25 years ago on this very day, THE GOONIES, a modern classic of magical cinematic adventure opened in theaters, spawning an onslaught of adolescent fans who to this day remain devoted to this film as grown-ups. As a young boy, I could relate to the youthful recklessness and hunger for adventure and wonder that the boys of The Goonies set out to experience. I felt the excitement, and the fear, as they explored and uncovered an amazing story and all the intricate details of what made this 114 minutes of movie such a vivid memory.

THE GOONIES was written by Christopher Columbus, directed by Richard Donner and produced by Steven Speilberg. I mean, really… this was a childhood masterpiece before it even went into production! On this day in 1980′s movie history, I simply wanted to take a moment to recognize and honor one of my favorite films from my tender adolescent years.

While I don’t have kids of my own, I hope all the parents out there who shared my experience growing up with THE GOONIES do the right thing and share the film and their love of it with their kids, so that THE GOONIES remains a classic, instilling imagination and adventure in the hearts of generations to come. Please, take a moment and share your memories, your stories and your thoughts on the film in a comment below. Long live Sloth in our collective imaginations!

By the way, anyone who calls Sloth a “monster” is itching for a fight!

This got me thinking.   What other obvious collaborations are there that, for whatever reasons the cinema Gods felt necessary, never came to fruition.   What directors have such an identifiable style that coalesces with the style of an actor or actress that have just never merged together on any, one project?

Here are a few I’ve found:

Martin Scorsese and James Caan
Granted, there are hundreds of thousands of actors who have NOT worked with Martin Scorsese, some of them fairly obvious. I’m sure it would surprise you all to learn he has never directed Tony Soprano himself, James Gandolfini, either. This one, though, shocks me, as James Caan, the quintessential guy’s guy and badass Corleone son, Sonny, has never been directed by Scorsese. Caan has played heroes in his career more than he has villains and mobsters. Nonetheless, this seems like a marriage that should have happened long ago.

John Hughes and Bill Murray
Okay, this one might not be all that head scratching. Hughes mostly directed teen comedies and Murray was mostly in adult-oriented comedies like CADDYSHACK and STRIPES. However, these two were comedy powerhouses throughout the ’80s and most of the ’90s. How their stars never crossed paths, I’ll never know. And I don’t count that tiny cameo Murray had as himself at the end of SHE’S HAVING A BABY. I’ll give you that, Hughes was behind the camera and Murray was in front of it, but the fact that these two never did a full-fledged comedy together is quite surprising.

Ivan Reitman and Steve Martin
This non-collaboration is even more of a head-scratcher than Hughes and Murray. Ivan Reitman had a hand in many an SNL and SCTV alumni’s career, but he and Steve Martin never crossed paths. The closest they come to working together is appearing as themselves in the documentary, STEVE MARTIN: A COMIC LIFE. The fact that Reitman, for all the ’80s, comedy clout he had, never roped Martin in for a role in one of his films is almost sad to consider. There is still time, though, as both of their careers are chugging along quite finely.

William Wyler and John Wayne
Maybe this one isn’t so obvious. William Wyler isn’t exactly known as a director immersed in the Western genre, but the guy did make a movie called THE WESTERNER, and the Duke wasn’t in it. Wyler was also known to make a war movie here or there, and, though most of them dealt with human side of war, none of these featured John Wayne, either. It’s certainly not as surprising as the next one in line, but it’s still somewhat of a surprise to know these two powerhouses in the ’40s and ’50s never crossed paths.

John Ford and Gary Cooper
This one shocked the hell out of me when I uncovered it. On one side, you have John Ford, the man whose name became synonymous with the sense of Americana in the ’30s and ’40s, the man who directed the great Westerns like STAGECOACH and THE SEARCHERS. On the other side, you have Gary Cooper, the quiet but firm, American, leading man who seemed the perfect fit for the protagonist of such films as HIGH NOON and Sergeant York. I guess, if you really want to get technical, John Ford did do uncredited work on 1938′s THE ADVENTURES OF MARCO POLO starring Gary Cooper, but the fact that there was never a full-fledged collaboration between these two is absolutely staggering.

Robert Wise and Vincent Price
Notably, Robert Wise is not most known for the horror or science fiction films he did. The Val Lewton-produced THE BODY SNATCHER & THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL weren’t exactly Wise’s bread and butter. When you look back and really think about their careers, maybe it isn’t such a surprise that Wise and horror master Vincent Price never collaborated, but you can certainly imagine how astounding it would have been had it ever happened.

Garry Marshall or Nora Ephron and Sandra Bullock
Sandra Bullock was in some of the most memorable romantic comedies (heavy on both sides of that coin) of the ’90s and early 2000s. How none of these were directed by Garry Marshall nor Nora Ephron is beyond me. Granted, Marshall’s clout has somewhat petered off since he peaked with PRETTY WOMAN in 1990, and Ephron had a pretty rough period there in the late ’90s and early 2000s when Meg Ryan decided to call it quits. Nonetheless, there is still plenty of time for these behemoths of the romantic comedy genre to come together. Maybe not so much for Marshall, but the other two have all the time in the world.

Quentin Tarantino and Gary Oldman
You can’t count Drexl Spivey. TRUE ROMANCE was only written by Tarantino, and that Tony Scott film was so re-written and tossed about, it seemed more Roger Avary than Tarantino, anyway. Even so, you cannot imagine how incredible Oldman would be working from an unfiltered Tarantino screenplay with Tarantino himself guiding the performance. This is one that, if it never happens, I will go to my grave shocked at the world. This should happen. This better happen. It’s still white boy day, and Spivey could very easily have a twin brother out there, somewhere.

Steven Spielberg and Gene Hackman
Okay, maybe this one is just personal to me. Gene Hackman is my all-time favorite actor, and throughout the late ’70s and ’80s, he seemed like the kind of person who wasn’t afraid to take on some meaty roles in big budget fare. Call it sacrilege, but just about any Richard Dreyfuss role would have been better served with Hackman the one delivering the performance, and one cannot help but wonder, as good as SUPERMAN was, how much better it would have been with Spielberg at the helm instead of Richard Donner.

Those are just a few I have come up with anyway.   Down the road a bit and with a whole lot more digging, I may come up with a part two of this list.   What are some collaborations that you are surprised to find have never come to fruition?   Let us know.   Shoot us a comment with your favorite “would be but never were” Hollywood collaborations.

I’m sort of recycling this a bit, borrowing the idea and news from Cinematical, but it got me to thinking. So, first I’ll pass on the general thinking here… the bit about FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF being remade isn’t a fact, or even a rumor, but rather a concept brought up during an interview by Cinematical with Matthew Broderick, who said “It would be fine” when asked how he would feel about someone remaking the 1980′s classic.

As for MANNEQUIN, this I am disturbed to say, is apparently actually happening. Courtesy of Cinematical, Gladden Entertainment wants to remake the 1987 film, which originally starred Andrew McCarthy as a sex-obsessed department store employee who fantasizes about a window mannequin coming to life. Played by Kim Cattrall (SEX IN THE CITY), the mannequin turns out to be a reincarnated Egyptian princess. Gladden Entertainment is hoping to give the story a more contemporary appeal with a hip, young cast… a la The Twilight Saga, maybe?

With the FAME remake behind us, the FOOTLOOSE remake coming out this year and the RED DAWN remake rapidly approaching, it seems we’ve entered a new era of recycled 80′s stories. It’s all coming full-circle, but is it too much too soon? Personally, I think so. You’ve got to give a movie to run it’s full course. It used to be, we wouldn’t see films remade for at least a good 20-30 years, and even then it was far less common than it is today. I’m only 31 years old and still vividly remember movies like FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF like I just saw them yesterday. So, it’s strange to find these films being remade already. Now, I don’t have children, but many from my generation do… but, how many of these kids are even old enough to watch these remakes AND be able to appreciate the originals?

It’s my opinion that a film should at least skip a generation before being remade, in order to be respectfully accepted. In these examples, it’s not been enough time. Anyone who has seen the originals is likely not interested in seeing the remakes and those old enough to see the remakes are likely clueless about the originals. Therefor, there’s a disconnect between the source material and the new material. Give parents of my generation a chance to pass our classics from our childhood down properly, then consider remaking them for future audiences, when the new generations is old enough to approach the material respectfully and with some knowledge.

So, you’ve heard my two cents on the subject. What are your thoughts? Is it too much too soon? Are we robbing a generation from being able to appreciate our classics by spoon-feeding them the watered-down remakes before they’re even exposed to the original material? Chime in and make yourselves heard. We want to know how our readers feel about this.

One of my favorite comedies of the past five years was Frank Oz’s DEATH AT A FUNERAL. It’s a tremendously funny film with an amazing cast and a lot of scenes that stuck with me long after I saw it and passed it on to friends. Yes that’s right, I have purchased this movie more than once for myself and ended up giving it to a friend because I know they’ll love it, and they always do.

Frank Oz is a very good director. Sure he’s a master puppeteer and is of course the legendary voice of Yoda, but he’s also a very good director and has made some really good films over the years like THE SCORE, WHAT ABOUT BOB, THE INDIAN IN THE CUPBOARD, and THE STEPFORD WIVES. There are only a few missteps in his directing career and some of his films have achieved cult status like THE DARK CRYSTAL. The point is the man is a great director, and he clearly knows comedy, and all kinds of comedy at that. DEATH AT A FUNERAL was perfect for him. The writing was tight, and the comedy was near perfection. But the cast is what really sold it on top of that.  The cast of actors like Alan Tudyk and Andy Nyman really kept the film going strong and brought a ton of laughs.

Now this isn’t an old movie. It’s from 2007.  That’s less than three years ago, and here we are on the precipice of movie remake hell…. that’s right, for some reason Hollywood has gotten the great idea to remake a classic film from one of the better directors of his time, with one of the worst directors of all time. Neil LaBute, who’s responsible for literally the worst movie I’ve ever seen, The Wickerman is going to try his hand at comedy with a remake of Death at a Funeral.

Now some times I can get behind a remake, and usually I don’t let horror remakes get to me, especially if they’re from another country. But when you remake a movie, simply to get another audience to see it, even though the original is in the language the remake is, I get annoyed. The remake of DEATH AT A FUNERAL is an urban retelling with Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence. In the trailer, which didn’t make me laugh at all (AND GAVE AWAY THE ENTIRE FILM) Chris Rock seems be playing it very cool, while Martin Lawrence and Tracy Morgan act it up. Meanwhile James Marsden is playing the Alan Tudyk role, only without a shred of humor involved.

I can’t condone this kind of selfish money grabbing behavior. Hollywood is simply repackaging a film by removing everything that was good about the first and putting in large doses of awful. I truly despise everything about this film and I hope that it tanks at the box office. With the online movie blogger community already destroying it you can rest assured it’s going to be smashed online at it’s release.

If you doubt then check out the trailer here and tell me honestly if you got any laughs. And please go rent the original or buy it off Amazon. It’s a great film and I know you’ll laugh quite a bit.

My sigh of relief echoed down my vacant and cold street moments ago as I read that the much talked about Will Smith and Steven Spielberg OLDBOY re-imagining is no more. Latino Review reports that Dreamworks and Mandate could not come to terms and the project is essentially scrapped! This could not be better news for our beloved Park Chan-Wook directed revenge with hammers and live squids flick. I remember months back when the project was first broached, I was in shock and disgust that Spielberg would even think of such a remake. Why? Then again, why is the brilliant LET THE RIGHT ONE IN being remade? Hmmm? Discussions for another time perhaps. To clarify however, this film was not going to be a remake verbatim of Chan-Wook’s 2003 film, but rather the original Manga penned by Garon Tsuchiya and Nobuaki Minegishi. I have not read the manga, so I definitely cannot cite specific differences between the two pieces, but Spielberg and co. thought it was perfect for American audiences. So walking to your local Best Buy and picking the original up didn’t suffice Steve? Again, I digress.

So for now we are safe from any more OLDBOY remakes, re-envisionings or re-imaginings at least until Mandate can come to terms with another studio that may not run such a high bargain as Dreamworks. Who knows?

OLDBOY is available for purchase from Amazon and available to rent on Netflix.

Recently Variety reported that Laeta Kalogridis was hired to adapt the famous manga/anime GHOST IN THE SHELL (GITS) for DreamWorks Pictures. Kalogridis certainly understands the idea of a mechanically altered agent, since she was one of the producers and writers on the short lived remake of THE BIONIC WOMAN for Universal/NBC. Her grasp of female heroines is strong as seen with her writing for The WB’s BIRDS OF PREY. Her biggest job to date was the upcoming SHUTTER ISLAND. She’s taking over the job of writer on this project from Jamie Moss, who originally was pulled on to write.

The live action feature is going to be produced by Avi Arad and shot in 3D. No director has been hired yet, but in a back and forth twitter conversation with Duncan Jones, I discovered he has a love for the characters and material. Jones stated “If I was ever going to act, I would want to play Batou (One of the characters from the series)… lol,” He continued with “(GHOST IN THE SHELL) is one of the few sci-fi things I haven’t written myself that I would love to do.” Personally after seeing MOON I think he’s the right man for the job.

GHOST IN THE SHELL is the extremely popular series from Japan which tells the story of special police agent Motoko Kusanagi. Kusanagi was hurt very badly as a little girl and had to have her body replaced with a completely synthetic one. She later became a member of an elite squad of special agents called Section 9. By her side at all times is Batou, another synthetic cop who got his own film in GHOST IN THE SHELL 2: INNOCENCE.

GHOST IN THE SHELL’ was created by Masamune Shirow, in 1989 and still holds up today. It’s first anime film hit theaters in 1995 in Japan and later that year in America. It’s spawned multiple games and another anime TV series that broke away from the regular story line to tell a new one about cyber terrorism. GITS is almost directly responsible for influencing a lot of cyber-punk media including THE MATRIX.

I personally can’t wait for this film to hit, but some of Kalogridis’ work is a little shaky and corny. I’d like a more established set of hands on the project, otherwise we may end up with another DRAGON BALL: EVOLUTION.

Prompted by the crazy Twilight fans who are camping out to check out the ‘New Moon’ panel at Comic Con, and after having recently watched ‘Fanboys’ I was wondering if there were any movies that you would be willing to camp out for?

If Lucas somehow braved a new ‘Star Wars’ film and it was only playing in 1 theater per town, would you camp out to see it?   Is there ANY panel that could get you to pitch the tent and sleep in a public place just to be the first to hear the info? Are we all over saturated with the abundance of theaters that we don’t need to do this anymore? Are the Twilight fans just a ridiculous crazy bunch of obsessed fans?

I want to hear from Potter fans, Twilighters, Tarantino Freaks, Lundgren-heads… Let’s hash hug it out in the comment section below.

“If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.” – Stanley Kubrick

‘Tristram Shandy.’  ’The Lord of the Rings.’  ’Watchmen.’  ’The Stand.’  These films are just a few, a modicum, of a larger whole of films that all have something in common. They are all based on previous works of literature that were believed, at one point or another before the film’s release, to be entirely unfilmable.  For various reasons, there were those in the world who believed that the novels, plays, series, and graphic novels that make up the “unfilmable” whole either could not or, in more cases than not, should not be put to film.At least, they believed these could not be put to film in the traditional sense.  One thing that you will almost always hear from someone who has just seen a movie based on a book they have previously read is that the movie is not as good as the book.  Very few films ever reach that height where they surpass the critical success of their source material.  It’s just natural to appreciate something that is entirely an original idea rather than the work that is based on something else.  If a filmmaker is lucky (and an enormous level of talent comes in handy, too) the film that is based on the book or even short story will be just as good as the book itself.  In the modern landscape of the filmmaking world, Frank Darabont is the only one who comes to mind that hits it out of the park 100% of the time (We’re talking adaptations here, so we won’t hold ‘The Majestic’ against his batting average.).  So far, he is 3 for 3 in his adaptations of Stephen King novels.

But the idea that a film cannot make the same connection with its audience as a book or even a series of stories in comic book form is not a new idea.  Neither is it one that has much evidence to the contrary.  However, this idea of movies being made from books, comic books, etc. raises another, interesting question altogether.

Is anything unfilmable?

In terms of sheer scope, fans of Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” and King’s “The Stand” didn’t believe those books could be put to film.  The same was said for Michael Crichton’s “Jurassic Park,” though not to the same level.  To these doubts in cinema, Hollywood had but one answer.  CGI.  Creating entire worlds via computer graphics has definitely put a damper on this belief that anything is unfilmable.  The success of entire trilogies of films like ‘Star Wars’ has also helped make adaptations of sources like “The Lord of the Rings” come to reality.  A lot of people who said Tolkien’s books were unfilmable said that, because they were under the assumption that all three books would have to be told in one film.  That would probably have been impossible to pull off.  However, in recent years, Hollywood has had such success in film franchises and trilogies that it isn’t a surprise when more than one film is made telling one, definitive story.

Many people also said ‘Watchmen’ couldn’t be filmed.  Twelve issues of comics that feature dozens of characters and, even, entire pages of supplemental pieces of literature, were, eventually, wrapped up into a 150-minute long film.  Granted, there is much that was cut out of the original source material to make the film possible, but Zack Snyder’s film is quite possibly the best motion picture adaptation of the “Watchmen” comic series that could have been made.

And, really, that is all most filmmakers can hope for.  To go back to the one question that drives this entire article, the answer to “Is anything unfilmable” is both yes and no.  No, in terms of story and grandeur.  Modern technology has proven that there is nothing anyone can dream up that cannot be physically created for film.  Modern filmmakers can create battle scenes featuring millions of warriors, entire planets being destroyed from the inside out, and giant tidal waves sweeping over the cities of the Earth.  To that end, nothing is unfilmable, but that only covers the physical aspect, what we see, in our films.

If you can name any novel, there is sure to be a filmmaker out there who has a way of capturing it on film.  That doesn’t mean the resulting piece of cinema will have the same effect as the novel.  Nor does it mean the resulting piece of cinema will even be worth the celluloid it’s printed on.  Much of the novel’s subtext or little intricacies can only be captured by the written word, and any attempt to capture them via a visual medium would cause them to slip away like sand through your fingers.  In this, case, yes, there are some things that just cannot be filmed.

When director Michael Winterbottom and screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce set out to make a film based on the “unfilmable” “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy,” they decided to take a different approach.  Rather than make a verbatum film about the events in the novel, something that would be near impossible but definitely ill-advised, they decided to make a film surrounding the novel.  They made a mockumentary about film crew adapting the novel.  In doing this, they also captured the essence of Laurence Sterne’s original novel, and ‘A Cock and Bull Story’ ends up coming off as a love letter to the original source rather than an actual adaptation of it.  Of course, scenes of the film-within-a-film are included in finalized movie, so certain scenes from the original novel were, in fact, filmed.

To go back to Kubrick’s quote that began this article, anything, whether written or thought, can be filmed.  There is no such thing as unfilmable.  There is only unfilmed.  To that end, there are several novels that have been raised to the status of unfilmable that have yet been put to the art of motion cinema.  They have not been filmed yet, but that does not mean they cannot be.

Many people have made the claim over the years that “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s 1300+-page magnum opus about a dystopian United States, is unfilmable.  That hasn’t stopped Hollywood from trying.  For 35 years, different parties have attempted to capture the story on film, though these films have never come to fruition.  At present, Brad Pitt’s Plan B is attempting to get the film adaptation, to be written by Randall Wallace, off the ground.

Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower” series has also achieved unfilmable status.  Like “The Lord of the Rings,” it is classified as unfilmable due to its grand nature and adult themes.  If a studio were to back a film franchise based on “The Dark Tower,” they would have to backing a seven-part, hard R-rated series based on a series of novels that are not quite as beloved as Tolkien’s novels. The rights were sold to J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof in 2008 for $19, but no word has come out about a definite plan of action on the series.

But this does not mean these films, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘The Dark Tower,’ will never be made.  Again, there is no unfilmable.  There is only unfilmed.  Certain elements cannot be captured within a motion picture, but any story, big or small, can definitely be made into a movie.  Hollywood is proving this day in and day out.  And, for every lover of the written word out there who makes the claim that something is unfilmable, there are a dozen filmmakers who are more than happy to prove them wrong.

One of the main controversies coming out of ‘G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra,’ other than whether or not the movie is even going to be worth a damn, is what the new Cobra Commander will look like.   There have been debates upon debates about this.   In the past week, it even seems evident that people are being fooled into believing they’ve actually seen him.   The international trailer for the film has been released this week, and some are making the claim that the main villain of the film makes a cameo appearance in the trailer.

Check this image:

Websites all over Al Gore’s Interwebs are telling us that this image you see above is of Cobra Commander.   The one on our left, not the other guy.   The other guy is Christopher Eccleston who is playing the silver head-less Destro.   No, it’s the other guy, the one who looks like Darth Vader prepping for a haircut, that people are claiming is the mysterious new look for Cobra Commander.

The one question I have to all of those sites is “Why are you assuming this is Cobra Commander?”   Nothing in the trailer indicates this is the main villain of the film to be played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In fact, there is evidence out there indicating that the person in the still above is a different character entirely.   There are images galore out there of a villain in the new ‘G.I. Joe’ film called “The Doctor.”

Check out these pics:

All of these images are said to be of a character from the film known only as The Doctor.   That file card indicates that this could, actually, be Dr. Mindbender, but there is absolutely no indication anywhere that this is Cobra Commander.

Even if there is an extremely slim chance this is, in fact, Cobra Commander, then I give Paramount mad props for having images of him out there for all these months without anyone picking up on it.   Some sites are claiming the image from the international trailer is the “first official” pic of Cobra Commander from the film.   Whatever the case may be, that statement certainly is not true.

In fact, the images of the action figure of Cobra Commander that we have, actually, seen, look nothing like this.   Granted, the images below are all off of the toy line coming out in conjunction with the film.   However, the images of Cobra Commander on these action figures look absolutely nothing like the image of the supposed “Cobra Commander” seen in the international trailer.

So, just for the record, you do NOT see Cobra Commander in the new, international trailer of ‘G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra.’   Despite reports to the contrary on countless websites out there, that international trailer doesn’t show us anything we haven’t already seen a hundred, different places already.   In all likelihood, that is Dr. Mindbender seen standing next to Destro.   If the pictures above offer up any evidence in support of one theory, it is that we have still not seen what Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s getup will look like in the new blockbuster.

What do you think?   Is that the Doctor in the international trailer?   Is it Cobra Commander?   Are they one and the same character?   Has your interest in this film waned to the point that you haven’t even made it this far in the article?   Let us know by commenting below!

Of course, we will all know for sure on August 7th when ‘G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra’ is released in theaters nationwide.

Oh, and just for your viewing please, here is the full, international trailer that DOESN’T give us our first look at Cobra Commander:

Welcome to the newest edition of We Are Movie Geek’s Character Cage Match! One of the best parts of teen-focused comedies from the 80′s are the bullies written into many of the movies. In these, as is the case with many movies from all eras, the bully is a cruel and brutish, but usually dense and about as smart as a box of hammers.

So, this edition of the WAMG Character Cage Match pits the two greatest pea-brained, nerd-squashing cinematic bullies from 80′s against each other in a duel to the death. Biff (Back to the Future) is going to square off toe-to-toe with Chet (Weird Science) but only one will emerge. You get to decide who survives this Jousting of the Jocks. Just post your comments below, let us know who you think would win and, if your so compelled, educate us as to why…

It’s up to you to decide which of these 80′s era big screen bullies will dominate the other in this bad boy battle royale. Compare the contestants, then place your vote of your choice for the outcome by posting a comment below.

With one relatively successful feature film and a hugely successful television series, not to mention a popular ‘Buffy’ comic book series that has also spawned similar comic book series and television shows for ‘Angel’, it’s no real surprise that the powers that be have announced it’s time for Buffy to make a triumphant return to the big screen.

Kristy Swanson was the original Buffy from the 1992 film, portraying the high school teenage blond that finds herself called upon to battle vampires. With all due respect, Swanson is simply too old to return to the role. The role was later picked up by Sarah Michelle Gellar during the long run of the television series. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that Gellar will continue her tenure into the new film. Both the movie and the series were created by Joss Whedon.

With the recent news that the ‘Buffy’ franchise will be brought back to the big screen, it begs the question of which bodacious babe will be wielding the wooden stakes this time. Who would be the perfect actress for this role… beautiful, smart and able to vanquish countless blood-sucking monsters.

With the cat out of the bag, a few names have already started circulating as viable candidates to play the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer including Adrianne Pilacki, Laura Vandervoort, Holly Vallance, Elisha Cuthbert, Kristen Bell, Amanda Seyfried and Hayden Panettiere.

What are your thoughts around the casting of Buffy in a new movie? Do you have an actress in mind that would be perfect? Is the role open to any young, attractive blond or is there more to the character that requires more depth and range from an actress? Let us know who you’d like to see cast in the role by leaving your picks in the comments section.

And, if you have any ideas for future Fantasy Casts, shoot us an email with your ideas. You can find all of our email addresses right here!

Having grown up primarily a devout Marvel fan, I’m no huge fan of DC Comics. However, of the few DC characters I always found intriguing, Green Lantern ranks high amongst the top of that list. Part of the character’s appeal to me is the idea that it’s a regular Joe (be it male or female, human or alien) empowered by a mysterious and powerful ring. For many of the superheroes in the DC universe, they seem more God-like in nature than super-human, which is a big part of the reason I’ve always connected more with Marvel, but (IMO) Green Lantern is different.

One of the other curious elements about the Green Lantern story is that, aside from there being many of them spread out across the universe, the Green Lantern character is actually a separate entity from he/she/it whom dawns the ring, as it gets passed on to different bearers over time. Amidst the most well-known and beloved human incarnations are Alan Scott, Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, John Stewart and Kyle Rayner. So, there’s a bit of a wide range of choices when it comes to writing a story and therefor opens the door a bit for casting as well. Although honestly, I would venture to guess most fans are going to lean towards choosing Hal Jordan, but that’s yet to be determined.

In this week’s Fantasy Cast Friday, the process will vary slightly. Before we get into the usual discussion of “who” will play the Green Lantern, we first are kind of required to determine “which” Green Lantern should be adapted into a feature film story. With that said, which of the five above mentioned incarnations of the Green Lantern are you most eager to see portrayed on the big screen? Or, if you insist on playing the devil’s advocate, feel free to choose Jennifer Lynn-Hayden.

Of the endless slew of names that have been thrown about with various levels of legitimacy include Nathan Fillion, Ryan Gosling, Aaron Eckhart, Sam Worthington, Chris Pine, Jake Gyllenhaal, Orlando Bloom, Ryan Phillipe, Common, Josh Duhamel, Casey Affleck, Seth Green, Jensen Ackles, Jamie Bamber, David Boreanaz, Joe Hamm and Matthew Fox. One of the more interesting, but least likely names I’ve seen pop up is Dennis Quaid.

Once you’ve decided which incarnation of the Green Lantern you’d like to see get the big screen treatment, fill us in on your casting choice to play the DC hero. Shoot us your suggestions for this fantasy cast in the comments section below.

And, if you have any ideas for future Fantasy Casts, shoot us an email with your ideas. You can find all of our email addresses right here!

Last week saw the battle between Stiller and the T-800s, and Stiller and the inhabitants of the Smithsonian won out.   This weekend, the battle might not be such a toss-up.   Sam Raimi’s return to horror, ‘Drag Me to Hell,’ is going up against PIXAR’s latest, ‘Up.’

Everyone and their dog is saying ‘Up’ is going to come out on top of this one, and some are even claiming ‘Drag Me to Hell’ could come in third place this weekend behind ‘Night at the Museum.’   ‘Up’ opens on 3766 screens and ‘Drag Me to Hell’ bows on 2508 screens, so the gap on those numbers are pretty wide.   PIXAR has a pretty good history with opening numbers.   The only PIXAR film since the first ‘Toy Story’ to open with less than $57 million was ‘Rataouille’ in 2007.   Even that one opened with $47 million.   The chances of ‘Up’ doing worse are slim to absolutely none, and slim just left town.

If you’re looking at Sam Raimi opening weekend numbers, you kind of have to look outside the ‘Spider-Man’ bubble.   ‘Spider-Man’ was a brand unto itself, and Raimi’s name really didn’t have much bearing on those opening numbers.   Outside of the ‘Spider-Man’ movies, the best opening Raimi has had was just over $13 million for ‘For Love of the Game.’   Even that movie didn’t draw much on the Raimi name, since it wasn’t much of a Raimi film.   Nonetheless, ‘Drag Me to Hell’ and its marketing of plastering Raimi’s name all over the posters and commercials should help it pull in some decent numbers.   The fact that it is getting glowing reviews from all over won’t hurt, either.

If we’re talking Ben Stiller and second weekend numbers, you might be impressed, as well.   The second weekend take for the original ‘Night at the Museum’ were, actually, up from the first weekend.   This was the last weekend in December, so don’t expect to see the same thing happen here.   However, the big battle this weekend could be for second place between ‘Drag Me to Hell’ and ‘Night at the Museum 2.’

What do you think?   Drop us a comment or two below with your takes on this upcoming weekend and its box office?   ‘Up’ will surely be number one.   How much will it rake in?   Will ‘Drag Me to Hell’ come up at number two, or will ‘Night at the Museum’ shine once again?   How much of a dropoff do you see ‘Terminator Salvation’ having?   Speaking of, is it too early to consider ‘Terminator Salvation’ the first, box-office bomb of the Summer?

Here’s the way I see the weekend breaking down:

• ‘Up’ – $65 million
• ‘Drag Me to Hell’ – $31 million
• ‘Night at the Museum 2′ – $30 million
• ‘Terminator Salvation’ -$18 million
• ‘Star Trek’ – $15 million

Give out your numbers in the comments section below!

It wasn’t long ago we asked for your opinions on who should play Captain Kirk’s arch nemesis, Kahn, should that character ever be introduced into JJ Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ universe.  This week, we pose a similar question.

Who should play Blofeld?

As the archenemy of one special agent 007, James Bond, Ernst Stavro Blofeld appeared in three Ian Fleming novels and seven films.  Those seven films included six official films and the 1983 knockoff remake of ‘Thunderball,’ ‘Never Say Never Again.’  His appearance has changed slightly with each incarnation, but he is generally remembered as having a bald head and always carressing a white, Persian cat.

Blofeld, also referred to as Number 1, is the leader of SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion).  This secret, evil organization has, for the newer, Daniel Craig, Bond films into Quantum.  Of course, just because the name of the organization is different doesn’t mean Blofeld can’t, possibly show up as one of its highest members.

So, we pose the question again.  Who should play Ernst Stavro Blofeld?  With his different appearances through the history of the Bond film, it really could be anyone filling in.  Of course, with the way the new Bond franchise is headed, the idea of him having a shaved head and stroking a Persian cat might go out the window.  However, the actor who portrays this character should be someone with some depth, some amount of respect behind them.

It would be somewhat of a coup, but it might be interesting to see Max Von Sydow play the character, as he did in ‘Never Say Never Again.’

Granted, the guy is 80, but he’s still churning out amazing performances just as he did 40 years ago.

If, however, you wanted to go younger but still pull in the same level of acting, the first name that comes to mind is Gary Oldman.

Of course, Oldman seems to be the go-to guy for just about any role any more.   The guy can literally play anything under the sun.

So, now, we leave it in your hands.   Who do you think should play Blofeld if that character is ever brought into the new James Bond series?   Would you even have the character show up?   What other famous, Bond villains would you like to see make appearances in this new direction the franchise is taking?   Shoot us your suggestions for this fantasy cast in the comments section below.

And, if you have any ideas for future Fantasy Casts, shoot us an email with your ideas. You can find all of our email addresses right here!

Imagine a world where you could go to your local 30-plex to see the latest, Summer blockbuster.   You’ve scraped all your pennies and nickels together to buy a ticket to the latest, mega-budget extravaganza.   You walk into the lobby of the theater and look up at the marquee.   Alas, ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ is completely sold out.   That’s what you get for showing up to the theater five minutes before the movie starts.

But, wait.   You look across the marquee at what other, fine pieces of cinema in which you can partake.   What do you see?   Adjacent to the slot showing all the timeslots for the Michael Bay film is a slot full of open times for some film called ‘Transmorphers: Fall of Man.’

‘Transmorphers: Fall of Man’?

In your mind (you know, the same one that told you to show up to the theater just before the trailers begin), this is surely just as good as the Michael Bay film.   Chances are, this one doesn’t feature Shia LaBeouf, either.

Yeah, this is a far-fetched scenario, but is there any reality to be taken from it?   Could we, someday, see a theatrical release for a film distributed by a little known company called The Asylum.   You see, as far-fetched a notion as this might be, there really is a film called ‘Transmorphers: Fall of Man,’ and The Asylum is behind it.   They are also behind other, cheap knockoffs of blockbuster, Hollywood films that grace your local video stores shelves the same week the genuine articles are released to theaters.

Instead of ‘Transformers,’ we get ‘Transmorphers.’   Instead of ‘Terminator Salvation,’ we get ‘The Terminators.’   Instead of ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ we get ‘The Da Vinci Treasure.’   Instead of ‘Snakes on a Plane,’ we get ‘Snakes on a Train.’   Instead of ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,’ we get ‘Alan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls.’   You get the idea, I’m hoping.

This is just a start, too.   Since 1997, The Asylum has been behind the production and distribution of 179 films.   Founded by David Rimawi and Sherri Strain, two, former executive of Village Roadshow, along with director David Michael Latt, the company attempted to find a foothold in horror market.   Unable to break into theaters due to competition from other companies like Lionsgate and Artisan, the company had to settle on purchasing and distributing films to video stores.

It achieved a slight amount of success in 2003 when it produced the Stuart Gordon-directed ‘King of the Ants.’   However, not even that film could break into movie theaters, and most of the company’s near-200 releases have fallen into a chasm of obscurity.

In 2005, the company produced and released ‘H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds,’ a low-budget adaptation of the novel that was released the same year as the Spielberg blockbuster.   Based on the title and the market that could generate alone, Blockbuster Video purchased 100,000 copies of the film, and this gave The Asylum the strategy they continue to incorporate today.

In the four years since, The Asylum has produced and released 18 other such “mockbusters” (Latt prefers the term “tie-ins”).     Exact numbers are difficult to come by, but The Asylum has not had a DVD release break the weekly top 50 rentals since that 2005 release of ‘War of the Worlds.’   None of their others films, not ‘I Am Omega,’ ‘AVH: Alien Vs. Hunters,’ or even ‘Sunday School Musical’ have been able to match the success of that first “mockbuster.”   And that’s even with such star power as C. Thomas Howell, Mark Dacascos, William Katt, and Judd Nelson to back the film up.   C. Thomas, the ‘Soul Man’ himself, even directed ‘War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave’ and ‘The Day the Earth Stopped.’

The latter film Mr. Howell directed brought on a cease-and-desist letter from 20th Century Fox, who was distributing their remake of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still.’   While details on the outcome of this legal action from Fox remain unclear, ‘The Day the Earth Stopped’ still came out on its scheduled release date.   Having not seen The Asylum’s film, I can’t say whether it is better or worse than the Keanu Reeves-starring, $80-million-budgeted, sci-fi blockbuster.   I will tip my hat, though, by saying ‘The Day the Earth Stopped’ couldn’t have been much worse.

Without making much of an impact in the world of film or pop culture, it seemed for a long time that The Asylum would continue on its course of producing and distributing “mockbusters” until the end of time.   No one would even consider the possibility of The Asylum releasing a film in mainstream theaters.

That is, until now.

“What changed?” you might ask.   To answer that, I give you four, small, yet impactful, words.

Mega

Shark

Giant

Octopus

Check out this trailer:

With the release of this trailer for ‘Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus,’ The Asylum finally did something it has been trying to do for more than a decade.   It made people sit up and realize it was out there.   This trailer became an Internet phenomenon, making appearances on Attack of the Show and originating from MTV.com.   People were likening its release to that of ‘Snakes on a Plane,’ giving the film an instant cult status before it was even available to the public.

The film comes out today, May 26th, 2009, on DVD, so as to whether it will live up to the hype train that preceded is yet to be determined.   Of course, looking at Amazon’s Sales Rank, we see that, as of the day it was released, ‘Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus’ is at #143 on the bestsellers list for movies & TV.   Not exactly a ground-quaker of movement, especially when you consider something as arbitrary as “Diana Krall: Live in Rio” on Blu-Ray ranked in at #88.   I guess the star power of Lorenzo Lamas and former, 90′s, pop idol Deborah (not Debbie) Gibson just doesn’t match up to 149 minutes of bossa nova.

As for the cinematic merits of ‘Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus,’ check out our review for the film right here.   However, you can’t determine whether a film or, more importantly, a film studio will ever get release in a movie theater based solely on critical success.

This brings us back to the headlined question of the day.   Will The Asylum ever get a film released in movie theaters?   And we’re not talking one or two movie theaters scattered around LA.   That, more than likely, has already occurred with some of The Asylum’s past films.   What we’re talking about here is whether or not The Asylum can get a film into a chain of theaters across the United States.   Will we ever see the day when ‘Transmorphers’ can actually run side-by-side with ‘Transformers’?

The quick answer is a resounding “Hell no!”   The chances of The Asylum getting enough funding to financially get a film into nationwide theaters slimmer than Debbie Gibson’s music career getting a resurgence based on her acting abilities.

But, more importantly, and to a deeper point on the issue, is the idea that Hollywood studios will only put up with so much.   It is amazing to think that 20th Century Fox is the only studio thus far to actually take action against The Asylum and their “mockbusters.”   Fox above all other studios this year proved to the world that they will file lawsuits fast than a switchblade extending if they think there is dollar 1 to make from doing so.

If the day comes that one of these slight variations on an honest to God mainstream film actually gets release in a movie theater, all hell is going to break loose.   The film studio equivalent of Bonnie & Clyde is going to come down on The Asylum.   Hollywood studios will be the Texas and Louisiana law officers and The Asylum will be the bank robber couple on a desolate, Louisiana road.

Of course, it won’t even come to that.   Any financial juggernaut The Asylum might ever find themselves at the helm of would have happened with ‘Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus,” and the overpowering love for that movie began and ended with the trailer.   Their next film, the much compared ‘Transmorphers: Fall of Man,’ streets on June 30th, and there hasn’t been news story one about it.

So, what do you think?   We leave the discussion for you to continue in our comment section.   Will The Asylum ever find themselves in the position of opening a film in wide release?   Are their films destined to stay in DVD players?   If they were to ever find themselves in that position, would they jump on it, or would they immediately begin sweating thinking about all the lawyers that will start pounding on their office doors?   Will there ever be another film like ‘Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus’ that The Asylum could, potentially, push into even the smallest venues?   Let us know your thoughts on this topic below.

Whether or not they actually get into movie theaters (and, by the way, there is nothing to insinuate The Asylum even wants to move into theaters), there are countless Summer blockbusters for the company to spin off from.   Video stores and Netflix will continue to be filled with “mockbusters” from The Asylum.   Whether the company moves up in the world or not, the knockoffs they produce aren’t going away any time soon.

Which is gonna win out?   Ben Stiller, Amerlia Earhart, and Teddy Roosevelt, or a whole bunch of T-600s and a wrathful Christian Bale?   On the surface, it seems like a pretty done deal.   ‘Terminator’ could surely kick ‘Museum’s ass, right?   Don’t be quick to decide on that one.

‘Terminator 3′ opened with just over $44 million when it was released on July 2nd, 2003.   That was 4th of July weekend, too.   When the first ‘Night at the Museum’ was released on the weekend before Christmas, 2006, it made just over $30 million.   Transport both of these franchises over to the end of May, and you can shave a little off ‘Terminator’s take and add it onto ‘Museum’s.

Of course, we already have some numbers in.   ‘Terminator Salvation’ was, actually, released yesterday, May 21st, and it took in $13.3 million on over 35oo screen.   ‘Museum’ opens today, the 22nd, on over 4000 screens, and that’s including a few hundred on IMAX.

Now, if you take into account the star power each film has, then you have a whole, different ballgame.   Christian Bale’s last movie, which I’m sure you saw four or five times, was ‘The Dark Knight,’ which opened to $158 million.   Stiller’s last movie was ‘Madagascar 2,’ which opened with $63 million.   These are two massive openings, neither of which, I’m sure, ‘Terminator’ nor ‘Museum’ will even come close to touching.   You can’t really attribute ‘The Dark Knight’s success to Bale, and you really can’t give Stiller much credit for the success of ‘Madagascar.’   However, if you are calculating star power, those were the figures for each of these actor’s last films.

Whichever film comes out on top, whether it be ‘Terminator Salvation’ or ‘Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,’ this is sure to be a huge weekend for movies.   You still have ‘Star Trek’ moving strong, and ‘Angels & Demons’ probably won’t drop off all that much.     This all goes without even mentioning the new release of ‘Dance Flick,’ which, on 2400 screen should be able to make change somewhere in the low $20 millions.

Drop us a comment below.   What do you think will come out on top this weekend?   Which of these films are you more looking forward to?   Will you be seeing ‘Night at the Museum 2′ on the IMAX?

Here is the way I see the weekend breaking down:

• ‘Terminator Salvation’ – $71 million
• ‘Night at the Museum 2′ – $62 million
• ‘Star Trek’ -$27 million
• ‘Dance Flick’ -$22
• ‘Angels & Demons’ – $21

Give out your numbers in the comment section below.

Hey, don’t go getting your panties all in a twist! There aren’t any plans (that I know of) for a live-action movie in the works, but with the animated adaptation of Eric Powell’s awesome comic book series being pieced together, I figured a purely speculative discussion of a live-action version needed to be addressed… you know, just fer tha’ Helluvit!

So, even though the animated film is still essentially in the “script” phase, according to IMDBPro, what is known is that David Fincher is producing the project. How cool is that? We could talk about who should direct ‘The Goon’ but it’s too early for that and honestly, not as much fun as speculating on who would best fit the roles of Franky and The Goon in a live-action movie.

I will gladly be the first to admit that ‘The Goon’ will not be a story easily translated into a live-action film. The two main characters alone, The Goon and Franky, would have to be handled very carefully. The stylistic element works extremely well in the books, but to try and convey it “exactly” in the movie may prove to be a dicey proposition.

It can be done, however, if you recall Warren Beatty’s ‘Dick Tracy’ (1990) and how well they handled the movie’s villains, especially for the time. Although, one of the great elements of ‘The Goon’ is all the cool characters and creatures… i.e. the Zombie Priest, the slack jaws, The Mudds, Buzzard, Dr. Hieronymous Alloy and all the big nasty monsters The Goon encounters.

But, I digress. The focus of this discussion is centered on The Goon and his side-kick (don’t call him that to his face) Franky. These are visually two very different characters. Both of whom carry a tough, hard as nails exterior but The Goon has an inner essence that would require some acting talent. So, who should we place on the casting block?

Possible choices for The Goon:	Possible choices for Franky:

What do you think? Who should play The Goon and Franky in a live-action version of the popular comic book series? If you have any ideas for which actors best fit the roles, be sure to let us know.

And, if you have any ideas for future Fantasy Casts, shoot us an email with your ideas. You can find all of our email addresses right here!

I can already hear William Tell’s Overture.   The likelihood that we are going to have a big-screen version of ‘The Lone Ranger’ gallop into theaters is becoming more and more of a reality with each, passing day.   Mike Newell (‘Prince of Persia’) is attached to direct.   Johnny Depp is already on board to play the Lone Ranger’s sidekick, Tonto.   I’m sure we are only weeks away from getting some kind of announcement as to who will be filling the lead role in this, more than likely, Summer blockbuster.

Today, we leave the casting up to you.   Who would you choose to play John Reid/The Lone Ranger is a big-screen adaptation?   Would you go for an established, aged actor, such as George Clooney?   Clooney’s name was bandied about a few months back to play the role.   Would you go for a lesser known or younger actor?

Personally, this is where I would go.   Clooney is good, but you need someone whose presence doesn’t overshadow the character.   For your consideration, I submit these three candidates.

Scott Porter

The guy is great on “Friday Night Lights,” and, with ‘Speed Racer’ last year, he has proven he can handle a big-screen role.   He is just one, starring role from breaking out into the big leagues.

But, what about the two stars of CW’s “Supernatural,” Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles?

Either one has the look, and, while Ackles is growing into a much better actor than Padalecki, they are both poised to break out.

So, who would you choose?   Would it be any of the three presented above?   Would it be someone else entirely?   Let us know who should play The Lone Ranger in the big-screen, Summer blockbuster that the film is sure to turn into.   Throw us a comment below with your, own, candidates.

And, if you have any ideas for future Fantasy Casts, shoot us an email with your ideas.   You can find all of our email addresses right here!

Editor’s note:Ă‚   This is not something I came up with on my own.Ă‚   I’m kicking myself in the ass that I didn’t, but, once it was brought to my attention, I felt I had to comment on it.

One of the questions fans and dissident’s of J.J. Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ film alike have been asking themselves (and others) is why, oh why, would a Beastie Boys’ song be included on the soundtrack?Ă‚   For those who have not seen the film, and don’t have a problem with a little, tiny spoilage, the first time we see James T. Kirk as an adolescent (12 years old, to be exact), he has stolen his stepfather’s antique car.Ă‚   He clicks on the futuristic radio, complete with touch-screen, and “Sabotage” kicks in.

Many have commented on how this introduction of such a popular, modern song takes them out of the film.Ă‚   Personally, it put a smile on my face, as, evidently, Beastie Boys’ popularity is still strong hundreds of years in the future.Ă‚   Kirk’s stepdad must have it programmed to some futuristic NPR station where they play influential classics from a bygone era.

It’s a fun, little scene, and the sound of a modern, rhythmic beat makes it all the more fun, but who knew there might, actually have been a deeper meaning.Ă‚   Why did Abrams choose that song?Ă‚   Some people have said that, if they had to use a Beastie Boys’ song (they didn’t have to), “Intergalactic” would have been a much more appropriate choice.Ă‚   This isn’t necessarily true.

Why?Ă‚   Well, let me answer that question with another question.Ă‚   Did you know that William Shatner has a minor issue with the way he says the word “sabotage”?Ă‚   If you listen to Howard Stern, surely you’ve heard the clip of Shatner berating the director of a recording for a Star Trek audio book.Ă‚   Shatner says, “Spock, sabo-taj the system.”

The director corrects him.Ă‚   Shatner responds with, “I don’t say sabotage.Ă‚   I say sabo-taj.”

Just listen for yourself, and see other examples of Shatner’s complete butchering of one of the most basic of words:

I mean, he’s William Shatner.Ă‚   He can say whatever the hell he wants, right?Ă‚   After that little recording session, that audio director fell into obscurity.Ă‚   Shatner went on to win Emmies, Golden Globes, and Razzies.

Well, now comes the really hard question.Ă‚   Did J.J. Abrams, or even Roberto Orci or Alex Kurtzman, for that matter, use Sabotage as a deliberate nod to William Shatner’s stubborness on this matter.Ă‚   With all of the other Easter eggs that seem to be strewn throughout ‘Star Trek,’ you certainly can’t put it past the people behind the film to throw this little nod in, as well.Ă‚   It’s a little more buried and subtle than most.

However, if it is deliberate, it could be one of the more ingenius references seen recently.Ă‚   It’s certainly a helluva much better Easter egg than seeing Deadpool reach for his disembodied head.Ă‚   Sorry, that was another spoiler, but I’m not too worried about it.

Source: Topless Robot

Welcome to the newest edition of We Are Movie Geek’s Character Cage Match! In tonight’s main event, we have scheduled a cut-throat carnival of carnage containing contestants of the cute and cuddly but cunningly capable carnivorous concoction. Don’t let the diminutive degree of their dimension distract your onlooking eyes, as these diabolical devils in disguise definitely have a disposition for devouring and destroying anything that dares get in their way.

It’s up to you to decide which of these devastating demon dogs will dominate the other in this deadly dual to the death. Compare the contestants, then place your vote on your choice for the outcome by posting a comment below.