When it comes to Shakespeare's tragedies, King Lear never made the short list of personal favorites. Maybe it was Cordelia, one of the biggest doormats in dramatic history, or maybe a play about madness and aging isn't best served to high school students. But, as long as there are actors who want to sink their teeth into lines like, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport", then the mad king will live on. The Guardian has now confirmed that Naomi Watts will be joining Keira Knightley and Gwyneth Paltrow as the 'daughters Lear' in the big-budgeted version of Shakespeare's classic play, also starring Anthony Hopkins.

The story of Lear centers on a mighty king dividing his estate among his three daughters: Cordelia (Knightley), Regan (Paltrow) and Goneril (Watts). When Cordeila is unable to blow enough smoke up the royal butt, she is disowned, and the lion's share of the throne goes to her sisters. But we all know about 'fatal flaws' in Shakespeare, and it turns out that Regan and Goneril are hardly the loving daughters they claimed to be.

The project was announced back in May at Cannes, with a projected budget of $35 million. Most of that is expected to go towards the epic battle sequences that occur when the kingdom descends into the family feud to end all feuds -- not to mention $35 million can buy an awful lot of tights.

King Lear is expected to start production early next year and should arrive in theaters in 2010.

Even the most enthusiastic devotee of big-budget Hollywood is bound to have a few movies which he trudges to see out of a sense of duty rather than excitement. For me it's (among other things) Ron Howard's Da Vinci Code franchise, based on the borderline illiterate but ultra-popular books by Dan Brown. It is out of that same sense of obligation that I report to you the impending recruitment of Ewan McGregor to star alongside Tom Hanks in Angels & Demons, the prequel to the first film. McGregor will play Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca, a Papal aide who helps Hanks's intrepid symbologist stop an attack on the Vatican. As we suspected yesterday, Munich's Ayelet Zurer is also on board to play Vittoria Vetra, the daughter of a murdered physicist who tags along with the hero scientist. (This is contrary to earlier reports that Naomi Watts had scored the part.)

The main reason I have little hope for Angels & Demons is that, as with the first film, the screenplay will be written by Akiva Goldsman, who may be my least favorite working screenwriter. Ewan McGregor is a splendid actor, but Goldsman's dull, leaden dialogue managed to defeat even Sir Ian McKellen. As The Da Vinci Code proved, Goldsman and Brown are one deadly combination.

We've got a ways to go: Angels & Demons comes out next May. I think I'll go back to not thinking about it now, if you don't mind.

(Funny Games opens in theaters this weekend; below is Cinematical's Review from the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.)

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.

The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?

As the junior partner in the pair of white-clad killers in Michael Hanekne's English-language remake of his own Funny Games, actor Brady Corbet may be one of the lesser-known names in the cast, but his work as a smiling, shy sociopath makes for a haunting performance. At the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, Corbet spoke with Cinematical about Haneke's working process, what it's like to play someone who's already playing a role, and his take on Funny Games's combination of entertainment and commentary: "The first (version) asked the question 'Why are you watching this?' And the new film asks 'Why are you watching this again?'"

This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:

After a startling, striking debut in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Michael Pitt wound up having what many young actors would consider a dream career, mixing parts in big-studio films (Murder by Numbers, The Village) with parts in independent movies by legendary directors (The Dreamers, Last Days). As the ringleader of the murderous duo in Michael Haneke's Funny Games, Pitt combines charisma and coldness to create a truly unique and riveting villain. Pitt spoke with Cinematical about breaking the fourth wall, playing a psychopath and how while working with Haneke made him feel excited, it also left him more than a little bit nervous: "I was constantly on my toes ... just always working on it, always. I knew I needed to do that." This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.

The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?

It's the biggest honor a foreign film can receive ... no, not the Oscar or a fancy award. I'm talking about en English language remake! Forget that Michael Haneke's original Funny Games is a perfectly 'accessible' thriller (although perhaps a little too bleak for those who prefer thrillers of the Ashley Judd variety), but the movie has people speaking in German, Italian and French ... and obviously that just won't do for an American audience. We demand that all our entertainment come in English only, thank you very much...

OK, enough whining. At least the folks at Warner were smart enough to hire Haneke to direct the remake himself -- because we all know how great that plan turned out for The Vanishing and The Grudge. Anyway, Haneke directs Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt in a (second) story of home invasion, psychological torture and some not-so-funny games. If you happen to be at the Sundance Film Festival next month, you can check out the remake for yourself. Everyone else will have to wait for February 15, but feel free to check out this brand-new trailer. It's got a pretty shocking spoiler in it, and you're required to verify your age before clicking through, but it semi-proves that this remake is most definitely not treading any new ground.

Obviously I won't be making any judgments until after I've seen the movie, but it sure looks like the remake was made for those people who've never seen the original -- so those that have seen the original might just be bored stiff by the American version. Gotta love it. Then again, I could be completely wrong. Happens all the time.

[ Thanks to BD.com for the tip. ]

I guess it goes to show how little I've been paying attention, but I could have sworn Narcissa Malfoy already showed up in the Harry Potter movies. Of course, it could also mean I'm easily mixing up the books and the adaptations, because I must be thinking of the character's first appearance in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -- the novel not the film. But Narcissa, who is mother to Draco (Tom Felton), wife to Lucius (Jason Isaacs) and cousin to Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) features prominently in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince -- the novel -- and so she will be making her cinematic introduction in the movie version. And now we've got word on who will be playing the role. According to BBC, Helen McCrory will play Narcissa, who in Half-Blood Prince is dealing with her husband being a prisoner of Azkaban and her son being a teenage brat.

Audiences are likely most familiar with McCrory through her role as British first lady Cherie Blair in The Queen. She also appeared recently in Becoming Jane, as Mrs. Radcliffe (somewhat a Potter-riffic name, right?), and Casanova, in which she played mother to Heath Ledger's title character. The interesting thing now is that McCrory is actually playing the sister of the character she was originally all set to play. If you remember back to the original casting announcements of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, McCrory was first attached to play Bellatrix Lestrange, a part that went to Helena Bonham Carter when McCrory became pregnant and had to bow out. And you may recall that earlier this year, the part of Narcissa was linked to Naomi Watts, whose reps quickly denied her involvement. As much as I loved the idea of Watts playing the role, I'm intrigued to see McCrory take it on. I wonder, though, will she have to dye her hair, or am I once again revealing my lack of attention to the books? Half-Blood Prince, which is currently in production at the helm of Order of the Phoenix director David Yates, is set to hit theaters in little over a year from now (21 Nov. 2008)

Rogue

I don't care how many times they push it back, or how much potential for hackneyed disaster there is in a film about a killer crocodile -- I'm looking forward to Rogue, mostly because there was a lot that impressed me about Greg Mclean's debut film, 2005's Wolf Creek. For one thing, it was bold enough to defy several horror cliches, such as foreshadowing dread in the early scenes -- the first thirty minutes of Wolf Creek could be part of an Aussie road drip dramedy, with three aimless kids taking their rickety car way too far into unsafe areas of the Outback. It's also a film that's completely unrelenting in the psychic trauma it wants to inflict on the audience. By the time the slaughtering starts, we know these characters -- we care about them. Frankly, Mclean seems like he'd be completely bored with making a standard slasher/monster film with paper-thin characters. Therefore, I'm going to be first in line for his killer croc movie, and wait for my enthusiasm to blow up in my face.

Friday the 13th

I have no idea if this will get to theaters by late 2008, but I know that Platinum Dunes does have the gears grinding, so it's a possibility. In fact, a little birdie recently told me something hilarious -- Corey Feldman went in and pitched himself as the star of this thing. For those who don't remember, Feldman played Vorhees foe Tommy Jarvis in two installments of the original series, and he apparently had designs on making the Friday remake his newest comeback vehicle. There's really nothing you can do with Jason at this point other than remake him, but how? Word is that PD wants the remake to feature both Jason and his trademark mask -- two elements that didn't congeal until Part III of the original series, so I'm imagining a smelting together of the first three films, set in modern day and with a lot of in-jokes. I guess it will be a film about a little boy who drowns in a lake and immediately morphs into an overgrown, lumbering killer with a machete. Sounds intriguing.

"Good eeevening." The last we heard about writer/director Ryan Murphy's Alfred Hitchcock biopic was back in February. At the time it was just speculation, but today MTV Movies Blog has confirmation -- Anthony Hopkins will play Hitch. They've even got a clip of him doing the voice over there. I think it's pretty solid casting, but Hopkins better start eating! The February report mentioned Helen Mirren possibly stepping into the role of Hitchcock's wife and lifelong creative collaborator, Alma Reville, but that casting is not confirmed yet. The film is expected to be called Alfred Hitchcock Presents and will detail Hitchcock's experiences making the 1960 classic Psycho. At the time, the screenplay was seen as far too dark for mass audiences, and Hitch faced quite a few hurdles to bring the project to the big screen.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents will be written and directed by Ryan Murphy. I am a fan of Murphy's FX series Nip/Tuck, particularly the first few seasons. But any faith I had in his filmmaking went out the window with the absolutely dreadful Running with Scissors, one of my least favorite movies of 2006. Hopefully, he can redeem himself here. I can't say for certain when we'll see Alfred Hitchcock Presents, as Murphy is currently very busy in both the television and film worlds. On TV, he's overseeing Nip/Tuck and an upcoming F/X drama about a transsexual father called 4 oz. On the big screen, he's working on the Tricky Dick flick Dirty Tricks, starring Brad Pitt and Meryl Streep, with Jim Broadbent as Nixon, and Need with Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts. So it's conceivable that we won't get to see AFP for a few years. Hey, now that the wheels are in motion on the story of how Hitchcock's Psycho came to be, is it too much to ask to get a making-of biopic for Gus Van Sant's critically acclaimed remake? I kid, I kid.