Before I get started, I just wanted to say that anyone who was undecided as to whether or not Knocked Up was sexist, probably wasn't really paying too close attention to Leslie Mann's performance. Mann's portrayal of a woman forced into being the bad cop because her husband isn't into the whole 'grown up' thing was one of the best things about that film. Now she's heading for another 'wronged wife' role, and The Hollywood Reporter announced that Mann has joined the cast of I Love You, Phillip Morris.

Phillip Morris is based on the true life story of Steven Russell (as played by Jim Carrey). Russell was a married family man whose criminal exploits landed him in the Texas prison system. While incarcerated, Russell fell in love with his cell mate, Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). After Morris' release, Russell concocted a variety of bizarre escape attempts in hopes of reuniting with the love of his life.

Well, for those of you out there who are fans of Jason Statham's Transporter franchise, I've got some good news for you: Variety reports that Statham has signed to star in a third installment! He will reprise his role as the butt-whooping mercenary driver/delivery man Frank. The film will be produced by EuropaCorp, who were behind the first two flicks. However, there have been some personnel changes for the film; the previous director for the last two films, Louis Leterrier, has been replaced by Hitman's 2nd Unit director, Olivier Megaton -- which might not exactly be a step up if you consider the reviews for that particular cinematic gem. Joining Statham in the cast is Prison Break's Robert Knepper, who judging by some of his creepy performances will probably star as the bad guy in this scenario.

The first two films in the franchise were written by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, but the two have not been confirmed to pen the new script. Just like for the first two films, Besson will not be pulling any directing duties, but will be involved as a 'hands-on' producer. There is no word yet on the story, but I'm sure that Besson is keeping in mind that the franchise has a running box-office total of $130 million, so it shouldn't take long to put one together. Transporter 3 will shoot for 16 weeks on location in Russia and France starting sometime in March or April. There is no release date so far, but let's be honest, we aren't dealing with Citizen Kane here so it shouldn't take long before Transporter 3 hits theaters.

Question: Do we really need a third one?

After a wavering retirement and some words with Harvey Weinstein, Luc Besson is jumping into the graphic novel biz -- or rather, his company is. Variety reports that EuropaCorp had grabbed the big-screen rights to the old graphic series by Jacques Tardi called Aventures Extraordinaires d'Adele Blanc-Sec. The series was first published in 1976, is set in pre and post-WWI Paris, and focuses on a heroine called Adèle Blanc-Sec, whose investigative journalism leads her to discover mystical aspects of the crime world.

As Variety describes it: "Their heroine, Adele Blanc-Sec, a fetching popular novelist pursued by dumb cops, monsters, rancorous villains and wannabe lovers, is sometimes taken as an early feminist figure in French comic books." EuropaCorp is hoping to make a trilogy of the 9-novel series, with the first to hit screens in 2009. While it is a pretty big deal in France, I think this could make for a pretty big film outside of the country. Adèle is not your normal, scantily-clad super-vixen, but rather one that gets head-to-toe clothing (at least, according to the pictures you can spot online), so it'd be nice to see the graphic heroine style without the raciness. Currently, there's no word on a screenwriter or director.

For those of you who have been wanting to see what happens after Leon, aka The Professional, you'll have to keep waiting. While I wouldn't be surprised if one day Luc Besson rethinks things, as he sometimes does, for now he has no plans or interest in a sequel to the film, and Natalie Portman has now joined the team-o-disinterest. She recently spoke to MTV about the possibility, and says: "I would work with Luc Besson again, in a second, but [not on a sequel]." I can't blame her, as it's always risky business to try and match the quality of a well-loved and praised classic. But I'm betting the rationale is different for her follow-up -- that she won't be taking part in any more Star Wars either: "I spent ten years working on these films. It's time to let it continue on its own."

But that's not all the actress said. She also explained: "When something works, you don't touch it. You try to create something new that's positive." That makes sense and all, but for some reason, she only seems to apply that to sequels. As MTV brings up -- she's about to begin filming the remake Brothers, which she joined back in October. The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire as brothers -- the latter is the marine husband of Portman, who goes off to war just as his brother, Gyllenhaal, gets released from jail. So Jake's character takes care of his brother's family, and things get sticky.

Perhaps she makes an exception when a remake is based on a foreign film, and is different from the original. She says of the project: "I did [see Brodre], but I'm not going to study it. I think it's a very different movie." Are remakes only okay if they're a lot different than the source? I would think in that case, we're not actually talking about a remake, but about an "inspired by" film. But what about you? Are you equally apprehensive or against both, or do you find yourself favoring one over the other?

Sorry, Jason Statham fans. He's not going to be your "Real American Hero." Statham had been rumored as the likely choice to play Action Man in the upcoming G.I. Joe flick, but Statham insists he has nothing to do with the film. "The old Internet can be quite misleading at times," he tell MTV Movies Blog. "I don't know where that came from." Statham is keeping busy without Joe though, bro. The Bank Job is due out in 2008, and he's currently on the set of Death Race with a surprisingly excellent cast that includes Ian McShane and Joan Allen. That film is being directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (the terrible Soldier and the almost-terrible Alien Vs. Predator). I always wondered why that guy didn't change his name. You'd think years of people being disappointed when he's not Paul Thomas Anderson would get to the guy.

In addition to those projects, the ass-kicking Statham is lining up some sequels that will bring him back to some of his more popular roles. For starters, there's Crank 2, which Statham promises will be "effing ridiculous." "If you thought the first one was crazy, this is ridiculous. It's mad," he says. "I couldn't resist working with those chaps again. It gives me a chance to go wild in the aisles." For more on the Crank sequel, check Scott's report here. And yet another Statham sequel is in the works -- Transporter 3. "I have a massive yearning to do Part 3 with Luc (Besson). I think it will happen (soon)," says Statham. I haven't seen the Transporter films, though I hear great things. I do happen to think Crank is one of the finest pure action films in years. I'm dying for a sequel, if only to see how they make up for the fact that it sure looked like Statham's character -- spoiler warning -- died in the original. Oh, and bring Dwight Yoakam back! Man, I love that guy.

Here are some of the words Harvey Weinstein is using to describe his critics: jealous; disgruntled; has-been. The first two, you may have assumed, refer to the many people criticizing the ability and financial stability of The Weinstein Co. The latter, though, is directed at an internationally respected filmmaker, Luc Besson. The comment was in response to Besson's claim that TWC mishandled the American release of his animated film Arthur and the Invisibles. Weinstein says he'll give the "has-been" $1 million if he can prove that Arthur actually cost $85 million, as Besson claims. So, once again, a film industry dispute turns into a messy blame game, battled with egos rather than brains (and here, I thought Weinstein actually believed Arthur failed because audiences are not used to films that feature both animation and live-action).

But Weinstein could never be personally apologetic for his company's failures. Then he wouldn't be Harvey Weinstein. And it has become a regular thing for him to tell reporters, such as Variety's Anne Thompson, how everyone else is wrong about The Weinstein Co. Despite the obvious, which has been easily noticed by all of us following the film business, Weinstein continues to claim that TWC is doing just fine. Sure, most criticisms are speculative, but mostly they are reasonably so. According to Thompson, rumors are floating around that the Weinstein brothers could lose TWC to its investors; either they will be forced to sell the company or merge with a studio. She also questions TWC's chance for independent success given that even Dreamworks was unable to survive on its own.

Still, Weinstein feels secure in the future of TWC, stating to Thompson that the only thing it's missing is a "glamorous theatrical hit." And he seems hopeful about this summer's release of SiCKO, as well as next year's slate of in-house productions like The Great Debaters, Crossing Over and The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. According to Weinstein, anyone who is doubtful about TWC making it is either a jealous competitor, probably some exec just trying to look cool, or a disgruntled former employee. Considering Weinstein has already surprised me once this year, with his almost personally apologetic reaction to the disappointment of Grindhouse ("We obviously didn't do it that well."; "We didn't educate the South or Midwest."; "We missed the boat." -italics mine), I will just have to be open-minded about the possibility of him turning TWC's reputation around.

Hey, remember last winter when you and your kids ran out to see Arthur and the Invisibles and nobody liked it? Oh wait, that wasn't you. You're American. Nobody in this country went to see it. And director Luc Besson is not only well aware of that fact, but he also places the blame squarely on the Weinstein boys. (The numbers don't lie: Arthur barely broke $15 million in North America, yet it pulled in over $90 million outside of North America.)

In a recent interview with Dan Epstein over at SuicideGirls.com, Mr. Besson had precisely this to say: "I've worked in the movie business for 30 years now and for each film I work 40 different distributors around the world. The American distributor on Arthur [The Weinstein Company] was the worst I have worked with in my entire life, in any country. I think this is the essence of all the problems. Why the critics didn't like Arthur was because they changed so much of the film and tried to pretend the film was American. The critics aren't stupid. They watched the film, they vaguely smell American but they can feel the film is forced for an American audience. The film is European. It's made by a Frenchman. This was the only country where the film was changed. The rest of the world has the same film as France."

Yowch. Besson got one thing right: The critics were pretty unkind. According to Rotten Tomatoes, only 17 out of 83 polled critics gave the flick a positive review. (That's a 20% approval rate.) I saw the American version -- and I thought it was a really sloppy mess for the most part. Guess I'll be renting that French version as soon as possible.

Even though it looks like feelings were pretty mixed when it came to the action flick Crank, it seems that there were enough fans out there interested in a sequel about our adrenaline-challenged friend. Movie Blog spoke with Crank's writer/directors Brian Taylor and Mark Neveldine about the possibility of a sequel while they were doing an interview for Movie Blog's Uncut about their upcoming thriller Pathology. When the topic strayed to Crank, Taylor had this to say: "There will be a sequel to Crank yes. Prepare to Crank again. And you know the 'is it a sequel or prequel' question... IT'S A SEQUEL. We're not selling out and going prequel. We are picking up where the last movie left off." This makes you wonder exactly how they are going to pull that one off, considering how the first film ended.

Since this was just a small aside in a larger interview, there are not many details about the proposed movie, namely if Jason Statham would be returning. Statham is signed on for not one, but two heist movies in the next year, including the sequel to The Italian Job -- The Brazilian Job, and a true-life heist movie titled The Bank Job about one of Britain's great unsolved crimes. Since Taylor and Neveldine are going to be busy for the foreseeable future with Pathology, it might be a while before they can get around to figuring out how to bring their hero back from the dead.

If you really want people to see your movie, just give it away for free. Of course, the idea isn't too plausible in the expensive world of movie making, but apparently Luc Besson knows how to make it work. He is producing an environmentally-themed movie called Boomerang, which reportedly will be offered to distributors for no charge at all. Directed by photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand, best known for his book Earth From Above, Boomerang will be shot in 60 countries, beginning this week in Brazil. The idea is to show how interlinked the environmental problems of the world are. The focus in Brazil is the destruction of the rain forests, which are being cleared to make room for crops, which will be used to feed livestock, which are being raised to feed the growing human population.

Boomerang doesn't seem to be a completely non-profit endeavor. Apparently it will only be available for free after the film's investors earn a 10% profit from it. And then it also isn't clear if audiences will be able to see the film for free, which would make a huge difference in how widely it is seen. Free distribution could allow for it to be shown in every theater in the country, but it doesn't guarantee that people will actually watch it. My guess is that it will eventually be released freely to television outlets, perhaps after earning its money in theaters, but if the film's cinematography is anything like Arthus-Bertrand's photos (it has to be), then watching it on a small screen will probably not do it justice. Maybe IMAX could grab some prints for free and release it to its screens for a much lower price than it usually charges.

There aren't too many movies that necessitate sequels. Unless a movie is part of a pre-proposed series or is an adaptation of a series of books, it should probably be able to stand alone. But a lot of sequels come from movies that are perfect by themselves -- sometimes the sequels compliment nicely; sometimes they are easily ignored; occasionally they actually take away from the previously regarded original.

It isn't often that a movie screams out for a sequel, but I think I've come up with seven that at least whisper a request for one. Two actually have source sequels that they would be adapted from. One has a lot of history to mine material from. Three of them have been discussed at length at different points in time by makers of the original(s). The problem is that none of these sequels is likely to ever grace your DVD player let alone your local theater. For whatever reason, they simply have too much against them in the minds of studio execs. For now, though, we can dream.

1. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (sequel to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Even with the incredible cast and the surprisingly faithful-enough script, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was not the epic that I was hoping for. It also wasn't the blockbuster that Disney was hoping for. The filmmakers, Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith (aka Hammer and Tongs) and the necessary actors had signed on for the sequel, to be adapted from Adam's follow-up, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, but it appears to be dead in the water. Despite my few reservations with the first film, I would love to see the sequel, as well as the rest of the series (they could end before The Salmon of Doubt, I guess). I remember being bored with some of the prehistoric Earth sequences in Restaurant, but I think they'd make for great cinema. In any event, I think Martin Freeman and Mos Def were a great duo in the original, and they alone should have been propelled to stardom following its release. Maybe they can appear in something else together.

If there is one thing that I can say for certain, it is that Luc Besson doesn't quite have a handle on what it means to "retire." After "retiring" last year, Erik posted in January that the director's Arthur series would be continuing into a cinematic trilogy. Now Besson has said that he will be directing the first sequel, although he's made no reference to the third film specifically. According to him, he'll take on the second part, and then that's it: "Right now that is it. I am going to do Arthur 2 for sure. But that is different, it is not new, it is a continuation." I see. I guess if a movie is a continuation, and not an entirely new story, it doesn't go against ones retirement? If that's the case, I'm sure he'll direct the final film as well.

I guess his weariness is weighing on his mind. He also stated: "The thing is just that I am tired and a little dried up. There is an old saying in French: 'If you have nothing to say, just shut up.'" While I'd be inclined to agree, I think there is a difference between shutting up and repeatedly claiming that you're going to retire. But that's not all -- while he is pushing off his retirement and calling the next film his last, he still says: "If in one week, one month, one year I feel that I have the strength, I will bother you for two more hours." What's the point of claiming retirement along with a statement that you might make another film? Why not just not say anything and make another film if and when the inspiration strikes? This isn't retirement, this is a break!

At the end of Léon (a.k.a. The Professional), Natalie Portman's character, Mathilda, goes back to school and presumably returns to a normal, civilized childhood. But who knows? A lot of us have imagined that she continues learning the ways of the assassin. I always think her character is like a precursor to the main character in Luc Besson's earlier film Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita). Of course, we will never know what really becomes of Mathilda, because Besson has no intention of making a sequel to Léon. But the last time he addressed the issue, he mentioned that people keep sending him script ideas for a follow-up. One of these ideas may have just been picked up by Focus Features.

According to Variety, Focus has a new film in development that the trade calls "a reverse spin on The Professional." Whether or not this was the studio's description, the film, called Hanna, appears to have a story that would easily work as a continuation of Besson's movie. It centers on a 14-year-old girl (two years older than Portman's character) who has been raised to be a killer (only here it is by her father, not the kindly neighborhood hit-man) and who now has to begin acting like a girl (just as Mathilda must do once back at school). The plot probably consists of the girl -- let's assume her name is Hanna -- getting into some sort of trouble that warrants her need to keep killing -- I'm thinking Grosse Pointe Blank but much, much younger (homecoming dance substituted for reunion, etc.) I'm sure that I'm wrong about the script, which was written by Seth Lochhead, originating as a sequel to Léon, but Besson might want to just take a look at his supposed stack of submissions and make sure.

During the run-up to Daniel Craig's casting as James Bond, I was fervently hoping that the producers would go in a different direction and give Scottish actor Dougray Scott a chance. He would have been the leanest, meanest Bond since Timothy Dalton, I thought, and still think -- although I was pleasantly surprised by Craig's performance. Scott also infamously missed the boat on Wolverine, barely losing the part to Hugh Jackman. Luckily, he isn't being completely ignored by Hollywood -- IGN reported yesterday that director Luc Besson has said Scott will co-star in the long-awaited movie-version of the Hitman game. Timothy Olyphant stars in Hitman as Agent 47, an assassin who works for a shady outfit called The Agency.

According to what IGN was picked up, Scott will play the antagonist who pursues Olyphant throughout the film. Production on Hitman is scheduled to begin this month in Prague. Cinematical recently spoke to Olyphant and touched on what his hopes for Hitman are -- you can read that here. He'll next be seen in the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard, while Scott's next project may be the mystery drama The Last Chapter.

The sex/slave trade continues to be on the minds of filmmakers. In the last year, we've had Transe screen at the likes of Cannes and TIFF, and Trade has been gearing up for its August 2007 release. With both films now wrapped, there's another on the horizon -- Taken. (Apparently movies with this theme need to have a one-word T-starting title in a fit of ultimate originality.) The screenplay comes from the "retired" Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen -- the man who not only brought us The Karate Kid, but has also collaborated with Besson on films like The Fifth Element and The Transporter. Similar to Trade, Taken revolves around a former spy who uses his professional skills to find his estranged daughter, who has been sold into slave trade.

Soon-to-be Lincoln actor Liam Neeson has already signed on to play the ex-spy and father, and now The Hollywood Reporter has announced that he has a daughter in Maggie Grace. If you're a fan of the show, Lost, you'll remember her as Shannon Rutherford. If not, she also starred in the recent remake of The Fog. She's also just wrapped two films that will undoubtedly push her a little further into the spotlight -- Suburban Girl with Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alec Baldwin, and The Jane Austen Book Club with Emily Blunt and Maria Bello. The film will begin shooting this month in Paris, under the eye of Pierre Morel, who is another Transporter collaborator.

Slogging out to the multiplexes to see 2006's overstuffed lineup of CGI-animated kids' films was a truly soul-deadening experience. These polished widgets -- Over the Hedge, The Ant Bully, Cars, Barnyard, Flushed Away -- dropped off the conveyor belt like so many shining pennies, exactly the same and worth about as much. Most of these films used the exact same template: An outsider hero with some kind of "loner" issues was accidentally thrust into a world peopled with colorful characters. After facing some kind of larger challenge, the hero learned how to be part of a family. These films didn't even bother to disguise their boredom; they could have been generated from the same computer program.

For the record (and to register a differing opinion from that of our own Kim Voynar) George Miller's Happy Feet is the year's only example of animated excellence; it's the only entry that demonstrates even the tiniest form of imagination, and it has practically become a phenomenon among audiences starved for such things.