Vote the Movies

Of all the directors in all of Hollywood, could anyone have predicted that the person who’d end up replacing Gore Verbinski at the wheel of the multi-billion dollar "Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise would be the guy who scored an Oscar nod for “Chicago”? You remember, the 2002 musical about those lovely, murderous ladies? The one staring Richard freaking Gere?

Well, according to a report in Variety, that’s what is gonna happen: Rob Marshall is set to assume directing duties for the fourth "Pirates." Hey, it could be an inspired choice or a demented one—who’s to say at this point? So let’s take a look at some reasons why Marshall’s “Pirates” might rock or why it instead might stink, er, sink.

The Geisha Factor: No one knows in which direction the fourth film will go. But star Johnny Depp has got a nifty idea for his Jack Sparrow character, and it might be a perfect fit for Marshall, whose second film was “Memoirs of a Geisha.”

“It could be anything at this point," Depp said during a recent press roundtable. “Jack Sparrow could be in some kind of geisha clothing.”

Rob, are ya listening?

Sing Us A Song: Every once in a while, Jack or another character, adrift on land or sea, likes to break into song: “Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum” or something a little less of an arrrr-ye-mateys cliché. And—come on—that theme song is all sorts of awesome. So does Marshall's talent for seamlessly integrating music into a film qualify him to handle the franchise? Nope. But it sure doesn’t hurt.

We’ve Been There Before: “Chicago” is based on a musical from the ‘70s. “Geisha” is based on a best-selling 1997 novel by Arthur Golden. Marshall seems to have no problem picking up someone else’s work and, at the very least, not screwing it up. Has he ever stepped into a franchise that has grossed $2.6 billion over three movies? No, but how many folks out there have?

Action? What Action?: This is where we get worried. Can Marshall guide the sword fights, the ship-vs.-ship battles, the explosions—all that freaking action that made the three “Pirate” films so much fun? This will be the big question for franchise fans. The answer won't arrive until the movie does.

Character, Character, Character: Marshall may not have already displayed his Verbinski-esque facility with action, but any director worth his folding chair will tell you that story and action don’t mean a thing if the audience doesn't care about the characters swinging from ropes, dodging fiery cannon balls and otherwise risking life and limb on the high seas. In “Chicago,” Marshall made clear that he can make us worry about and root for murders and an amoral lawyer. A dreadlocked pirate and his adversaries shouldn’t prove too much of a challenge.

What do you think about the directing choice? Is there another director you would like to see take over for Verbinski?

I asked, and you all answered with your clicks. To recap briefly for those who have just returned from Mars: Rachelle Lefevre, who played Victoria in "Twilight" and the upcoming "New Moon," has been replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard for the third (and presumably fourth) film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's four-part vampire romance series. Lefevre was not amused. "Twilight" studio Summit Entertainment was even less amused. Words were exchanged and things got ugly.

That all went down in the space of a day. Not even a full day. Since "Twilight" is all the rage right now, I figured I'd poll you readers to get an idea of how the casting switch changes your interest in the series, if it does at all. The numbers are in now and... well... they surprise me a little bit. Only a little though.

The majority of you (58%) are disappointed with how things have gone down, but remain undeterred in your love for the franchise. You'll continue seeing the movies, through "New Moon" and "Eclipse" to the "Breaking Dawn" finale, and thumbing through the books. Also, shrieking at anyone who will listen how dreamy that RPattz is. 'Natch.

The big surprise is that 20% of you are over it. You'll see "New Moon," but the loss of Lefevre is enough that you have no interest in continuing to support the movie franchise after that. This is doubly surprising since only 14% of you are actually happy with Howard and interested in seeing how she delivers the character.

A mere 5% -- more than I expected, but a small number nonetheless -- are finished here and now, with no plans for even a "New Moon" ticket purchase. And 3% want to know "what a 'Twilight' is," though I think we can chalk that up to there being a couple of jokers out there in the peanut gallery.

FROM MTV.COM: Judd Apatow's "Funny People" stars some of the most established names in comedy — Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill — and features cameos from heavyweights like Ray Romano, Sarah Silverman and Paul Reiser.

But heading into Friday's opening, the actor everyone seems to be talking about is Aziz Ansari, who has created an unforgettable character named Randy — or "Raaaaaaaandy!," as he likes to scream — a foul-mouthed sexual braggart and stand-up comedian who shows up in a couple scenes and ends up stealing every one. Ansari's moment, it seems, has finally arrived. With the April premiere of NBC's "Parks and Recreation," in which he plays a government employee heavy on the irony and lacking in motivation, and now "Funny People," Ansari is looking to be one of 2009's breakout stars.

Continue reading Aziz Ansari's Randy Set To Be Breakout Star Of 'Funny People'

"Gremlins" fans beware: everybody's favorite mogwai could be getting the Yoda treatment.

In an interview with Empire Online, original "Gremlins" director Joe Dante said that he's heard scuttlebutt of a third installment in the franchise, packed to the gills with CGI effects. According to Dante, the film would likely be less of a sequel and more of a -- surprise! -- remake.

"I hear they're going to make another one soon," Dante told Empire. "The actors from the first two are too old to do a proper sequel, so I'm sure when the new one arrives it will be a remake of the original."

"Gremlins" creator Chris Columbus weighed in on the subject himself, expressing his disinterest in another outing with Gizmo and the gang.

"I haven't heard about it," he said. "If they do monsters with CGI, I don't know if it would be the same. They should go back and do it with puppets again, though at this point I wouldn't be interested in being involved."

Look, we all saw the new "Star Wars" trilogy. Defend those movies all you want -- I certainly don't think they're all that terrible -- but are you really going to argue that the CGI-rendered Yoda is better than the Frank Oz-manipulated puppet? I don't need to hear anything further about "Gremlins 3" to know that Gizmo, Spike and the other Gremlins getting CGI-ified is a bad call. The puppets gave them their charm, folks!

While we're on the topic, why does "Gremlins" need a remake? Exploring the "Gremlins" world with Billy and Kate as full-fledged adults, coupled with an aging Gizmo, would be completely awesome! Imagine Gizmo as a Clint Eastwood-inspired grizzly mogwai, thoroughly battle-hardened by years of Gremlin conflicts, as he returns for one last war against the slimy creatures. That movie sounds like a winner to me, and hey, it worked for Indiana Jones.

Of course, there's also option B: stay away from "Gremlins" altogether and leave it as the pure, untarnished holiday gem it was always meant to be. Seriously, Hollywood... "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" wasn't bad enough? (Editor's note: The MTV Movies Blog editorial staff in no way supports with Mr. Wigler's statements on "Gremlins 2," which was in fact perfection defined.)

Should a new "Gremlins" feature CGI creatures or stick with the puppets? Would you prefer a sequel, a remake or nothing at all? Steer clear of the bright lights and let us know in the comments!

FROM MTV.COM: A movie about a priest who's transformed into a vampire might inspire some deep noodling about Catholic liturgy, no doubt. And that could be what Park Chan-wook, the waywardly brilliant South Korean director (and onetime philosophy student), had in mind in making his latest film, "Thirst." But just when we've set our brains on ponder, the picture muddies all hope of contemplation with flashes of the fearlessly eccentric imagery for which Park has become famous, and some of the slurpiest sex scenes to be found in any recent R-rated movie.

Park's narratives are ... challenging, you might say. Here, the virtuous priest, Sang-hyun (played by frequent Park associate Song Kang-ho), after volunteering to be a test subject in the search for a cure for a mysterious disease, finds himself developing a taste for blood. At first, being a gentle soul, or possibly just lazy, he siphons it out of comatose patients at the hospital where he ministers. Then he becomes involved with Tae-ju (irresistibly ornery Kim Ok-vin), the unhappy wife of his childhood friend Kang-woo (Shin Ha-kyun, another Park vet). Tae-ju eventually learns the priest's secret and is intrigued ("Vampires are cuter than I thought"). Soon he puts the bite on her — but quickly regrets it. Tae-ju has none of Sang-hyun's spiritual conflicts about bloodsuckery (she's not Catholic!), and before long she's mocking his nonviolent approach to slaking the ancient thirst. ("You easy-blood-drinking coward!") An instinctive traditionalist, she eagerly embarks on a round of throat-ripping depredations among the local populace, resulting in the sort of problems that a hundred years of vampire movies might lead you to expect.

Continue reading 'Thirst': Drinking Problem, By Kurt Loder

The majority of you -- 60% -- will forego the week's latest movie releases in favor of witnessing the IMAX Experience for the summer hit "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'm not expecting to see another record-breaking weekend along the lines of what happened when "Prince" opened a couple of weeks ago however. Mainly because there's some stiff competition this week.

The other favorite is Judd Apatow's "Funny People," which earned 21% of your votes. The story of a dying comedian and his young protege has garnered some mixed reactions. Apatow rarely disappoints when he brings the funny, but "People" supposedly has a more serious bent. We'll get to see starting today if it measures up to the filmmaker's previous hits "Anchorman" and "Knocked Up." Personally, I'm expecting good things.

The numbers trail off considerably after that. "Aliens in the Attic," any one of the week's limited releases and TV watching at home all earned 5% of your vote. Grimy horror flick "The Collector" picked up only 3%; maybe your tune will change after you see this clip that we have.

As always, we want to hear what you think. Hop in front of a webcam after your weekend movie date and record a quick video review. Then upload it at Your MTV; make sure to tag it with "Box Office Poll review [insert movie title here]." I'll mine out a few and share them here on the blog.