"While waiting in line for the screening of Hellboy II: The Golden Army, I overhead someone say that Guillermo del Toro's latest is being seen as his audition tape for The Hobbit," observed Jonathan Pacheco in his review for The House Next Door. Of course, Del Toro already had the directing gigs for the two Hobbit films before Hellboy II hit theaters, but that won't stop audiences from evaluating the current parade of fairies, demons and evil elves with Del Toro's Middle-Earth-to-be in mind.
Needless to say, it's a narrow perspective.

It would make more sense to expect that these upcoming features will negotiate between the gothic horror of Pan's Labryinth and the blockbuster approach of Hellboy II. In the latter work, it's clear that Del Toro has more interest in placing these loony supernatural beings in relatively conventional action sequences, allowing the specificity of the characters to create a sense of ingenuity. Pan's Labryinth, on the other hand, offers a single package of storytelling: The art direction, special effects and even the violence directly relate to the drama. The best case scenario for the Hobbit films would be a happy medium: Glorious visuals that reflect Tolkien's deeply involving mythology.

If you thought the latest Indiana Jones adventure was implausible, wait till you see Journey to the Center of the Earth! It makes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull look like a documentary. It's fun, though, and a perfectly good way for a family to spend a Saturday afternoon, particularly if that family has a lot of 8-to-12-year-old boys. I have friends with kids in that demographic, and watching the movie I thought, "Those guys will LOVE this."

It was shot in digital 3D and is being exhibited that way in select theaters. By all means, if you see it, see it in 3D. The filmmakers indulge in some shameless gimmickry every now and then, making characters point things directly at the audience for no good reason, but for the most part the effects look fantastic. It's a smart way to bring the story to life, even if the story in question is all spectacle and very little brain.

Brendan Fraser, getting back into wholesome action-hero mode, plays Trevor Anderson, a scientist who specializes in tectonic physics. That was the life's work of his deceased brother, Max, whose 13-year-old son Sean (Josh Hutcherson) has now come to stay with Trevor for a few days. Trevor hasn't seen his nephew in years and barely knows the lad. Sean, sullen and heavily into his PSP (that's a portable video game system, old-timers), was only 2 or 3 when his dad disappeared.

Fantasy may have the most rabid and obsessive fans, but it also has the staunchest detractors of any mainstream genre. We all know people who simply refuse to watch fantasy films or read fantasy books of their own volition. They may have sat through The Fellowship of the Ring grudgingly, but didn't bother with the rest of the series. They probably associate the genre with asocial nerds, fan conventions, and Dungeons & Dragons. They can only shrug at the exuberance of the devotees. Fantasy is "not their thing."

Why are fantasy movies (and the genre in general) so polarizing? I've long thought it has something to do with viewers' relative affinity for cinematic worlds. Some people go to the movies to see something that directly relates to their own lives, something that takes place in the universe they live in and know. Others – myself among them, if you haven't figured it out – flip for new, self-contained worlds that could exist independently of the movie; wonderful and strange places we feel like it's possible to actually inhabit. This might explain why those who like good fantasy also tend to enjoy good science-fiction.

Imagine you're a green alien living happily among other green aliens on a tiny planet somewhere. Then one day an astronaut from Earth shows up and starts terrifying everyone. And he has the voice of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson! Except maybe contractual stipulations demand that he not be called "The Rock" anymore. Still! Scary!

That's the premise of Planet 51, a computer-animated comedy that has finally, after some shuffling, been acquired by Sony and scheduled for a Thanksgiving 2009 release. The voice cast includes Johnson, Gary Oldman, Justin Long, Seann William Scott, John Cleese, and Jessica Biel. The directors are a trio of video game programmers named Jorge Blanco, Javier Abad, and Marcos Martinez, and the script is by Joe Stillman, who co-wrote the first two Shrek films.

As we reported last November, Planet 51 was originally picked up by New Line and would have been that studio's first CG release. Then New Line was folded into Warner Bros., so the film became that studio's property, and they planned to release it next summer. But according to Variety, Planet 51's producers wanted it to come out this November instead -- and that didn't work for Warners because they're already releasing a Harry Potter film in that slot. So they let the film go, and now Sony has it. The producers will get their November release date, but it'll be 2009, not 2008. Presumably, everyone's happy now.

But should they be?

I don't know the last time I felt like a kid at the movies, but while watching Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D this past week, I honestly reverted to my 8-year-old self. That isn't to say the movie is necessarily as good as the movies that astonished me as a kid -- because of the subject matter, I'd think about comparing it to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Goonies, both of which came out when I was around that age, and neither to which this film holds up in terms of originality or storytelling craft. But as far as holding onto my sense of wonder, Journey is up there.

Of course, it's necessary to point out that Journey would be nothing without the digital 3-D factor. It's actually the first live-action narrative feature to be shot and released in the new format (the non-fiction concert films, U2 3D and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour were technically the first live-action 3-D features), and while it's far from perfect, it is a terrific pioneer. I shall continue favoring the look of animated 3-D films, especially those directed as well as Monster House, and I anticipate that James Cameron's Avatar will blow away all live-action 3-D films released prior to its arrival. For now, though, I'm telling you, with the utmost cinemaphilic urgency: you need to see this ASAP.

If you have a girl between the ages of 4 and 12 in your life, chances are pretty good you've heard of American Girl. The wildly successful franchise has spawned a whole series of high-end dolls, doll clothes, doll furniture and accessories, books, cookbooks ... and, of course, movies. American Girls are enormously popular with both girls and parents seeking a wholesome alternative to the freakishly-thin Barbie doll image or the hooker-in-training look of those wretched Bratz dolls. As an added bonus, they encourage girls to learn a little history, without even realizing it .

The whole thing with American Girl is that each of the dolls comes from a different time period: there's Kristen, an immigrant girl from Sweden; Felicity, an American Revolution girl whose father is a Patriot, while her best friend's father is a Loyalist; Samantha, being raised by her wealthy grandmother in the 1920s, when women's suffrage and class difference were big issues; Molly, a girl whose father, a doctor, is off serving in the Second World War; Addy, who escapes slavery with her mother to search for her father and brother, and so on. Each doll has her own set of books: there's the intro book, the birthday book, the book where so-and-so learns a lesson, the Christmas book, and even a line of mystery books.

At yesterday's press day for Hellboy II: The Golden Army, the eloquent, elegant Guillermo del Toro had plenty to say about crafting the sequel to 2004's Hellboy, which we'll have at Cinematical closer to the film's opening; he also dropped a few facts and thoughts about his upcoming job helmingThe Hobbit. On the 'facts' front, del Toro mentioned that The Hobbit (which may be two films, one adapting the original novel and the other bridging The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings with new material) will have a very different look than some of his other films: "The Hobbit will be (presented) in 2.35-to-1. ..." Translating cinematographer to English, that means that The Hobbit will be presented in widescreen, all the better to capture the hills and dales of the Shire.

Del Toro also spoke about the potentially tricky task of making his two Hobbit films in the wake of Peter Jackson's wildly successful trilogy, as well as what kind of material he might bring to a second movie -- and the tricky question of what Tolkien-created material Peter Jackson has the rights to (and can be used to create the two Hobbit films) and what material Jackson does not own the rights to (and can't use in a film). Del Toro's answers may have been short on detail, but they were long on vision. "What we're talking (about) is, obviously, utilizing the materials that are available to us, and the discipline has been to try and know, for my part, everything else -- not to know it and use it, but to know it and not step on those things.

For whatever reason in the fall of 2005, I had missed out on the initial local press screening of Terrence Malick's latest epic, The New World, and the reactions that followed were decidedly ... less than appreciative. Shortly thereafter, word had come our way that an alternate cut would be opening instead, and so it was this second screening that I did attend.

For the first half of the film, I was fairly fascinated by the tale of John Smith (Colin Farrell) and his conquest of both what is now America and what was then Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). However, somewhere around when Smith disappeared and John Rolfe (Christian Bale) all but replaced him, I found my interest waning at a considerable rate.

It's difficult to deny that there were those who still thought the film to be one for the ages, even in its 135-minute incarnation. Those who lucked into the earlier screenings or lived in New York or Los Angeles could briefly get a glimpse of the original 150-minute cut, before certain scenes had been abridged, excised, or even replaced. Now, come October 14th, fans will get the chance to devour a DVD release of 172 minutes in length.

Earlier that same year, I'd found myself fairly unimpressed with the theatrical cut of Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, only to eat my words once the engrossing three-hour-plus director's cut hit DVD after a similar NY/LA bow. Maybe almost three years after the fact, I can bring myself to give Malick's masterpiece another go. Will you?

[via DVD Active]

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Gears of War is on a fast-track to the big screen, thanks to New Line. Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard) has been given the directing job, and will be developing the story alongside Chris Morgan.

Based on the hugely popular video game, Gears of War tells of an elite Delta Squad who are charged with the task of saving the planet Sera from the vicious Locust Horde. Of course, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this video game adaptation can succeed where so many have failed? Gears of War will probably be even more problematic than most, as the appeal stems from being plunked into the action, not because of the storyline. (Though, to be fair, it has no thinner a plot than Commando.)

Chris Bleszinski, one of the brains behind the video game, is optimistic as long as Hollywood takes it seriously. "Disney made a great movie out of a theme park ride, and somebody is sooner or later going to make a great one out of a video game. Having someone like Len really helps the odds. I think we're going to create something special here."

Sadly, Len Wiseman is only marginally more popular with fanboys and girls than Brett Ratner, so his name alone could sink this project when it comes to the geeks. However, he has a knack for over the top action, so perhaps this could be the ideal film for him. Sound off, Gears fans -- do you think this has potential, or is it destined to be another Doom?

Earlier this week, we learned that Jason Voorhees will be wearing both the burlap sack and the iconic hockey mask in the new Friday the 13th remake (or is it technically a remake of the first three movies?). Now, in honor of today being 2008's only Friday the 13th, MTV (one of the new film's co-producers) also shares a report from the set of the movie. They don't have anything as interesting to tell us as IESB.net did with the headgear news, but they do have video coverage, which you can watch above.

Any fan of the franchise should be excited after watching this footage. We get to see a hot young actress (Amanda Righetti) running through the woods, a dilapidated cabin, a sign telling us its Camp Crystal Lake and an overlong view of the hockey mask prop. That's almost all the ingredients needed for a Friday the 13th movie (it sounds so easy to do, right?). Oh, and finally we get to see the actor portraying Jason (Derek Mears) wearing ... a t-shirt and no make-up.

Before we get the sequel to and the potential copiers of Sex and the City, we're in for a summer of comparative marketing. Already we've seen a new trailer for The Women, which arrived well-timed on the heels of the Sex in the City box office reports. Now, thanks to some insightful reporting from the New York Times, we find out that Kit Kittredge: An American Girl is just like Sex and the City, only its for little girls. Like the recent hit movie, Kit Kittredge comes with a built-in audience thanks to the successful American Girl property, which consists of dolls, books and TV movies. Also, yes, it's mainly for females. Oh, and it's a Picturehouse release, meaning its pretty much being released by the same studio (New Line, now a division of Warner Bros.) that brought us Sex and the City.

Interestingly enough, The Women is also Picturehouse, and this summer's other big female-geared movie, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, is Warner Bros. Hopefully another article can point out that the sequel is just like Sex and the City, only for teen girls. Then all we'd need is for Warner Bros. to make my desired big-screen Golden Girls movie (with original cast, of course), because it'd be just like Sex and the City, only for older girls. Unfortunately the series was produced by Disney, who'd likely hold on to the film rights.

Who else is preparing a Friday the 13th marathon this Friday? If you are, you'll be reminded that baddie Jason Vorhees does not wear the iconic hockey mask until Part III. He barely even shows up in the first installment (it's his mom, Pamela Vorhees doing the killings, remember?), and then in the first sequel he's wearing a burlap sack over his head. Finally, in the third film Jason acquires the hockey mask when he kills its original owner. So, here's the question that's been burning inside all horror fans since the announcement of a Friday the 13th reboot: what will Jason be wearing to cover his face? And here's the answer: both sack and mask.

The surprising yet satisfying answer was found out by IESB.net during a visit to the Austin, Texas set of the movie. Producers Brad Fuller and Andrew Form admitted to condensing the events of the first three films so that we can see the moment when Jason puts on the mask for the first time. But apparently there will be an actual switch from sack to mask, which will make the sequence different from the events of Part II and Part III. Another reporter on set referred to this new switch sequence as Jason's "Darth Vader Moment." Also, IESB learned that the switch will be shot twice, once from behind and once from the front, revealing Jason's ugly mug. However, it supposedly has not yet been decided which one (if not both) shots will end up in the final cut.

The remake/reboot of Friday the 13th arrives in theaters on the next Friday the 13th to occur after this week: February 13, 2009.

I was, admittedly, a bit of a latecomer to the Sex and the City craze. For years, I staunchly refused to watch the show, convinced from what I knew of it that it wasn't for me. It struck me as self-absorbed and superficial, episode after episode of successful, independent women who should have been perfectly content with their lives, endlessly bemoaning what they didn't have -- Prince Charming and "happily-ever-after" -- over endless rounds of Cosmos. Who wants to listen to four women talking about nothing but fashion and men? Not me, said I. I didn't even drink Cosmos for the longest time, just because I associated them with the show.

And then, one day a few years ago I was going nuts being confined to bed rest with my last child. I'd watched everything on Court TV and more sappy Lifetime movies than any one person should ever have to stomach, I was desperate for something else to watch to pass the time. And there, right by the DVD player, was my oldest daughter's most prized possession: Season One of Sex and the City. What the hell, it couldn't be any worse than re-watching Tori Spelling in Mother, May I Sleep With Danger, right? I slipped the first disc into the DVD player ... and didn't stop watching until I'd watched every episode of the first season. And then I was hooked on the adventures of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte.

Sometimes I feel like my cultural literacy is shamefully limited. I watch a lot of movies but somehow I rarely watch many television shows. I only have the most basic cable, so I could tell you all about the most fascinating shows on Austin community access but nothing about, say, Sex and the City. I saw the movie Sex and the City without ever having watched an episode, with an unfortunate tendency to refer to it as Sex in the City, and with such an ignorance of pop culture that I kept mixing up Carrie Bradshaw with Carrie Underwood. I brought a friend to the screening who was well acquainted with the TV show, in case I needed help, and whispered things like "Is that the theme song?" and "What's the joke?"

Fortunately, for those of us who are encountering Sex and the City for the first time, the movie's opening sequence provides compressed backstories about the four characters so we don't feel lost and confused. But even if we didn't know who had done what and whom and where, the storyline -- set five years after the TV show's end -- is not difficult to follow.

Moviefone has debuted the trailer for He's Just Not That Into You, due in theatres October 24th (watch it above or over on Moviefone in HD). While it's a charming trailer, I cannot help but feel that every man in the world is actually really into one or more of these actresses (especially Scarlett Johansson) so it automatically loses credibility. Plus, it's a movie based on a dating guide. How will that work out? Happily ever after, I suspect.

The star power in this movie is pretty impressive, though! It was indelibly associated in my mind with Drew Barrymore (who I like; she is impossible not to). I had no idea it boasted the likes of Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Aniston, Ginnifer Goodwin, Ben Affleck, and Justin Long. That speaks well for it, actually, as Connelly especially tends to do the more serious scripts. And I really want to see Affleck make a major comeback, so I hope his mere presence in a romantic comedy doesn't condemn him to Gigli level again. What do you think -- perfect date movie or too reminiscent of real life to be amusing? I think I am in the latter category, myself. The scene with Barrymore at the end of the trailer is like every interaction I have ever had with the opposite sex. Sad, but true.