The Weinstein Co. »

If you were one of the people who thought that another Scream movie was a bad idea (and who could blame you after the train wreck that was Scream 3), there might be a ray of hope...but I have to stress might. Over at Cinema Blend, their 'reliable source' is telling them that the man himself, Wes Craven, will return to direct the latest installment in the horror franchise.

It had been reported that Craven would be involved in some capacity with the film back when the project was first green lit, but you have to wonder what might have convinced him to get behind the camera. Maybe it was all down to nostalgia and he wanted to get together with the old gang, or maybe it was Kevin Williamson's spec script. One thing is for sure, the big empty spot in his schedule since finishing 25/8 probably wouldn't hurt either. (By the way, 25/8 was just re-named My Soul to Take.)

Back in July, there were hints that the film was going to be a complete reboot, but once we found out that Neve Campbell and the Arquette-Coxes would be returning, a straight remake seemed unlikely. So this all sounds like any Scream fan's dream come true, right? You've got the original director, screenwriter, and cast all involved. Well, not so fast, because according to Cinema Blend's sources (and Erik's prediction), the original cast will only be appearing in cameos, and that they will be handing the reigns over to a new group of teens/cannon fodder -- and by handing over the reigns, I mean horribly murdered before the opening credits have rolled.

Do you think there's hope for Scream IV if Craven does direct, and would you be disappointed if the original cast didn't stick around? Sound off in the comments...

Are you one of the remaining fans who contributed to the $90-million haul Scary Movie 4 brought in at the box office? If so, I hope that series star Anna Faris wasn't what drew you to the horror-spoof shenanigans, because common sense says that she's likely not sticking around for the newly announced Scary Movie 5. Cinema Blend has it on good authority that the Weinstein Company is gearing up for a fifth trip to the comedy well. Only this time around the objective appears to be orbiting Hollywood's favorite new buzzword: reboot.

Now rebooting a franchise that, by design, is a free-flow of unconnected, topical plot points from entry-to-entry means that the studio plans on getting rid of the one thing that unites all of the films together: Anna Faris as the delightfully vacant Cindy and Regina Hall as Cindy's amusingly verbose best friend Brenda. Personally I think that's a terrible idea, as Faris and Hall play so well off each other that they are, by far, the only good thing remaining about the series. But if the agenda is to reboot the franchise, then that means they've got to go.

From the business side of things it does make sense. More recognizable than Anna Faris is the Scary Movie brand name, so Joe and Jane Moviegoer are not going to be up in arms at the thought of a Cindy-less romp around familiar gags involving various bodily functions and people hitting their head on things over and over and over. All most will care about is seeing a new Scary Movie popping up in their local theater listings for the weekend, so the Weinsteins are fiscally wise to cut out the one element of the film that's going to have a fixed price tag upfront. Considering Scary Movie 5 is bound to make similar returns with another cute final gal in its lead, the currently hurting studio doesn't have much incentive to keep her around.

Only a few days after Bob Weinstein announced a whole slew of upcoming projects based on existing franchises (including a new Scream trilogy, Spy Kids IV 3D, Halloween 3D, Scanners and Hellraiser), there's now talk that Summit Entertainment (aka Home of the Twilight Saga) may be interested in acquiring either The Weinstein Co. or MGM (both of which are currently trying to dodge buckets full of money woes). Not only that, but Deadline Hollywood also reports that the Weinstein boys have decided to shelve Halloween 3D for now since they felt the production schedule (one that had them shooting in November for an August release) was too rushed, though perhaps these talks of a merger also played a part in that decision. DH claims, however, that Weinstein plans to start Halloween 3D once director Patrick Lussier is free to shoot it (he's working on another film in January, so chances are H3D won't start until sometime in the middle of next year if it happens at all).

Instead of Halloween 3D, though, The Weinstein Co. will be re-releasing Halloween 2 on Halloween -- a move that's left most fans scratching their heads, wondering why they never released a film called Halloween on Halloween to begin with. Part of that reasoning was due to not wanting to compete with the Saw franchise, and when the first Halloween killed (no pun intended) at the box office in August, it was pretty obvious the Weinstein boys would once again try their luck then instead of at the end of October. I'd be curious to see if the re-release decision pays off, and kids looking for a theme and some uneven scares will crowd the multiplex instead of spray shaving cream all over their neighbor's brand new Mercedes. What do you think?

Meanwhile, we'll be keeping a real close eye on this Summit thing ...

In what could be read as a big "nyah, told you so" press release, The Weinstein Company would like you all to know that Inglourious Basterds has not only grossed over $108M* in North America but has now out-earned Pulp Fiction, which was previously Tarantino's biggest money-maker to date.

But what's strange is that TWC is giving some of the credit to "an innovative marketing plan. The film was the first to make use of Twitter and other social networking sites in such a direct fashion, even involving Twitter in the film's LA premiere," according to the press release.

Harvey Weinstein is even quoted as saying, "It was great working with Biz Stone at Twitter on Inglourious. It took the campaign to another level."

Okay, what have I missed? How was the Inglourious campaign different from any other of the studios' use of Twitter or Facebook to promote movies through links, contests, and meet-ups? I don't even recall seeing anything on Twitter about it, other than the normal studios using Twitter to cross-pollinate coverage.

As with most of the popular-book-to-film adaptations, you can look at Youth in Revolt a couple of different ways: From the point of view of someone who has read the source material, and (of course) from the point of view of someone who hasn't. C.D Payne's epic, 499-page novel is to teenage angst what the bible is to Christianity -- and it's always sort of reminded me of what a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye might look like if it was set in modern-day (if somewhat outdated) Oakland -- and featured a 14-year-old Frank Sinatra fanatic who would literally destroy an entire city if it meant winning over the girl of his dreams.

The problem with Youth in Revolt (the book) is that it's practically impossible to smash 499 pages of dark comedic brilliance into an hour and a half on the big screen, and, as such, Youth in Revolt (the film) definitely ends up feeling disjointed and forced in some areas -- but thanks to a wickedly hilarious performance from Michael Cera (easily the best of his career), this brainy teenage sex comedy does manage to dole out a handful of great scenes, making it worthy of your hard-earned box office dollars ... but only if you promise to read the book afterwards.

The Weinstein Company's financial struggles have been pretty well publicized lately, and if you were Bob and Harvey, you'd probably look to those Shakespeare in Love Oscars, and then hunt down some sold historical stories from Great Britain. So they have gone and aquired themselves The King's Speech, a biopic about King George VI that will be directed by Tom Hooper. It will star that god of British cinema known as Colin Firth as King George VI and always wonderful Geoffrey Rush his speech therapist Lionel Logue.

Actually, the story of George VI is a pretty remarkable one. Known affectionately as Bertie thanks to being born Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, he was the second son of George V, and not expected to assume the throne. He was plagued by ill-health, a rough Victorian upbringing, and developed a horrible stammer that made him reluctant to speak in public. He seemed destined for a life out of the spotlight, but then his golden brother Edward decided to abdicate, marry Wallis Simpson, and sympathize with Nazis. Poor Bertie was thrust onto the throne, and by his own admission, the news made him break down and sob like a child. Add in that Britain was on the verge of war with Germany, and you have to utterly sympathize with Bertie, and admire him for not just jumping out of a window.

The King's Speech will focus on George's famous speech problems (a big part of why he was sobbing at the news), and how the king sought help from Logue. He overcame his stammer, gained confidence, and became the leader England desperately needed during WWII. It's easy to sneer at as an Oscar-bait picture, but it is a good story, and has a solid cast and crew behind it. Maybe it'll prove inspirational to the Weinsteins too, and pull them out of their rut.

Upon recently re-viewing Rob Zombie's 2007 take on the classic Halloween, I felt a little bit less harsh about it. Don't get me wrong: it's still mighty tedious and nowhere near scary, but at least I got the impression this time around that the rocker-turned-auteur was trying to fashion more of a character study around boogeyman Michael Myers -- who he was, why he was -- and while diluting the mystique of our killer effectively diluted the suspense, the film still delivered on the basest level of having someone get visibly, viscerally dispatched every so often. If all you had to ask of that film was a body count, Halloween slowly but surely delivered.

But while people do die in Zombie's Halloween II, that's just not enough to make up for all that pesky in-between.

With Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of Halloween, we found out that Michael Myers was not so much evil incarnate as he was an ill-tempered white-trash nut-job (yes, there is a difference). So, with tomorrow's release of his sequel to the remake -- Halloween II, not to be confused with Halloween II -- we take a stab (har) at predicting what little-known characteristics about the boogeyman will be revealed this time around.

1. He also has a brother -- In one of those convenient we-forgot-to-tell-anyone-before tangents, someone breathlessly reveals that Laurie Strode was actually a Siamese twin, and that her brother was separated and sent elsewhere. Laurie finds out when he friends her on Facebook, and their tearful reunion is marred only by the fact that their big brother shows up and proceeds to skewer poor Maury Strode on a nearby curtain rod.

2. He has serious allergies -- We see Michael trying to sneak up on Laurie the following Easter, only to repeatedly give himself away with a series of sneezes or trail of tissues. It's this dilemma that keeps him to his autumnal killing spree, not the eponymous holiday itself.

Starting with a gobsmacked VHS screening of Reservoir Dogs way back in '92, I've seen every Quentin Tarantino movie dozens upon dozens of times, but Inglourious Basterds is the first I will have seen only once before writing about it. Like the absolute best entries cinema history has to offer, his work demands repeat viewing, as much to catch all the in-jokes, references and homages as to see their cumulative, strikingly original impact. All of which is why I can only try to sufficiently deconstruct, classify and characterize Tarantino's latest, a wartime opus whose shortcomings upon first viewing are as immediately recognizable as the fact they will after many more of them prove to be virtues, ultimately creating a singular tribute to WWII movies done in the writer-director's signature, genre-bending style.

While the star of the film is really the story, there are three characters who cement together Inglourious Basterds' unwieldy but surprisingly even-weighted chapters. First, there's Colonel Landa (Christoph Waltz), a Nazi officer who earned the nickname "the Jew hunter" thanks to his indefatigable, shoe-leather-and-shark's-grin persistence. Next, there's Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), one of Landa's few targets who escaped, who lives under an assumed name and manages a French cinema. And then there's Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), an American soldier who recruits a rabid team of Jews to hunt down Nazis and strike fear with their exploits.

If I know Cinematical readers, I know you'd like an early taste of Inglourious Basterds, even if you had to read it and are you in luck today! Quentin Tarantino handed Playboy Magazine a Nazi killing scene, and the picture-friendly magazine handed it to R.M. Guera. The result is six pages, and only six, of a Basterds graphic novel. Unfortunately, the flash player Playboy housed it in is really clunky, and would be impossible to navigate beyond six pages.

To those of you who read the script, this won't be anything new. If you're like me and know nothing of the film beyond trailers, tv spots, and the joyful whoops of your friends on Twitter, then this will be fresh and unusual. It will also be a little nightmarish because dang, could Guera have made Eli Roth and Brad Pitt any more scary looking?

If you want to see the film unspoiled, avoid it, but if you want to see just where that scene of Roth, his baseball hat, and a Nazi's skull originates and leads to, read on. It's fun stuff, and makes me wish Tarantino would borrow a page from Joss Whedon, and do a few comic books that run with all his intertwined characters and Red Apple cigarettes. While I certainly don't want an origin story for Stuntman Mike or Bill, we might finally get all those side stories or leaps into the future he constantly teases us about.

[via The Beat]