The basic plot of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window -- man believes he witnessed a murder, has to prove it really happened -- has been reused for so many films and TV shows that it's not that surprising when another homage or ripoff comes around. Yet last year's Disturbia, starring Shia LaBeouf as a guy under house arrest who thinks his neighbor is a serial killer, bore close enough resemblance to be labeled an update on Hitchcock's film. And now, not surprisingly, Dreamworks, its parent company Viacom and Universal Pictures, are being sued for creating an unauthorized remake.*

The defendant in the case is not exactly related to Hitchcock's film, though; the lawsuit was filed by Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust, which owns the rights to Cornell Woolrich's original short story "It Had to Be Murder" (called "Murder from a Fixed Viewpoint" in the article), upon which Rear Window is based. Film business followers may remember the name Sheldon Abend from the important Supreme Court copyright case of 1990, Stewart v. Abend, in which Abend sued James Stewart and the production company Patron Inc. after Rear Window was aired on television.

If you've seen both Disturbia and Rear Window do you think the case is valid? Is Disturbia really that much more of a ripoff than Manhattan Murder Mystery, Head Over Heels and most of Brian DePalma's early career? Even Antonioni's Blow Up and Coppola's The Conversation are fairly similar in concept. Obviously some works, such as the Simpsons episode in which Bart thinks Flanders murdered his wife, are okay because they fall under the permissions of parody.

*Note: We accidentally listed Steven Spielberg as an executive producer on Disturbia, though he was not. That information has been removed from the post. [ed]

Maybe you've seen them, maybe you haven't, but French thrillers are making a comeback in North America. That's good news for people uninterested in art houses solely for the sake of watching foreign films: You don't have to be a Francophile to appreciate smart, meticulously generated suspense, and that's exactly the appeal of several French movies hitting American theaters this year. A steady mixture of warm reviews and positive word-of-mouth appears to have helped Guillame Canet's breathlessly entertaining drama Tell No One land an impressive $240,858 at 18 locations. Earlier this year, veteran auteur Claude Lelouch, long known for his cinematic explorations of eroticism and lawbreaking, remained thematically consistent with a delightfully complex story of double-crossing novelists and dysfunctional families called Roman de Gare. The movie made over $25,000 on two New York screens when it opened in late April, and eventually pulled in more than $1.5 million after expanding to theaters around the country. It's not hard to argue that Tell No One and Roman de Gare put most recent American thrillers to shame. North America, once the haven of film noir, appears to be outsourcing.

As journalist Erica Abeel recently observed in an interview with Canet, "French filmmakers are currently making the best old-style Hollywood thrillers." It's not the first time for a country that has a long history of borrowing from American cinema, and often improving on it. At the beginning of the French New Wave in the early 1960s, former Cahiers du Cinema critics like Jean Luc-Godard discovered Hollywood genre films and decided to make their own loopy versions. The results were often strangely philosophical and experiment works, ranging from Godard's Breathless to François Truffaut's ambitious Shoot the Piano Player.

I've lost count of how many times these movies have been released on DVD, but (wow) I don't own any of 'em yet, so here's a perfect excuse. DVDActive has the (very thorough) information on Universal's upcoming "Legacy Series" editions of (ready?) Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window, Vertigo, and Psycho! Each package is a two-disc affair, complete with all sorts of goodies both old and new. (Yes, I love film historian audio commentaries. Sue me.)

Street date for all three releases is October 7, and if you'd like a complete listing of what each disc offers you can click one of these: Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho. Also from Universal Home Video on October 7 ... it isn't Hitchcock, but it sure is awesome: Orson Welles' 1958 mega-classic Touch of Evil, which is a whole lot more than one impressive tracking shot, believe me. Like the Hitch titles, Touch will come complete with all sorts of new bells and whistles. Plus all four of the DVD covers are all sorts of retro-cool. Can't wait to dig through these discs.

Even the weirder artists of the twentieth century have been attracted to the allure of Hollywood filmmaking, and Salvador Dali was no exception. In the fall of 1941, the surrealist painter hosted a masquerade party at Pebble Beach during one of his regular visits to the town. Called "Surrealism Night in An Enchanted Forest," the fundraising event, intended to assist European refugee artists, brought out a number of stars, including Bob Hope and Ginger Rogers. It was here, the story goes, that Dali became attached to a major studio production called Moontide. The great German emigre Fritz Lang was hired to direct the movie, and asked Dali to create a three-minute nightmare sequence for the film. Unfortunately, after the incident at Pearl Harbor later that year, Twentieth Century Fox deemed the project too bleak. Lang was replaced, and Dali's nightmare sequence went with him.

Although inspired by the movies, Dali didn't always have the easiest time making them. He would get another chance to inject his hallucinatory vision into American cinema with the hypnosis scene in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, but it's his unrealized projects that truly indicate the scope of the painter's ambition. So many ideas, such little time. Dali: Painting and Film, a breathtakingly unique exhibit currently on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, surveys Dali's completed cinematic works in addition to tidbits from the ones that never came to fruition. Marvelously structured to show how his paintings were intentionally cinematic, the exhibit contains all the obvious highlights from Dali's movie career alongside lesser-known productions. The importance in film history of his collaborations with Luis Bunuel remain uncontested; two large screens in separate rooms showing Un Chien Andalou (where the opening eye splicing retains its original gross-out impact) and L'Age D'Or attest to that. Fewer visitors, however, might know about Dali's collaboration with the Marx Brothers on a deliriously strange movie that sounded too good to be true.

A lot of people think that the American Film Institute should shut up already with the lists, and they have a point: an ordered list of the "100 greatest" anything is bound to be so subjective as not to be worth much, especially when it's not clear why the people compiling the list should be seen as authorities. (The AFI's lists are compiled by "juries" of several hundred filmmakers, critics and historians.) But the lists (and accompanying TV specials) keep coming. The latest is the ungrammatical "AFI's 10 Top 10," a list of the 100 greatest American genre films organized by genre: animation, romantic comedy, western, sports (not really a genre, especially if you include Raging Bull in it, but whatever), mystery, fantasy, science-fiction, gangster, courtroom drama, and epic. The complete selections can be found here.

The lists are sometimes obvious (Alfred Hitchcock makes a 4 for 10 showing in "mystery," and if you can't guess their top three picks for "gangster" in order, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog), sometimes admirable (kudos for Terminator 2: Judgment Day in "sci-fi"), sometimes irritating (The Wizard of Oz as the greatest fantasy film of all time is rubbish), but the more relevant question is: what are they worth? The original "top 100" was a good conversation piece and a useful checklist. What are the rest of them supposed to be good for?

Also: they include "sports" as genre, but not horror. Screw you, AFI.

The double-role has been a favorite for movie audiences for a long time. Actors as different as Lon Chaney and Ronald Colman have indulged in the two-actors-for-the-price-of-one roles. In The Dark Knight, Aaron Eckhart will get to do a two-fer, playing a character who didn't get nearly enough to do in that Joel Schumacher fiasco. (Though I did very much enjoy the bifurcated Tommy Lee Jones' use of the pluralis majestatis, the royal "we.") Few double-roles, however, are as roundly a good time as Brian De Palma's Raising Cain, a reviled but rich melodrama derived in equal parts from Psycho and the equally scandalous Peeping Tom. Preposterous, invigoratingly silly, and done to a technical turn by Hitchcock's most devoted fan, this forgotten thriller gives John Lithgow -- kindly actor and easy-going TV star of Third Rock from the Sun --a chance to show his hulking, evil side.

I

I'm all for actors who try and break out of a preconceived idea about themselves, but sometimes I think there are those who take it all just a little too seriously. Enter Josh Hartnett. In an interview with VH1, Hartnett spoke up his next film Bunraku. The name comes from a traditional form of Japanese puppet theater, and Hartnett told VH1 that the film, "It's a story of revenge...My character is called 'The Drifter,' and he comes into this world that doesn't look like anything like you've ever seen before. It's in the vein of 'Sin City' or something like that, where the world doesn't look like reality at all." So I guess that is where the paper mâché puppets would come in. Luckily this is not a kids movie, and Hartnett told VH1, "[The script] has a lot of fight sequences in it, but it's more about these crazy characters...Like my character, he's a gypsy and he's coming into town and he's got something to prove - and no one really knows what he's about."

The film will also incorporate CGI and traditional puppetry to create an overall look for the universe. But so far even Hartnett isn't sure what to expect when he arrives in Romania to begin shooting, saying, "It's odd; it's out there. I've been trying to do as much artistic fare as I can and things that are compelling to watch as well." Hartnett also compared the film to the work of Michel Gondry and Alfred Hitchcock's Rope. Hitchcock's film was famous for appearing to be shot in one long take. Unfortunately, it wasn't technically possible at the time and Hitchcock went for the next best thing. The master of suspense shot the film in 10 minute takes and seamlessly edited them together. But a lot has changed since 1948, so who knows how Bunraku might turn out. Hartnett mentioned that casting hasn't finished yet for Bunraku, and for some reason, he has yet to mention who might be directing this possible 'fruitcake' of a film. Until he does, stay tuned to Cinematical for any updates that might come our way.

According to Variety, Matt Reeves is "in early talks with Paramount" to direct a sequel to this month's smash Cloverfield. This should come as a surprise to exactly no one, as Cloverfield was made on the super cheap ($25 million) and scored a whopping $46 million in its opening weekend alone. From the way the announcement is worded, it looks like they want Cloverfield II underway ASAP, as soon as Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard, who penned Cloverfield as well as episodes of Lost, Alias, and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Reeves has also signed to direct The Invisible Woman, "a Hitchcock-style thriller" he wrote that "probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family."

It remains unclear which project will start production first, though the Variety article says there's a "good chance" it'll be Cloverfield. No word yet on the plot, but Goddard recently mentioned the possibility of showing you the fateful night of the attack from another cameraman's perspective. Much to my chagrin, I have yet to see Cloverfield. The night it came out I was assigned to review...Mad Money. You don't know humiliation until you have to purchase a ticket for a midnight showing of the new Diane Keaton comedy while surrounded by a huge mob of psyched Cloverheads. I'll check it out this weekend, but for those of you who've seen it -- are you excited for a sequel? And do you like the idea of watching events from another angle or would you want a whole new adventure?

When I saw Ira Sachs' Married Life at the New York Film Festival last fall, I had a lot of problems with it. But one thing I didn't have any complaints about is how gorgeous Rachel McAdams looks in the film. And now, thanks to Rope of Silicon, you can see for yourself how amazing the actress looks as a '40s-era blonde beauty. My favorite photo is the third, in which McAdams almost looks like a dead-ringer for Kim Novak in Vertigo. But I'd be fine with looking at any of them. In fact, I'm not just a fan of the way McAdams looks in the film; I also love the three-piece style of Chris Cooper, the open-collared playboy thing that Pierce Brosnan has going on and the partially see-through top that Patricia Clarkson wears in the second-to-last pic. (Clarkson is so stunning in the film, she actually gives McAdams a run for her money, and makes it hard to believe Cooper would cheat on her with anyone.) But aside from simply looking terrific, all four of the stars of Married Life give wonderful performances, as usual.

The film, which opens in limited release March 7, is based on John Bingham's 1953 pulp novel Five Roundabouts to Heaven. Cooper and Clarkson play a married couple, and Cooper's character has a mistress (McAdams). He makes the mistake, though, of introducing the girl to his best friend, played by Brosnan. Not knowing that his mistress is having another affair with his best friend, Cooper's character decides to murder his wife, because it's a more humane thing to do than break her heart. It's a very Hitchcockian plot, which makes sense since Bingham's books were adapted into episodes of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour. And it's a good enough movie to recommend, especially because of those great-looking actors. I just wish that Sony Classics would do away with Brosnan's awful and unnecessary voice-over before releasing the movie into theaters.

'Tis the season to get away from your family, bundle up with a gallon of moonshine (preferably one with "XXX" written on the label), and watch endless hours of movies! What follows is not a comprehensive or "Best Of" list. These are simply seven DVD box sets that any film buff would be thrilled to find in his or her stocking this Christmas. Most of them were released in the past few months, and a couple have been out a while but just got amazingly cheap. Have a few gifts left to buy? Consider picking one of these up. You don't even have to get off your fat ass, if you click on the titles you'll be taken to the links on Amazon. I've included items to suit every budget, and they've been arranged in order of price. Naturally, the more expensive the set you purchase, the more you love the person you're buying it for. That's just the way it works.

The Alien Quadrilogy ($33.99)

Pretty much the gold standard for DVD box sets. This collection's price recently took an incredible drop. It was worth every penny of the $80 bucks I paid for mine years ago, so you can better believe it's worth $34. The set gives you several versions of each film in the beloved Alien series -- Alien (one of the best suspense movies ever made), Aliens (one of the best action movies ever made), Alien 3 (David Fincher's misunderstood take is a stronger movie with each viewing), and Alien: Resurrection (Nobody's perfect). An unprecedented amount of extra goodies that includes the amazing Director's Cut of Aliens, extremely cool fold-out packaging, and the absence of Alien Vs. Predator make this set a must-own. I've owned it for four years, and still haven't seen everything in there. Plus, don't you just love the word "Quadrilogy?"