Those pesky U.S. government agencies -- they always have to make things difficult. No, I'm not talking about getting a passport, although that seems to be hellish these days, but about the groups looking to capture or neutralize the "different" people. After watching E.T. and similar films as a kid, I've had a love/hate relationship with special abilities -- I've wanted to read minds, see the future, etcetera, but I also feared that some scary, government agency would then hunt me down and conduct tests and experiments on me. If the government didn't get me, I was sure some corporation would fool me into working for them and fulfilling their evil plans, like Dark Visions. Not fun.

It looks like my fantastical childhood fear is going to be relived on the big screen soon with a supernatural thriller called Push. The film stars Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond), Dakota Fanning (Hounddog), Chris Evans (Fantastic Four) and Camilla Belle (The Chumscrubber) as young American ex-pats who are hiding out in Hong Kong. See, they all have telekinetic and clairvoyant abilities, so they're trying to hide from a government agency. As The Hollywood Reporter describes it: "They must band together and use their different talents to try to escape the control of the division." Where's Magneto and Professor X when you need them?! The film, which was written by David Bourla, will be directed by Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin).

Non-geeks of the world are probably scratching their collective heads in confusion at the idea of a Deathlok movie from Marvel comics, wondering "who in the world is Deathlok, and why does he have such a corny name?" Likewise, many of the geeks among us are somewhat baffled by the announcement ourselves; not wondering WHO, of course, but rather WHY? Personally, I'm rather bemused by the concept, and I'll definitely go to see it (and in all candid honesty I'll probably end up buying the DVD as well), but I do wonder why exactly Marvel chose him out of their vast pantheon. Maybe they see him as a good character piece - something a bit more than the usual "hey, I've got awesome powers that I'm going to use to blow up baddies" shtick. Ideas on that?

At any rate, rumor has long claimed that director Paul McGuigan (recently of Lucky Number Slevin) would be attached to the project as director, but apparently that is not the case. SuperHeroHype recently spoke with McGuigan, who denied any involvement with the future film. I wonder who will be next on the rumor-mill...

We've heard recently that word on the street says that the on again-off again Marvel film project based on the popular Deathlok character has once again been given the green light, this time under the hopefully capable guidance of director Paul McGuigan. The newest update on this news is that Paul, in a recent discussion with iofilm, McGuigan indicated that Deathlok will be the very next film he tackles, and said that he hopes to get to work on it sometime this year. This hopefully settles some of the "will Deathlok continue to be delayed" talk that has been flying around lately. Deathlok will join an ever-growing list of Marvel titles to see the silver screen, but the man-machine cyborg would probably mark the most unusual Marvel character as yet to get his own movie adaptation.

I'm not sure yet which Deathlok persona will be featured in the movie - it was rumored that the last David Self script involved the original Luther Manning Deathlok, but I have no idea if they are still working on that script or even if those rumors were accurate to begin with. Personally, I tend to think of the near-future-alternate-reality Deathlok (Luther Manning, for those of you unfamiliar) is the definitive version of the character- but the Michael Collins pacifist-mind-inserted-into-killing-machine character is interesting as well. Thoughts?

We reported back in December that an Equalizer movie was officially on the way. At the time, producer Mace Neufeld (the man behind the Jack Ryan series) was in place, but the Weinstein brothers had yet to find either their director or star. Though the latter opening still exists, the former has been filled by Scottish director Paul McGuigan. McGuigan watched the series as a kid - "Growing up in Scotland, there were few channels and good shows to watch, and this was one that penetrated my psyche" - and, reassuringly, claims that he would never age McCall down to conform to the current Hollywood style.

I don't know about you, but I think I'll cling to McGuigan's affection for the show as a good sign, and try to ignore the fact that his track record (Lucky Number Slevin, which was liked by pretty much no one who saw it at Sundance, is his most recent effort) is less than stellar. That said, what he needs most now, clearly, is our prayers as he tries to stand up to the suits, who will inevitably demand that the film star someone young and pretty. How does "Chad Michael Murray, Equalizer" strike you?

Once upon a time, crime films were grim; gritty; bleak. Then Tarantino came along (and there were precedents before him, but never mind) and crime films changed – now, the sounds issuing off the screen weren't just the crack and ricochet of bullets, but the zing! of snappy patter and high-speed wordplay. The regrettably-named Lucky Number Slevin isn't a post-Tarantino crime film; it's a post-post-post-Tarantino crime film, and when you're the millionth director to stagger through what used to be undiscovered country, it's hard to look like a pioneer.

Directed by Paul McGuigan (Gangster Number One), Lucky Number Slevin is a candy-colored crime movie that, after a few preliminary murders, flashes back to the '70s as a wheelchair-bound man (Bruce Willis) is killing time at the train station by telling a young man about a fixed horse race, and how father and husband Max, who came across the info about how a certain nag was a sure thing, bet all his money … and lost. Owing the money – and being privy to a private fix – led the two newest crime bosses in New York to punish Max by killing him. And his wife. And his son.

We don't know why Willis is revealing this information, but soon Willis's journey is interwoven with that of Slevin (Josh Hartnett), a young man who's come to New York to hang with his buddy Nick after losing his job and his girl and getting mugged. Slevin explains all this to Nick's cheerful, bubbly across-the-hall neighbor Lindsey (Lucy Liu) who's curious about where Nick is and why this stranger's in his apartment. Slevin soon has other problems, as representatives of The Boss (Morgan Freeman), believing Slevin to be Nick, take him to talk to The Boss about a small matter of $96,000 that Nick owes one of The Boss's underlings. The Boss is willing to wipe the debt – in exchange for a small favor. Next, Slevin is dragged to see The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley), The Boss's rival, about the matter of $33,000 that Nick owes. On introduction, The Rabbi is cordial: "You must be Nick." Slevin's not enthused: "Must I be? Because that hasn't been working out for me. …"

If that kind of rat-a-tat dialogue works for you, you'll love Lucky Number Slevin. What you won't love is Lucky Number Slevin's plotline, as it contorts itself into one of those films where twist is piled on twist and revelation comes on the heels of other revelations. All that wrapping, though, can't conceal that Lucky Number Slevin is hollow at its core; put more bluntly, I'd be more engaged by Lucky Number Slevin's capacity to twist and turn like a crack-addled cotton snake if I were given a reason to care. The press screening of Lucky Number Slevin featured a few chortles from the assembled press due to screenwriter Jason Smilovic's constant barrage of quips, fast-talk blather and snappy comebacks – much in the way that, if someone fired a shotgun at you for a hundred and ten minutes, one or two pellets would invariably strike your funnybone. Every actor in Lucky Number Slevin gets a good line or two – what they don't get is a real character to portray or a story that matters to be part of.  Packed with flash and smash-cut edits, loaded with gunfire and cheap thrills, Lucky Number Slevin is a shaggy-dog-story of a crime film with no punch to its punchline.

Others on Lucky Number Slevin: Variety's Justin Chang describes it as "Thoroughly -- and sometimes justifiably -- infatuated with its own cleverness," while Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter ultimately feels that "no matter how badly the movie cons you, you must admit that the film is stylish as hell."