At some point this past summer, between all but consecutive viewings of The Dark Knight, I slipped into a screening of Step Brothers with the same tempered expectations with which I had greeted Blades of Glory and Semi-Pro -- and found myself equally surprised in the coming days and weeks and months by just how admittedly tickled I was by any of them (quoting lines was moderate on all counts). Mind you, I'm saying this as the guy who chuckled during Anchorman, sure, but not really enough to keep it on my shelf or call myself thankful for it.

That's nothing against our Eric D. Snider, and nothing against the star of each film mentioned, Will Ferrell (yes, he was actually Batman). In fact, with Step Brothers hitting shelves today (with reports of a wholly sung commentary track), it only seemed fitting that we go over his most amusing roles as overgrown man-children (Ferrell's, not Snider's). Because they're there, and they always will be, and the sooner that I admit to being vulnerable to his shtick, a better world this very well may be.

Naturally, today's release of Saw V (read our review) brings with it numerous trailers for early '09 horror offerings. Earlier this week, we received the first trailer for that Friday the 13th remake (which you can see here), and now we have two others.

First up is My Bloody Valentine 3D, the crotch-targeting poster for which Scott made mention of earlier today. Lionsgate is going to have trouble actually marketing this in 3-D, as family-friendly fare continues to dominate that format; thus, we have this somewhat hokey green-band number courtesy of IGN. (For what it's worth, several little birdies who had the good fortune to see some footage recently -- in all its R-rated, three-dimensional glory -- were seriously impressed. Nothing sells quite the same as airborne eyeballs...)

Finally, there's Underworld: Rise of the Lycans: third in the franchise to date, but first in our hearts terms of story continuity. Since Rhona Mitra came to so very much resemble Kate Beckinsale in last spring's Doomsday, it only makes sense that she formally take up the mantle in the war between werewolves and vampires. Be sure to check out this recently released trailer if you also want to see what it looks like when Michael Sheen isn't feuding with the werewolf-like Nixon.

Middle Earth fanatics have long debated what the heck this whole "second Hobbit movie" would entail. Arguably, there's enough material for a prequel, with Gandalf leading battles into Mirkwood to fight Sauron, who was slowly rebuilding his dark kingdom. But recent news has suggested it is more of a Hobbit sequel, where Tolkien's material is scarcer.

Well, MTV News caught up with director Guillermo del Toro, who attempted to shed a little light on the topic. "The reality is that we stopped talking the first movie and second movie, and we just started taking about the movie - the two episodes, or two parts, as if they were a single piece of narrative. We don't even call it the bridge movie, we just call it 'The Movie.' And this is great. When we found what reverberated, and we found it in one of our virtual meetings -- we understood. It's a movie. We all agree that if we do our job right, it should all feel like a continuous journey. That's what we're striving for."

Is that any clearer? No, I didn't think so. But actually, del Toro dropped one hint, one riddle in the dark that might just solve everything -- he let slip where the first movie would end. "We are finding out. I think Smaug dies in the first movie. So draw your own conclusions."

And my conclusion would be that with Smaug's death concluding the first movie, the second would deal with the Battle of the Five Armies, where everyone from elves to the men of Esgaroth have an eye on claiming Smaug's gold. It's pretty epic and vicious, and could easily take up an entire movie. In fact, I'm not sure how they could get all of that into one Hobbit film. I think this is going to turn out to be a sensible move that does the book justice -- not the cash grab we all took it for.

There's no question Appaloosa is a Western. It's set in 1882 in the New Mexico Territory, it has tin-star-wearing city marshals getting into gunfights with ornery cusses, it includes some scenes involving problems with Indians -- the whole nine yards. But underneath all that, it's really just a buddy movie, a rough-and-tumble, no-girls-allowed, steak-and-potatoes romp that happens to be set in the Old West. It's as much Don Quixote and Sancho Panza as it is Butch and Sundance.

The buddies are Virgil Cole (Ed Harris, who also directed) and his sidekick, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen), an inseparable pair of freelance peacekeepers and expert gunmen. At the film's outset, they are hired by the dusty frontier town of the title to protect it from Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons), a devious rancher whose band of ne'er-do-wells occasionally murders local citizens, including the previous city marshal. With Cole as the new marshal and Hitch as his deputy, the two set about enforcing law and order.

One of the town's new ordinances, under Cole's direction, is that you can't bring guns inside the city boundaries. He informs a couple of Bragg's men of this when they show up at the saloon one day.

"That's the law," Cole says.

"Your law," replies one of the men, scoffing.

"Same thing," Cole says. OH SNAP!

I feel like Drew Barrymore is trying to tell us girls something with her latest movie roles. This fall, she tells us He's Just Not That Into You, and now according to The Hollywood Reporter, she's telling us How to Be Single. She's been rather unlucky in romance, so maybe this is her form of therapy.

New Line bought the rights to Liz Tuccillo's summer bestseller for Barrymore and Nancy Juvonen's Flower Films to produce, with the entire Into You gang coming on board. Marc Silverstein and Abby Kohn will write the screenplay. There's no word on director, or whether Barrymore will star, but she generally does headline her Flower Films.

Both Into You and Single are the products of Liz Tuccillo's pen, former Sex and the City writer, and New Line hopes that a trifecta of might-as-well-be-spinoffs keep female moviegoers buying tickets.
And it will probably work because How to Be Single, not surprisingly, sounds like a variation on Sex. It's the story of five single New York women, one of whom decides to travel the world to see how international women manage to fly solo. Naturally, while listening to global stories of romances successful and disastrous, she finds herself enjoying a foreign love affair. Naturally, her friends back home get their turn to, and become embroiled in all kinds of romantic mishaps. They probably all end up with versions of Mr. Big.

I'm curious about what the message of the book is. Is it how to maintain your single state? How to be fulfilled in it? How to overcome it? I find singledom to be riveting! Staying up all night, spending your weekends reading graphic novels and historical novels, no one to notice if you've combed your hair. Yikes, maybe I do need this book. Help me, Drew Barrymore! You're my only hope.

Feel that chill in the air? That's because you left the kitchen window open -- go on, I'll wait -- but that secondary chill you're feeling would be the multiplex yuletide season turning in our direction, ready and waiting to melt the bleep out of your heart. Last year, it was This Christmas and The Perfect Holiday begging to be mistaken for one another (in title, not in quality).

This year we've got at least two winter-themed family-minded dramedies waiting in the wings. First out the gate is Nothing Like The Holidays (the trailer's now up at Apple), in which a Hispanic-American family gathers for what might be their last Christmas spent together. Sooooo ... it's basically This Christmas, with the casting emphasis on a different minority. However, for all that film's familiar beats, I found myself surprisingly won over, so here's to hoping that something similar might come of Holidays on November 21st.

In the other corner, we have Four Christmases, in which Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon find themselves shuffling off to visit each of their parents on X-Mas Day. If this (embed-less) TV spot on YouTube is any indication, Vaughn's creaky neurotic shtick and infant spewage will be par for the course, not to mention the last thing I might expect to come from the non-doco directorial debut of Seth Gordon (The King of Kong). As the Hollywood gods have decreed it, Christmases is set to open just before Thanksgiving on November 26th. Ah, the smell of leftovers...

I am getting a terrible sense of deja vu -- I skimmed this Variety article very quickly, thinking as I read "Oh, I remember reading the reviews of this book, and I always meant to pick it up." But then I saw the word "preemptively" and realized it hadn't been published yet. So either there's a novel out there that's eerily similar, or I'm no longer existing in space or time, like a red-haired and clothed Dr. Manhattan. What if I came up with the story first and never wrote it down?

Anyway, according to the aforementioned article, producer Michael De Luca has snapped up the rights to Richard Doetsch's not-yet-published novel, The Thirteenth Hour. It hasn't even been taken to publishers yet, but De Luca's got it, and is taking it to his old New Line stomping grounds. It's described as a cross between The Bourne Identity and The Time Traveler's Wife, following a man who is accused of brutally murdering his wife. He's given a chance to save her by going back in time, but only in one hour increments, where he must put together clues leading to who killed her, and why. "It has a great cinematic structure that unfolds in reverse," says De Luca. So far, no director or starting date has been attached to the project.

Maybe my memory is ringing because of its faint resemblance to Memento or Deja Vu? It sounds like a combination of those two more than anything else. I'm always up for a time traveling story that isn't by Michael Crichton, though, and I'll be happy with a sci-fi version of The Fugitive. And just think of how many actors out there who are dying to do a Harrison Ford impression!

As the director, co-screenwriter and star of Appaloosa, Ed Harris follows up his Oscar-nominated work as an actor-director in 2000's Pollock with an adaptation of Robert B. Parker's novel, revolving around two old friends and partners (Harris and Viggo Mortensen) in 1882 New Mexico trying to enforce the rule of law in a town threatened by a corrupt power-broker (Jeremy Irons). Harris spoke with Cinematical in Toronto about working on Appaloosa, adapting Parker's novel, co-starring opposite Mortensen and how hard it was to find financing for a traditional Western like Appaloosa: "Pretty hard. I mean, it was very interesting; people really responded to the script, and if the budget for it had been half of what it was, we probably could have got it made pretty easily. ... But we needed the budget to serve the production values; it called for that. I didn't want to make a little intimate art-house film. I wanted to make something that respected the space that it took place in ... it deserves it; it calls for it; so, it was pretty tough; it was a real battle."

Cinematical's podcast content is now available through iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

On the heels of some high-profile NYFF announcements, the Toronto International Film Festival has unveiled its fair share of titles scheduled to premiere there next month. According to Variety, the list includes:

• The North American premieres of Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut, Synecdoche, New York (pictured), which has been picked up for distribution by Sony Pictures Classics since we last heard of (still) possible trims, and Steven Soderbergh's epic Che, which remains without a distributor -- James Rocchi reviewed both films at Cannes.
  
• The world premieres of Rian Johnson's Brick follow-up, The Brothers Bloom, which looks to be a special sort of con movie, and Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno, which looks to be a special sort of, well, romantic comedy.
  
• The North American premieres of Darren Aronofsky's sports drama The Wrestler and Gavin O'Connor's oft-delayed cop drama Pride and Glory .
  
• The world premieres of Genova, Slumdog Millionaire and Me and Orson Welles, the latest from the ever-unpredictable likes of Michael Winterbottom, Danny Boyle and Richard Linklater, respectively.

Cinematical will bring you early reviews on as many of these as we can, so stay tuned. TIFF runs from September 4th through the 13th.

After making a fair impression in 2004 with Mean Girls and The Notebook, and then pulling a hat trick the following year with Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, and The Family Stone, it seemed to me that Canadian cutie Rachel McAdams was primed to take off in the years to come... and yet, here we are in 2008, with her one release since having been in the not-bad period drama Married Life (which grossed a not-great $1.5 million this past spring).

However, it looks her profile is about to rise yet again, between the star-studded drama State of Play next year and two other releases this fall: the long-awaited adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife and, before that, the Iraq War drama The Lucky Ones, in which she, Tim Robbins, and Michael Peña all play returning vets who bond on an impromptu road trip to Vegas.

Judging from the trailer, it really seems to be a change of pace for director/co-writer Neil Burger, as he follows up the modest success of The Illusionist. Do I honestly believe that some bar skank would pull such open mockery if she wasn't scripted to? Not at all, but do I believe that McAdams' character would react as she does? Absolutely.

Regardless, it's just nice to see a genuine talent working her way back into the limelight. Who knows, maybe audiences can convince her to stay there.

I don't necessarily have a soft spot for westerns -- although 3:10 to Yuma, Seraphim Falls, and The Proposition certainly didn't hurt that cause -- but because we as moviegoers aren't exactly inundated with them, it always feels like they tend to have more effort and care put into them than most other genre fare.

Judging from the MSN exclusive trailer for the upcoming Appaloosa, this looks to follow suit as Ed Harris (who also directed and co-wrote the film) and Viggo Mortensen (for whom Harris played an adversary in A History of Violence) deal with lawlessness in a small town out west, while the widowed Renée Zellweger surely tempts them both.

Toss in a supporting cast that includes Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen (that reminds me, The Quick and the Dead merits mention as well), and the benefit of my doubt at least has been earned. Appaloosa is scheduled to play Toronto in September, followed by an October 3rd release.

Frankly, the news that a screenwriter had been hired to pen the latest installment in a horror franchise would not normally merit much attention.(Other than from the writer's agent and immediate family.) But when we're talking Wesley Strick and A Nightmare on Elm Street, my curiosity soared.

New Line Cinema has hired Strick to create their new version of Nightmare, according to The Hollywood Reporter. One of his first credits was as co-writer of Arachnophobia, Frank Marshall's clever creature feature, followed by Martin Scorsese's heavy-handed remake of Cape Fear, and later Mike Nichols' post-modern Wolf. His other credits include Final Analysis, The Saint, The Glass House and Doom.

While it's always tricky to assign credit or blame based solely on screen credits, I think it's safe to say that Strick has a distinct track record: complex psychological tension, sarcastic humor, and mucho macho boom boom (to coin a phrase for his uber-male characters). I'm not saying that all of these elements succeed in every movie he's had a hand in writing, but I am hopeful that Strick can come up with a fresh twist on Freddy Krueger.

The new Nightmare will retain the high school setting and "delve deeper in the psychology of nightmares and Krueger himself. The plan is to have a dark tone." If the plan is also to forget about a PG-13 rating, so much the better. New Line aims to release the film in time for the 25th anniversary of the original -- which would be November 2009.

"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.