 10 years or so that are more entertaining than Sasha Gervasi's "Anvil: The Story of Anvil," which chronicles the misadventures of Canada's hardest-working heavy metal band (yes, really).

For his next project, Gervasi is now in talks to direct an adaptation of the Stephen Rebello book "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," which would be about exactly what the title says. Even better, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who's hamming it up this week in his own "horror" movie which I won't be going to see, "The Rite," is now in talks to play Hitchcock himself. Nothing but potential perfection there, methinks.

OK, on to the Oscars, which contained some surprises this year, most of them good for once. Being a glass half full kind of dude on my best days, I'll start with the good, and try my best to make that portion longer. Here goes.

The good

All the love for "Winter's Bone": I've made it no secret around here that Debra Granik's coming-of-age film noir of sorts set in the Ozarks is, by a pretty wide margin, my single favorite movie of 2010, so I wasn't terribly surprised that it managed to sneak into the Best Picture top 10 (to brag just a bit, I managed to predict the 10 nominees here a week ago, correctly tapping this and "127 Hours" for the final two spots.)

What I didn't expect, but certainly support, is acting nods for both Jennifer Lawrence (Best Actress) and John Hawkes (Best Supporting Actor). Though she'd get my vote for carrying this movie with a fragile but still unwavering will, I don't think Lawrence has any chance in a category that will probably belong to Annette Bening or Natalie Portman (of the two, I'll take the latter in "Black Swan"). Hawkes, likewise, will probably get knocked out by Christian Bale's electric turn as Dickie Eklund in "The Fighter," but any recognition of his key role as uncle "Teardrop" is welcome in this little corner of the world.

And for an award that "Winter's Bone" might actually win, it's great to see writer/director Debra Granik nominated for best adapted screenplay, though if I were a betting man, I'd say that award will ultimately go to Sorkin for "The Social Network."

Michelle Williams: Granted, I only manged to see "Blue Valentine" last week, and so it's very fresh on my brain, but Williams' nomination for Best Actress brought the biggest smile to my face Tuesday morning. Along with Ryan Gosling (more on that in a bit), she dragged viewers smack into the middle of a romance that burns extremely bright thanks to her passionate performance before of course crashing equally hard, and it would have been a much more uncomfortable viewing experience if she weren't so magnetic at the center of it all.

Jacki Weaver: That may not be a name familiar to very many people, but it should be, especially with "Animal Kingdom" now out on DVD. In that truly gritty Aussie gangster flick, which made my top 10 for the year, she plays the menacing but fiercely loyal matriarch of the doomed Cody small-time crime clan, and steals every minute ehe's allotted. This category will probably go to either Helena Bonham Carter for "The King's Speech" or Melissa Leo for "The Fighter," either of which would be fine, but I'd much rather see youth be served with Hailee Steinfeld in "True Grit" (though she really is a leading actress, of course!), or even better, the long shot Weaver somehow come out on top.

"The Illusionist": My co-workers were grumbling yesterday about how in the world "Despicable Me" could have been left off the list for Best Animated Picture, and I'm with them there. Disney's "Tangled" also got shafted, and while that doesn't really bother me at all, it does raise a bigger question: Why only three nominees in this key category? I mean, we all know "Toy Story 3" is going to win, but three is still a ridiculously small number. At least they did manage to squeeze in Sylvain Chomet's "The Illusionist," an odd little movie that, like Chomet's "The Triplets of Belleville" before it, has practically no discernible dialogue at all. What it does, have, however, in telling the story of a magician who adopts a young traveling partner who thinks his tricks are real, is a lot of humor and heart, exactly what I look for in a great animated movie.

The bad:

The best director category: Say what you want to about "Inception," but no director took more chances this year than Christopher Nolan, so with that flick nominated for Best Picture, why not Nolan for Best Director? This doesn't really miff me as much as some, but it is a real head-scratcher. More important, I think, is how in the world did the Academy manage to recognize no women in this category? Lisa Cholodenko was certainly a possibility for "The Kids Are All Right," but I really think that's the weak link in the Best Picture field. Much better would have been Granik, who delivered nothing short of a masterpiece (a term I try not to throw around a lot, but it's deserved here - watch it already!) with "Winter's Bone." Apparently handing one Oscar to Kathyrn Bigelow was enough for a while. Sheesh. I predict a split decision here, with "The King's Speech" winning Best Picture by sheer momentum, but David Fincher taking Best Director for "The Social Network."

Ryan Gosling: Also among the office Oscar chatter I heard yesterday was that Julia Roberts threw a party just last week to throw her weight behind Javier Bardem being nominated for Best Actor for "Biutiful" (which I haven't seen). Who knows if that had any effect, but if so, it's a real crime, because how in the world do you nominate Michelle Williams for "Blue Valentine" but not her worse (relationship-wise) but at least equal (acting-wise) half? Simply maddening, but if you haven't seen this movie yet, just do while you can, because in spite of its difficult subject matter, it really is a joy to behold.

Cinematography: It was a pretty banner day for "127 Hours," which certainly made me cheer. Oscar co-host James Franco got a much-deserved Best Actor nomination, Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy are rightly up for Best Adapated Screenplay, and it of course snuck into the Best Picture field (and into movie theaters in my little corner of the world this weekend - bully). But how in the world were Enrique Chediak and Anthony Dod Mantle not recognized for the beautiful camera work that made both the euphoric highs and depressing lows (there are more of the former, thankfully) just shine so bright on screen? I just assumed this was a lock, because along with being an all-around great film, it just looks like nothing else that hit theaters in 2010, and how many movies can you really say that about?

OK, there you have it. I'm off now somewhat late to the job that still actually pays, but please feel free to add any Oscar surprises of your own that just made you smile or grown, and have a perfectly passable Wednesday. Peace out.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the effect of video games on movies

Complaining about the influence of video games on movies makes me feel more than a little like the old guy yelling, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn." And besides, this summer at least, I'm not all that sure it's a bad thing.

Now, to be clear, I'm certainly not talking about movies based directly on video games - I can't think of the last one of those that was any good. In fact, movies "based" on another medium, particularly '80s TV shows, generally raise a red flag for me (with this summer's "The A-Team" being a welcome exception ... what a big blast of fun.)

Instead, I mean movies that take on the feel of playing - or even better, somehow being in - a video game, with this summer's best example so far being Christopher Nolan's "Inception." Until being knocked from the No. 1 perch last week by the seriously funny and well worth seeing "The Other Guys," Nolan's flick rode a long winning streak to already more than $227 million at the domestic box office in spite - or perhaps because, your choice - of a plot that, like the best of video games. presents a puzzle with level after level of challenges for viewers.

And if all Nolan's tricks don't quite add up in your mind, you're far from alone. It took me two viewings to accept that even if everything he's cooked up doesn't add up perfectly (and I'm fairly certain it was never designed to), it's still pretty much a masterwork both visually and in terms of storytelling.

In an interview with the L.A. Times, Henry Jenkins, a professor of communications, journalism and cinematic arts at the University of Southern California, explained the game influence of "Inception" perfectly: " 'Inception' is first and foremost a movie about worlds and levels, which is very much the way video games are structured. Games create a sense that we're a part of the action. Stories aren't just told to us. We experience them."

Just how much more of an appetite is there for this interactive kind of filmmaking? That gets a major test this weekend with the release of "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World," which packs the double geek bona fide of not only looking just like a really good video game but also being based on a fairly obscure series of graphic novels (and yes, though I'm well aware I should really be too old for "comic books," I have read the first two installments of this, and it has a visual and verbal wit that should be just right in Edgar Wright's flick.)

Like "Inception," the tale of Scott Pilgrim is indeed also a quest with many levels, in this case battles with "seven evil exes" to win the heart of Ramona Flowers. Even with a love story of sorts at its core, I'll be curious to see how "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World" fares in a busy week that also contains all the action you can stand (and probably much more) with "The Expendables" and Julia Roberts starring in a more conventional romantic saga directed by "Glee" creator Ryan Murphy, "Eat, Pray, Love."

As for the overall trend of interactive movies, brace yourself for more, because it's not going away any time soon (there's even, of course, a sequel of sorts to "Tron," "Tron: Legacy," coming in time for Christmas.) And as for me, well, as long as the ride continues to be thrilling, I'll just be enjoying it while it lasts.

"Charlie Wilson" wages campaign of sharp satire

Charlie Wilson: "Do you drink?"
Gust Avrakotos: "God yeah."

I've waited all year for a movie that manages to properly mix its politics with pure entertainment, and after suffering through "Lions for Lambs," "In the Valley of Elah" and other earnest offerings, Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin have finally come through with the right stuff.

Most of the complaints I've heard about this Washington politico-comedy is that it soft pedals the politics in the cause of poking fun at D.C. culture, but after watching it I just have one question for these critics: Just how spoon fed do you really need your politics to be? 'Cause if you look even an inch below the surface of this one there's indeed a whole lot going on.

But I guess a word or two about the plot might be in order first, since many, many more people turned out to watch those damn Chipmunks squawk than tuned in for this in week one. Tom Hanks (heard of him?) plays Texas congressman Charlie Wilson, a conservative Democrat who is perfectly happy to just party his way through life until he gets fixated on the Muhjadeen's struggle to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He gets assists from Philip Seymour Hoffman as beaten-down CIA agent Gust Avrakotos and Julia Roberts as wealthy Houston socialite Joanne Herring. Luckily, Nichols and Sorkin see the pure ludicrousness of waging the cold war from Texas, and they play this out as a broad but often sharp satire.

Going in, there were two people that had me worried about this one, Mr. Hanks and Mr. Sorkin. I know Hanks is beloved by many, many people, and I concede that he is a great actor, but he's usually just so smug that I want to smack him over and over until he just shuts up. Here, however, he plays Wilson like the "Bachelor Party" player he was, and it just works. And, more importantly, he gets out of the way when, about 15 minutes in or so, Hoffman arrives to deliver his first great performance of 2007 (though I think "The Savages," when I finally get to see it, will certainly be another one.) Roberts is here too, of course, as is delightful Amy Adams as Wilson's top aide, but they're really given little to do.

It's the arrival of Hoffman's Avrakotos in Wilson's office that just sets the tone of this flick perfectly. It verges on bedroom farce as Wilson's aides, busty broads all, of course, keep breaking into his first meeting with Avrakotos to prep him to face charges that he snorted cocaine while hanging out with strippers in Las Vegas. It's timed just right to make you laugh out loud.

And after the debacle that was "Studio 60," I was more than a little worried that Sorkin had lost his touch too. I really enjoyed the first three episodes of that NBC single-season show, but after that it seemed like he let his anger at the religious right just consume him and cloud his vision beyond the ability to deliver anything even mildly entertaining. Thankfully, "Charlie Wilson's War" is much more "West Wing" than "Studio 60," and it shows that Sorkin still has a real ear for the way things work in our nation's capitol (where I worked, briefly, as an intern for Maryland's U.S. Senator from the great city of Baltimore, Barbara Mikulski.)

There comes a moment near the end of "Charlie Wilson's War" when I was sure things were going to turn for the much worse and we were gonna be pounded over the head with an ending that assumed we were unable to absorb any of the points that were so deftly made thus far. It starts with Hanks adapting one of the expressions that just make my blood curdle, that misty-eyed look that makes you sure he's about to break into some kind of self-righteous speech about what we should all think.

But then Sorkin and Nichols pull back from the brink. It turns out that, thankfully, Charlie is just drunk, and we're left to, mostly, draw our own parallels between his personal crusade and what's going on in the world today.

With three winners in a row ("Walk Hard," "Sweeney Todd" and now this), it's just been a really fun week to go to the movies. I'm hoping that continues today with "The Great Debaters," but frankly fearing that might just be way too earnest for my taste. Tune in tomorrow to find out, and enjoy every minute of your merry Christmas! Peace out.

Pity for Tom Cruise? I think not

To anyone who bothered to see the simply wretched "Lions for Lambs," please accept my most sincere apology, even if i didn't have anything to do with the making of it. Luckily, it seems almost no one made that mistake.

It seems that the flick, the first for Mr. Cruise and producing partner Paula Wagner, will not even hit $20 million at the domestic box office, and less than $60 million worldwide. Here are the hard numbers from through last weekend, according to the great Box Office Mojo site: Still playing on 1,527 screens, the flick had managed to take in just a meager $13,795,571 domestically. For a bit of perspective, the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men" has already taken in $16,313,580 playing on only 860 screens (though that is expanding further this weekend, with it even playing at one theater in Macon, the Regal Rivergate 14, so go see it if you're here!)

Cruise's rather embarrassing debut as company runner might not have looked so bad if "Lions for Lambs" weren't such an extreme act of hubris. Playing the senator supposedly selling a new front in the war on terror, Cruise was unable to for even one second hide the smugness he felt in knowing it was all hogwash. And I'm certain that if Robert Redford, who wrote and directed this mess, takes a second to more properly channel his still righteous anger he will be able to come up with a much better movie than one in which he spends the whole affair yelling at a slacker student who just doesn't "get it."

One thing you shouldn't take away from this epic failure is that there isn't a hunger out there for bold movies that take on the war in Iraq and its many consequences, but is it too much to ask that at the same time these flicks be entertaining? In Cruise's case, clearly yes, but I had a slightly better time watching Tommy Lee Jones mope his way through Paul Haggis' "In the Valley of Elah" (But Mr. Jones, like me, definitely had a lot more fun with the Coen brothers.)

Will Cruise recover? Judging from what's up next at United Artists, the answer is yes. There's a lot of cool stuff in the pipeline for next summer, but I think Bryan Singer's "Valkyrie," starring Cruise (natch) as the German colonel who launched a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler may be among the best. It's being co-written by Christopher McQuarrie, who penned Singer's sublime "The Usual Suspects," and has a tremendous supporting cast that includes Bill Nighy, Carice Van Houten, Kenneth Branagh, Stephen Fry, Terrence Stamp and Tom Wilkinson.

After that he's clearly landed a titan in convincing Guillermo del Toro to direct "Champions," based on an old British TV show I've never heard of. The original series apparently starred Stuart Damon, Alexandra Bastedo and William Gaunt as members of a United Nations-affiliated organization called Nemesis. After a plane crash in the Himalayas, all three are saved and given supernatural powers including ESP and precognition.

In more bad news, however, UA was forced to postpone Oliver Stone's next Vietnam flick, "Pinkville," because of the writers' strike, and then star Bruce Willis pulled out.

And in case you were wondering when a Tom Cruise movie last managed to take in less than $20 million domestic, it was a heck of a long time ago. Released in 1986, the fantasy/adventure "Legend" (which does have some charms) grossed $15.5 million domestically, but of course expectations were much lower way back then.

Please, if you take nothing else from this admitted screed, at least promise me this: When "Lions for Lambs" comes out on DVD, please, please, please do not even bother to give it a rental. It's just that bad.

Actors on actors

Faced with little actual news to report thanks to the ongoing strike, Variety this morning published a series of predictably self-congratulatory pieces in which some of Hollywood biggest stars talked about their co-workers. If you can cut through the cheese, it's actually not a bad way to waste a few minutes at work. Here are two snippets that didn't make me just hurl, Julia Roberts talking about the great Paul Rudd and Matt Damon talking about rising star Amy Ryan, and you can read the rest here.

"Paul is the most unexpected movie star. For his facial hair in 'Anchorman' he probably walked around like that for months. The people at the grocery store don't know why he looks like that. They think he's nuts. He's not scared to do those things. ... At a dinner party, if you're seated next to Paul, you'll leave thinking, I'm so funny. I always want to be seated next to Paul."

"I sat dumbfounded watching this performance in 'Gone Baby Gone.' Every moment, every detail in Amy Ryan's performance is spot-on. In fact, I've never seen an actor from outside Boston come to our city and be this convincing - and a lot of great actors have come here and given award-worthy performances. This is at another level, though. It's that place actors hope to get to at least once in their career, where they completely disappear into someone else -- that place that made me ask, 'Who the hell is she and why hasn't she worked more on film before this?'

New pictures of Iron Man

The more I see from Jon Favreau's first foray into superhero flicks, the more I'm convinced he's gonna deliver a real winner next summer with "Iron Man." After all, I don't think you can go wrong with Robert Downey Jr. as our hero Tony Stark, and the supporting cast of Terrence Howard (who seems to work a heck of a lot), Jeff Bridges (huzzah!), Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L. Jackson and even Ghostface Killah ain't shabby either. Anyways, Comingsoon.net has managed to get its hands on several new pics, of which I swiped just one. You can see the rest here, and have an entirely enjoyable weekend. Peace out.

Have Faith: Joss Whedon's returning to TV!

I know, I know, this is supposed to be about movies, and if you bear with me today you'll find out there is indeed a lot of great movie news out there, but when there's a TV story this good it can't be denied as the lead item.

When Eliza Dushku signed a big deal with 20th Century Fox Television earlier this year, it led me - and surely fanboys everywhere - to muse about the possibilities of a "Faith the Vampire Slayer." Well, this is just about as good, if you can believe that.

Joss Whedon, arguably burned thrice by TV and most severely with the great "Firefly," has finally returned to TV, and he's bringing Faith and "Angel" mastermind Tim Minear with him. Take a minute to think about the possibilities here.

Their project, which has been picked up for seven episodes by Fox, will be called "Dollhouse," and it just sounds like perfect Whedon material. Faith will play Echo, one of a group of secret agents living in a futuristic dorm. Each has the ability to be imprinted with custom personalities and abilities for special assignments ("human chalkboards," I believe he's calling them.) When they return, their newly acquired memories are wiped. The show follows Echo as she takes on a variety of assignments — some romantic, some adventurous, some uplifting, some illegal — and gains awareness of her role and confinement.

“It deals with our darkest impulses and our best ones,” Whedon told TVWeek, which, to be fair, had the scoop on this. “It deals with all the things I like to deal with — strength, weakness, power and corruption.” Amen, brother.

But who do we really have to thank for this rather remarkable development? Faith herself, apparently, Keen to reunite with Whedon, she apparently took him to lunch and picked his brain until this idea spilled forth, and a week later he had sold it to Fox. Depending on how fast Whedon can write, the show will appear either in spring or next fall.

I could go on for hours about something this cool, but you'd be better off to read TVWeek's great interview with Whedon, in which he talks not only about this show, but also about "Ripper," the pain of returning to Fox and the looming writers' strike. Read it all here.

No "Heroes: Origins"?

Though they're blaming this development on the impending strike (which I've tried to avoid reporting on because, well, it doesn't particularly interest me until it impacts specific projects I'm interested in), I have to suspect that NBC's qualms about this might have just as much to do with the new season of "Heroes."

Now, I haven't seen this week's episode yet (my newest DVR habit is to watch it and "Pushing Daisies" back-to-back later this morning), but I have to say there are several things about the new season of "Heroes" that are, well, queer (with no sexual connotation intended whatsoever). In brief, I just can't stand Maya and Alejandro and Hiro's "adventure" in Japan has just been a big bore. The addition of Kristen Bell (although her debut was rather lame) holds promise, and I like what's happening with Peter Petrelli, so I'm certainly not gonna give up, but I do have worries.

As to "Origins," the facts are these: It will not get its six-episode run, which was expected to start as early as late April.

In even more depressing news: NBC's big move instead will be to air TWO-HOUR installments of "The Biggest Loser." In this game, I think that might just be you and me.

New details about Gilliam's "Imaginarium"

Though tidbits about this great project have been floating about for months, I never believe a Terry Gilliam movie's gonna happen anymore until it hits the trades, which it did this morning with "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus." The real news this morning was that Christopher Plummer will be joining Heath Ledger and Tom Waits in the flick, as the titular doctor.

The plot details were long ago encapsulated well by Brendon at the great filmick blog, but I'll do my best with what I remember: Dr. Parnassus is a sort of medicine show man who travels with a theater troupe and an assistant named Anton (Ledger, apparently) who works up the crowd. After encountering and making a deal with the devil (Waits, natch), he is given the power to show people what will happen if they make certain choices, sort of a glimpse down both forks of the road.

Like I said, I may be a bit sketchy on the plot details, but it sounds like pure Gilliam. The flick starts shooting in December, so definitely keep your eyes on this one.

More "X-Files" coming in July!

Has it really been almost 10 years since the first "X-Files" movie? Apparently so, but the wait will be over soon, with 20th Century Fox setting July 28 as the return date for Mulder, Scully and, thankfully, Carter too.

Though the plot is of course shrouded in mystery, creator Chris Carter co-wrote and will direct the flick, which begins filming in December in Vancouver. All we know so far is that it will be a stand-alone story that "takes the complicated relationship between Mulder and Scully in new directions." Not much to go on, I know, but I definitely and heartily say bring it on.

Meryl to play Julia

Some time ago I did a list of my favorite movies about food, and that remains a combo that entertains me almost every time. And this one sounds like a sure winner.

Meryl Streep will play Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" for director Nora Ephron, and in case that isn't sweet enough, you get the truly delectable Amy Adams (forgive me for that, but we are talking about food, after all) in the mix as well, never a problem with me.

The flick centers on a frustrated temp secretary (Adams) who embarks on a yearlong culinary quest to cook all 524 recipes in Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." She chronicles her trials and tribulations in a blog that catches on with the food crowd. Not sure how exactly Julia herself will factor into this, but it should be fascinating to watch.

Gilroy snags Roberts and Owen for "Duplicity"

I've been pleased to see Tony Gilroy's "Michael Clayton," the most satisfying legal thriller I've seen in many years, lingering solidly in the top 10 after a rather disappointing box-office start. If you haven't seen it already, do so before you miss the chance.

His next flick is setting up as one that should have no trouble finding an audience. Julia Roberts and Clive Owen (heard of them?) have signed on for "Duplicity," a thriller being written and directed by Gilroy. The duo will play longtime lovers who happened to work as spies on opposite sides (haven't we heard that before with "Mr. and Mrs. Smith"?) They team up to stage an elaborate con to rip off corporations and steal a valuable product.

Even if it does sound awfully familiar, you can only go so wrong with a team like that.

Broken Lizard set 'Slammin' Salmon'

Any list of my favorite comedies, though it might change from time to time, will always have a spot for "Super Troopers," so any news about the Broken Lizard troupe is welcome to me.

The boys are very busy, but their newest will be an indie pic called "Slammin' Salmon" that sounds right up their alley. Bigman Kevin Heffernan will direct (and I can only assume play the lead in) the pic about a restaurant owner and former heavyweight champ who pits his wait staff against each other in a "Glengarry Glen Ross"-like competition.

Broken Lizard also has a deal with Warner Bros., for which it is developing something called "Ambulance Chasers" and another untitled project. It also has set up "Taildraggers" with Participant Pictures and "Pony Bush" with Dimension. How in the world they will juggle all that I don't know, but as long they keep me laughing I'm along for the ride.

"Infernal" director gets huge budget

Bear with me folks. Only two short tidbits to go, and then a fun poster at the end, I promise.

Andrew Lau Wai-kung, director of the simply fantastic "Infernal Affairs" (which of course inspired Scorsese's "The Departed), will direct another trilogy for the Hong Kong studio Media Asia. The budget for all three films: A rather whopping $250 million!

"Water Margin" will be an adaptation of a classic Chinese novel that sees 108 outlaws form a resistance movement to oppose the feudal king. "This is a story that everyone in China knows well," Lau said. "We (see) this as a three-part franchise with me directing the first movie and Johnnie To doing the second and me acting as producer." This just sounds like tons of fun, with or without tons of money.

Jarmusch to push the 'Limits'

Wow. You can definitely tell it's a busy day if news about Jim Jarmusch, easily one of my favorite directors, gets buried this deep.

It seems the great Isaach de Bankole will star in Jarmusch's next pic, tentatively titled "The Limits of Control." De Bankole, who you may remember as the very funny ice cream man in Jarmusch's "Ghost Dog," will play a mysterious loner used to operating outside the law, who is about to complete a job in contemporary Spain. That's just about all I know about the flick, which will begin shooting in Spain in February.

Great new "Juno" poster

It seems like forever since I've plugged Jason Reitman's upcoming "Juno," so here's another installment. The first poster for this flick, simply showing adorable Ellen Page's artificially swollen belly, was funny enough, but this is a definite improvement. I was already well sold on this one, of course, but the priceless look on veryfunnyman Michael Cera's face just makes it even better. Enjoy, and have an entirely pleasant day.