Occasionally Hollywood cobbles together random members of the A-list to play family members on film, even if their genes obviously come from opposite ends of the earth. If the actors are good enough or if the chemistry is there, sometimes the combo can work, such as Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman as brothers in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead or Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor in Cassandra's Dream. Other times, it stretches credibility, such as Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman in The Darjeeling Limited. My all-time favorite oddball casting is in Sidney Lumet's Family Business (1989), with Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman and Matthew Broderick playing grandfather, father and son. (Huh?) At the same time, there are actor combos out there who just scream to be paired up in a family capacity. Remember Julia Roberts and Kyra Sedgwick in Something to Talk About? Well, neither do I, but that pairing was perfect. Here are a few others that could work:

1. Helen Hunt & Leelee Sobieski

They're so similar it's spooky, from their hair and foreheads, right down to the tonal quality of their voices. Anybody check the hospital records for mixed-up babies? (Helen is about 20 years older.) Not too long ago, both careers hit a peak: Helen won an Oscar while Leelee was working with Stanley Kubrick and playing Joan of Arc on TV. Now they're both in decline. For some reason, whenever Helen's name comes up, I hear "I HATE Helen Hunt!" And Leelee's last movie was for Uwe Boll. Now would be the perfect time for these two to team up in a mother-daughter drama. If they cooked up something along the lines of Terms of Endearment, with a good, solid writer and/or director, it could be interesting. Or better yet, how about something really strange and kooky with Spike Jonze or Harmony Korine? (Note: apparently the two once went head-to-head on "Celebrity Death Match.")

Gallery: Actors who could play relatives

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?

Pictured: Gwyneth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr. re-create a scene from Alfred Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief (click on the image for a larger version).

There's been lots of talk surrounding Vanity Fair's 2008 Hollywood Portfolio edition (March issue), which features several notable celebrities re-creating memorable scenes from Alfred Hitchcock films. VF loves to do stuff like this, but I have to say this one is my favorite so far. Among the celebs who took part are Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert Downey Jr. (seen above), Jodie Foster, Seth Rogen, Naomi Watts, Keira Knightley, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Marion Cotillard, James McAvoy, Emile Hirsch, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, Charlize Theron and many more. You can scope out Johansson and Bardem re-creating a scene from Rear Window (one of my personal Hitchcock favs) below, then head after the jump to see more (and click on all photos for larger versions).

[via Oh No They Didn't, Slashfilm]

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. ]

Though production was just pushed back due to Akiva Goldsman's script not being ready, it appears casting for Angels & Demons is still moving ahead. According to the New York Post, Naomi Watts has landed a starring role in the flick opposite Tom Hanks, which, like The Da Vinci Code, will once again be directed by Ron Howard. An insider told the Post that production has been put off "until at least February," which means we'll hopefully see the film arrive in theaters at some point in 2009 (it was originally scheduled for release on December 19, 2008). Though it was critically panned and, let's face it, not that good, The Da Vinci Code ultimately went on to gross a ridiculous $758 million worldwide.

Angels & Demons, which was also written by Dan Brown, is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code. The book once again follows Robert Langdon (Hanks) as he races against time to find a hidden bomb and hunt down a serial killer in Rome. Joining him in his quest is the adoptive daughter of a physicist who's strange murder (in which his chest is branded with a symbol) sparks a hunt for the truth. The girl's name is Vittoria, and we presume this is who Watts will be playing ... though Watts is not Italian, and doesn't exactly fit the character description. However, she is a high profile name and a damn good actress, so it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. Watts is also attached to star in the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, which is currently eying a Summer 2009 release. For those that have read Angels & Demons, is Watts what you had in mind for Vittoria? Good choice? Bad one?