The return of Alan Partridge, to a big screen somewhere near you?

Actually, before I get into any of that, there's great news out there this morning about Daniel Clowes, easily one of my favorite funnybook authors.

Two of Clowes' works have hit the big screen so far already, and I'd say he's now one for two. "Ghost World" is simply sublime, and easily one of my favorite comic book flicks (what in the world happened to Thora Birch, anyway? ... I just might have to IMDB that.) Unfortunately, that was followed by the uneven at best "Art School Confidential," though not having read the original source material for that one, I suspect it may have been weak right from the start.

That, however, is certainly not the case with "Wilson," which is now being eyed as a directing vehicle for Alexander Payne and, on paper at least, is at least as funny as "Ghost World." Perhaps that just because I look at the world just about the same way as the hero of "Wilson," but I loved the book. Here's the Amazon synopsis.

Meet Wilson, an opinionated middle-aged loner who loves his dog and quite possibly no one else. In an ongoing quest to find human connection, he badgers friend and stranger alike into a series of onesided conversations, punctuating his own lofty discussions with a brutally honest, self-negating sense of humor. After his father dies, Wilson, now irrevocably alone, sets out to find his ex-wife with the hope of rekindling their long-dead relationship, and discovers he has a teenage daughter, born after the marriage ended and given up for adoption.Wilson eventually forces all three to reconnect as a family—a doomed mission that will surely, inevitably backfire.

Believe me, it's all as misanthropically hilarious as that sets it up to be, and assuming that Clowes has a hand in the screenplay for this, it should certainly be one to keep your eyes on.

OK, now on to the main event, which was brought to my attention by fellow Alan Partridge devotee bob Connally, who compiles his always insightful movie reviews here. Steve Coogan has reincarnated the character in a so far very funny set of webisodes as the host of the "Mid Morning Matters" radio shows. Foster's Funny, which puts this together, has put some kind of U.S. block on it, but some kind person always seems to Youtube them quickly again anyway.

But the real Steve Coogan/Alan Partridge news is that the character is apparently returning to the big screen (though it will probably be the little screen of DVD by the time it reaches me), and he's bringing the extremely funny Armando Iannucci (writer and director of the scathingly funny "In the Loop") along with him.

Here's what Iannucci himself had to say about the movie they're working on to Digital Spy:

“We don’t want to rush it - it’s got to be right and justify itself as a film,” Iannucci said. “On the other hand, we don’t want to be unfaithful to the character. So we’re not going mad and doing an Alan-goes-to-Hollywood thing. It’s very much Alan in Norwich. Putting Norwich on the map. Well, somebody’s map.”

Putting Norwich on the map indeed, and Iannucci went on to say that this is in the script stage and the storyline is "pretty much coming along." Iannucci has also sold a satirical series to HBO, to star Julia Louis Dreyfuss as "The Veep," that being the American vice president, so it's great to hear this extremely funny many is very busy.

And all I have after that today in this admittedly brief report (hey, I am on vacation, after all) is a bit of kudos and then just one video. First the kudos. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has just released the short list of 15 nominees for Best Documentary Feature, and I was thrilled to see that Rob Lemkin and Thet Sambath's "Enemies of the People" is on it. The movie, which features Sambath tracking down former Khmer Rouge members to try and get to the truth of what really went down in Cambodia's killing fields, is just sensational filmmaking, so here's hoping they make it to the final cut of five and maybe even win the whole thing, because the movie is just that good.

And finally today, what Spike Jonze really needs to be doing is making a big-screen followup to "Where the Wind Things Are," but that doesn't seem to be on the books any time soon. In the meantime, at least he's using his talent for directing music videos, this time for the Arcade Fire song, "Suburbs." As for Arcade Fire, they'll never make another album as good as their first, "Funeral," which Zachary Levi correctly called an "aural aphrodisiac" in perhaps the worst attempt at seduction of Sarah on "Chuck," but this year's "The Suburbs" is still one of 2010's best albums in my book. Enjoy the video, and if you'll excuse me, I'm off to wander around the French Quarter all day and then go see the Cottonmouth Kings at the Spotted Cat. Yeah, I could get used to this. Peace out.

Does Chuck really know kung-fu? Well, sort of

It may seem awfully odd and - well - kinda pathetic to be commenting on what goes on at Comic-Con when I'm not even there, but I love reading this stuff and also passing on what I find.

And before I get into the mostly good news about "Chuck," there were two tidbits from yesterday that caught my eye, both in their own way rather sad.

Kevin Smith showed up to "promote" his buddy-cop movie "A Couple of Dicks," but without any footage and mainly with the news that the title will have to be changed. Not a huge deal, I guess, but the reason is just pathetic: You apparently can't say a certain word (and it's not couple) before 9 p.m. on TV and get your ads on the air. What in the world?

I can't say the signs are terribly good for this one, but I really enjoyed "Zach and Miri Make a Porno," and Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan should make a great comedic duo, so I guess I should keep hope alive.

Things were apparently - and by force - more grim at the "Futurama" panel, where I guess you have to give Matt Groening credit for facing the audience at all, especially since he couldn't bring any actors with him (in case you missed it, Twentieth Century Fox essentially fired them all after they wouldn't take pay cuts and is now recasting ALL the parts - as it stands, I won't be watching that.)

Groening used his sarcastic best to try and stay above the fray, but the bitterness clearly came through in this: "The core of my being is at peace... There are no mistakes," he said. "I embrace the universe. I send loving thoughts to all living beings, including the 'Futurama' cast and Fox executives."

Here's hoping against hope that they somehow get this resolved with Billy West, Katey Segal and everyone else coming back, but I don't really see it happening at this point.

But the big TV news in my book was all about "Chuck," and like I said, if you're a big fan of the show like me, it was all as good as we could expect.

First and foremost, according to the Hollywood Reporter's James Hibberd and a few other reports I cobbled together, Chuck (Zachary Levi) will not be the next coming of Bruce Lee in every episode, which would, of course, eliminate the need for his handlers (and if you make the show with out Adam Baldwin or Yvonne Strahovski, I'm not gonna watch that either.)

According to Levi himself: "The Chuck-fu ... he can't just know kung fu all the time, otherwise his handlers are obsolete. So our very talented and wise creators, they've structured it so the powers have a window, a shelf life, there's a glitch in the system ... I have my powers, but they don't necessarily last -- that's the secret."

That can only be good news, because if at his core Chuck isn't still a pretty goofy guy, the show will lose a lot of its charm. I've included a picture of the art for season three, which would clearly make a really cool comic book cover.

As far as the panel itself went, the cast apparently entered the stage to Jeffster performing "Take Me Home Tonight," which must have just been a riot.

A few other interesting tidbits:

Per co-creator Josh Schwartz: "Something very emotional and traumatic will happen between Chuck and Sarah, but it will be really-really good."

Also: "Now that Awesome knows Chuck's secret, you'll see him pulled into a spy role as well, probably not as reluctantly as he should be." Awesome the spy? Bring it on!

And in a final tease to the fans, Schwartz made this vague claim about the premiere of the third season: "It could be sooner than was announced. We don't know."

I seriously doubt we'll see "Chuck" again until next February, after the next Winter Olympics, but it definitely seems that when it does make it back it will look a lot like the show I've grown to love. Peace out.

OK, "Chuck" is back, but what will it look like? Some answers

I know I write about "Chuck" an awful lot at this site, but if I don't write about things that interest me, why bother at all? I could instead wax euphoric about how the Orioles managed to pull out a 12-inning victory last night over the lowly Nats, but I can't imagine anyone would want to read that.

So, now that "Chuck" has gotten its 13-episode renewal, albeit not until January, the real question now is what will it look like now that its budget has been cut. My friend Cory Sekine-Pettite is the only person I've encountered so far to speculate that they might write out Adam Baldwin's Casey, which would just be suicide. My own fear, especially since they sort of gave Morgan an out and definitely gave Chuck an evolving set of super skills, was that they would simply write out the Buy More.

Well, thanks to a heads-up from another good friend of mine, Stephanie Hartley (who's also sort of my boss), we now have some answers via Michael Ausiello and the mastermind of "Chuck" himself, Josh Schwartz. You can read all of Ausiello's interview here, but below are some of the highlights, and it's mostly good news.

First of all, viva the Buy More? Yes: We might have certain episodes where Chuck's mission is such that we don't get the opportunity to go to the Buy More [as much]. We love our cast and, obviously, we want to use them as much as possible in as many episodes as possible.

Will Casey be back? Of course: Chuck, Sarah, and Casey are in all episodes.

Perhaps the biggest question, however, revolves around Zachary Levi's new set of super skills, which of course in the finale debuted as some snazzy Kung Fu, and whether or not they will change his character in any fundamental way. Schwartz says no:

And I think for anyone who is concerned that he's no longer going to be the Everyman, or an accidental hero, fear not.

Like I said, that all mostly sounds like good news to me, so now we just have to wait until January or so to see how it all turns out. As Liz Lemon would say, Nards! And if you'll excuse me now, I'm going to clean my house and then go have my senses (and hopefully funny bone too) assaulted by "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian." Peace out.

"Wolverine": Damned if you do?

Even though Nicki Finke is claiming, at her as-often-wrong-as-right Hollywood Deadline Daily site, that "Chuck" has indeed been renewed for a third season, almost everyone else who claims to know anything about it is saying the decision will be delayed for a week or more, so let's talk about something else entirely instead.

Actually, one more note about that, and then I'll move on, I promise. How cool would it be if Zachary Levi were to drop in through the ceiling, superspy style, to announce "Chuck" was back during today's NBC "infronts"? It won't happen, but one can dream, right? The one good and sure thing I can tell you about TV this morning is that ABC will begin burning off the last three episodes of the too-brilliant-to-survive "Pushing Daisies" on May 30 for three weeks in a row.

But here today, it's all about "Wolverine," which given that it only got about 37 percent positive on Rotten Tomatoes, could have turned out a whole lot worse in my book. Which isn't to say that Gavin Hood's mutant movie isn't without its faults.

In fact, the first half or so was just so boring that I'm fairly certain, judging from the rather sharp elbow to the ribs I got about a half hour in, that I actually fell asleep at least once. But to be fair I'm really not sure what he could have done any differently, since we're all by now terribly familiar with the saga of the origin of Wolverine.

Even so, I also can't imagine he could have made the opening half any more passionless or by-the-numbers. Though the brotherly banter of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine and Liev Schrieber's Victor Creed/Sabretooth is often clever, and Dominic Monaghan makes a touching turn as Chris Bradley/Bolt, there were two specific things about the beginning that just bugged me beyond all reason.

First, did we really need to be introduced to the cliched older couple who welcome Wolfie into their home despite the fact that he shows up naked, only to see them blown away five minutes later by Stryker's assassins (sorry if that's spoiling anything, but it's not much of a spoil anyway, and with "Wolverine" having already made north of $85 million I'd imagine just about anyone who wants to see this has done so by now already)? It was just as insulting as it was thoroughly unnecessary. And secondly, how many times did we really need to see a closeup of Wolverine unleashing his steel claws? The payoff in the dick joke with Scott Adkins' Weapon XI near the end is indeed pretty damn funny, but the claws just got old way before Hood seemed to realize.

All that said, however, something happens to "Wolverine" about halfway in or so that manages to turn it into at least a satisfyingly entertaining little popcorn flick, which before "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man" used to be about all we could honestly ask for from summer superhero flicks. Gavin Hood seemed to wake up at just about the same point I did.

And coincidentally or not, it happens with "Wolverine" thanks almost entirely to Taylor Kitsch's Gambit/Remy LeBeau, who arrives and stays all too briefly (couldn't they have given him some of Will I Am's thoroughly unnecessary time?) but still manages to liven things up just in time (though a big part of me wishes this were the last of the "Origins" movies, I have to say a Gambit movie starring Tim Riggins would be far from the worst thing imaginable; indeed, details are scant, but there is a listing at the IMDB for a 2011 "Gambit" movie.)

From Gambit's arrival on out, Hood manages to turn "Wolverine" into a still terribly familiar but equally thrilling tale, culminating with a three-way battle between Wolverine, Sabretooth and Weapon XI that takes place on top of a nuclear reactor on Three Mile Island. And the ending neatly sets up what I would really rather see than any more "Origins" flicks: The possible cast of a "X-Men: First Class" flick, which "Chuck" and "Gossip Girl" mastermind Josh Schwartz is supposedly cooking up right now.

If that doesn't happen, the wild success of "Wolverine" should at least set up a "Magneto" flick starring Sir Ian McKellen, to which - thanks to the presence of Sir Ian himself - I can only say bring it on. And here's what Taylor Kitsch had to say to MTV about the possibility of a "Gambit" movie:

"I want to go into the Thieves Guild part of his story [the union of thieves that Gambit was raised in]. How cool would it be to see him stealing things to survive because the stakes are so high? Come on, Fox, let's do it."

Amen, brother. So, the verdict? "Wolverine" is terribly slow to kick into gear, but once it does, it's probably worth at least a matinee for fans of the X-Men, which is a damn sight better than anything you could possibly say about "The Last Stand." And with that I'll leave you with this teaser for the new season of "True Blood," which returns to HBO June 14 and for which you can count me thoroughly jazzed. If I'm not mistaken, it contains the new Bob Dylan song "Beyond Here Lies Nothing," which just sounds great. Enjoy, say a prayer for "Chuck," and have a perfectly passable Monday. Peace out.

A new (old) spy I've finally found, and a dastardly plot against "The Wizard of Oz"?

First off, a bit of news to digest (if you can).

Before I spill any bile on his vision, let me just say I like John Boorman a heck of a lot. Best known for "Deliverance" - which I don't think I'll ever be able to bring myself to watch again - and "Excalibur," I'd have to say I prefer to those "Hope and Glory" and, most of all, "The General." If you haven't seen this flick starring Brendan Gleeson as Irish robber Martin Cahill, I really can't recommend it highly enough.

Now, however, it seems that Mr. Boorman is more than a little deep into a CGI-animated adaptation of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." I'll let that sink for a second before I have anything at all to say about it.

I've included a shot of the concept art of Dorothy, courtesy of AICN (where you can see a heck of a lot more.) I had hoped until a few years ago that, even with all evidence to the contrary, there still were at least a few classic movies that were truly untouchable. Silly me.

Boorman, in fact, is far from the first person in recent memory to take on this magical saga, but it just might be the first one I'll give a chance to. If I have my info right, Todd McFarlane had been toying with a really sadistic take on the tale (no thanks!), and there was "Tin Man" on Sci Fi, which couldn't hook me even with the presence of Zooey Deschanel and Alan Cumming.

So, why give John Boorman a chance? Well, I've never read L. Frank Baum's original book (a rather serious shortcoming on my part), but from what Variety had to say about this Boorman is sticking closer to that work and will come up with quite a different tale from the original movie (can you imagine, for example, that the Tin Man was a munchkin? Wild.)

Besides, I have to confess that I had the pleasure of seeing "The Wiz" in New York when I was a kid, so I guess there really isn't anything that's all that sacred (but please keep your hands off of "To Kill a Mockingbird"!)

A late comer to the party with "Chuck"

I watch far too much TV already, so I'm always hesitant to commit to any new series just to have them snatched away just as I was getting into the game. It seems that "Pushing Daisies" may be gone after its 13-episode run ordered so far, and while I won't be terribly surprised, I will miss it dearly.

And it's that fear of TV commitment that kept me from ever tuning into NBC's "Chuck" despite mounting evidence that it was really, really good. Now, with two of my co-workers - Stephanie Hartley and Karen Ludwig - practically begging me to watch it, I've finally given in (and, to be as crude as possible, it has been a rather long while since a woman begged me to do anything, so how could I resist?)

Since everyone already has spies on their minds with Daniel Craig back as James Bond in "Quantum of Solace" (and I will indeed be checking that out this weekend, despite some really bad early reviews), I thought I'd offer a very late plug for "Chuck," which is much funnier and just plain fun than I ever would have imagined.

I'll be catching up on it this weekend thanks to Netflix, but if you think you can just picture a modern "Get Smart" starring slackers and a seriously hot Yvonne Strahovski as reluctant spy Chuck's (Zachary Levi) handler (no need to be crude there, people), you should tune in too (though most everyone who would like this is probably well into it already.)

And, though I promised the makers of the sensational documentary "In a Dream" that I would review it soon (and I will!), I'll just wrap this up with the latest TV spot for David Fincher's upcoming "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (because I really do have to get to what is still my paying job.) Enjoy, and have a perfectly pleasant Thursday.