Cranky Eric© sez ... Hey, people who make movies: Stop putting scenes after the closing credits. If you want me to watch it, put it IN THE MOVIE, not after it.

It has been well established that when a list of names starts scrolling up against a black screen, the movie is OVER. You're done. Whatever story you had to tell, you told it. That's the way movies work.

You want to put something cute after the credits, fine. Knock yourself out. A lot of times that stuff is fun. But it doesn't count as an actual part of the story. If it's something we need to know, tell us. Don't hide it after the list of gaffers and production assistants and humane society certifications.

Oh, what, at the end of the last Pirates of the Caribbean -- after the 37 minutes of credits have rolled -- it turns out Elizabeth has a son and is standing around waiting for her once-in-a-decade evening of romance with Will? No she doesn't, and no she isn't. Because the movie ended 37 minutes earlier, when the closing credits started. Whatever happens after that is just you horsin' around. Doesn't count. It's not canon.

Yesterday, Eric D. Snider mentioned an interesting exercise by The New Republic's Christopher Orr. Annoyed at the recent glut of trailers that give away the entire film, he decided to write a review of 21 (which hits theaters today) based only on the trailer. Eric thought the "review" was actually pretty accurate, and I agree. I also agree that the trailer is egregiously inconsiderate of people who'd have liked to go into the movie unspoiled at least as to the third act. It's a shame.

But I'm sure you agree that it doesn't have to be that way. Trailers don't have to give away the game, and they don't have to be tacky and ham-fisted either. They're a marketing tool, of course, but trailers are also -- or can be -- an art form in their own right. Sometimes a trailer is such a skillful composition of images, sounds, words and music that it winds up having more of an effect on me than the movie I'm in the theater to see. (Often, too, the trailer turns out to be better than the movie it's advertising, which is always a disappointment.)

So while yesterday Eric asked you for examples of trailers that pissed you off because they revealed too much, I'd like to know which recent trailers you've loved. Not necessarily which ones you think advertised their movie in the optimal way, but which ones have been great in themselves -- scary, rousing, moving, beautiful. Take a look at some of my favorites and sound off after the jump.

Sometimes it never feels like the film world really moves forward.

A Disney spy reports that Disney has plans to release a bunch of sequels in 2011, one of which is their long-long-long awaited sequel to Tron . That is 29 years after the original was released, which surely must be some kind of record. Hasn't it been just too long? Even the plan to release it in 3-D doesn't really freshen it up for me, but I never was a big fan of the film.

But a franchise much nearer and dearer to the hearts of a younger generation may also be revived -- word has it that Disney also plans to release a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean. And there are conflicting reports on where Disney wants to go with it. Some within the studio want to do a smaller film, probably heavy on the Jack Sparrow, and lighter on the special effects budget. Others want to go completely the opposite and make it beyond fantastical, with dinosaurs and steampunkish floating fortresses. (To be honest, it sounds like some Disney execs have been playing Pirates of the Cursed Seas. That isn't as crazy as it sounds, they did a Pirates set with the company.)

I think it is inevitable a fourth film will be made, particularly after the bitter disappointment caused by the third installment. The Pirates frenzy is just starting to abate and with a bit of breathing room, it would undoubtedly be just as popular. And perhaps most importantly for my household, my sister's boyfriend will have a job impersonating Jack Sparrow for a few more years.

Now that Gore Verbinski seems to be finished with Pirates, I guess he's getting a little anxious about securing himself a new franchise. The Hollywood Reporter announced that Verbinski is getting into the animation business, and he is still assembling his team for the yet to be named film. So far, some of the designers include; visual effects specialist Mark "Crash" McCrery and story and storyboard artist James Ward Bruit. Both men are veterans from the Pirate films, so there won't be a need for any introductions. Verbinski has yet to decide if he will be handling the animation work in-house, and is waiting to see what he has to work with once the script is completed.

The film has a projected budget of around $100 million and has a first look deal with Warner Bros. (thanks to Verbinski's producing partner, Graham King). The two met through screenwriter John Logan (Sweeney Todd), who had worked with King on The Aviator (even more proof that it's who you know in Hollywood). Logan is already in talks to pen the screenplay, but so far there are no details on the story. All we do know is that the flick will be of the action-adventure variety. But that isn't stopping Verbinski from pitching the idea of built in sequels to whatever Logan comes up with. Then again, it's not like it really matters, this is the guy who made a billion dollar franchise out of a crappy theme park ride. Verbinski's untitled animated extravaganza is expected to be released in 2010.

You know how it is on Valentine's Day, if you're not involved with (or married to) anyone. You try to avoid those annoying radio and TV commercials about how the men need to show their love by buying the women in their lives all kinds of fancy things. You attempt to make plans with friends, but they're all hoping for something romantic or planning to mope about their lack of romance. Maybe you join the Anti-Valentine's League, maybe you just try to ignore it all until the hype is over.

But there you are on Valentine's Day night with no plans, and naturally you gravitate toward the time-tested entertainment method of sitting in front of the TV with a good movie. Pizza and/or ice cream might also be part of the viewing process. For years, I liked to curl up with a thin-crust pizza from the local pizza joint, a pint of that Ben and Jerry's ice cream with the chunks of brownies in it, some Dr. Pepper (to be tres Agnes Gooch about it) and my favorite Valentine's movie, Some Like It Hot. After all, it is set around the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, so it's a delightfully sideways hat tip to the holiday. Plus, that glorious last line. But maybe you're in a different mindset on February 14. Here's a list of movies to cover whatever kind of mood might strike you that night, as you ponder which movie you want to spend St. Valentine's Day with.

No source knows Disney better than Jim Hill Media, which is why anyone interested in the future of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise should pay attention to this new info. Actually, some of it is not that new -- you may remember a couple months back when Keira Knightley told reporters that she had no intention of returning to the series for a fourth film -- well, Hill reports that the current thinking inside the house of mouse for how to proceed with an inevitable fourth Captain Jack adventure would not involve either the Elizabeth or Will characters, who were so neatly wrapped up in the button at the end of the last film. Their show is wrapped. The fourth film, according to Hill, will "toss the Elizabeth and Will characters over the side in favor of doing a bawdy buddy picture which would star Jack Sparrow and Barbossa. Where both captains of the Black Pearl would initially be competing for the exact same prize."

"Eventually, all the double crossing would have to stop as these two rivals were then forced to join forces in order to defeat some supernatural terror," Hill says, going on to speculate on a possible problem with the Pirates franchise and the National Treasure franchise both wanting to pursue a 'fountain of youth' story in their next installment. "Wouldn't it be funny if -- when Benjamin Gates arrived at the Fountain of Youth -- he then found Captain Jack Sparrow and Barbossa?" Hill asks. "It could be the Disney version of Alien vs. Predator." Not likely. And anyway, who are they going to replace Keira Knightley with in this next film? If I'm going to be watching another three hours of poor CGI and sitcom-level humor, they better have some saucy wenches for me to look at.

[via IGN]

At the press junket for Atonement in Manhattan on Tuesday, one brave soul piped up during the roundtables to ask Keira Knightley if she was or was not interested in returning for a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film. You may remember that the third one ended on that rather ambiguous note, but then sort of doubled-back with a pretty definitive, boxed-into-a-corner end-credit teaser. Knightley seemed to be ready for this question and had a very definitive answer. She quickly responded, with a tone of sadness and seriousness in her voice, "I can't imagine doing another one. That was an amazing experience, really was, totally extraordinary, but I think three for me is probably enough." This was probably to be expected. The Pirates series is subject to the same industry realities as the X-Men series -- the more money those movies make, the bigger the paychecks the cast members are going to demand for future installments. I think you can almost certainly say goodbye to Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner.

Regarding her other projects, Knightley reported that she has completed her work on The Duchess, as well as The Edge of Love, opposite Sienna Miller and Cillian Murphy. As far as future work, she had nothing to report on that front. Another interesting note: although Knightley showed up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for today's junket along with her co-star James McAvoy, director Joe Wright was a no-show despite being in Manhattan as recently as last night. Joe, are you sick of us press people already?

As you're no doubt aware by now, I'm a big fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. At this point, you either love the series or you're completely disinterested in the franchise, so I'm guessing this DVD review is meant for the "already fans." We'll start off with some material from my original review of the film, then some thoughts after my second third time with the flick, and then we'll finish off with a blow-by-blow on the DVD goodies. (The DVD hits the shelves on December 4 in a solo-disc or dual-platter format. This review covers the two-disc special edition, which is scheduled to go "into Disney moratorium" as of September 2008.)

Sometimes the big-time franchise makers are damned if they do and damned if they don't: Churn out a skimpy "Part 3" that just rehashes what was offered in Parts 1 & 2 and you've got something vaguely entertaining but clearly inferior like Shrek the Third. Try too hard to jam too many arbitrary plot threads and flimsy characters into your third entry and you're stuck with a lurching behemoth like Spider-Man 3. And then you have the middle ground: The sprawling, gorgeous and massive adventure epic Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, which while far from a flawless film, aims to stay faithful to its predecessors while still upping the ante (a lot) with a boat-load of new plot developments, characters and surprisingly nifty subtext. Yep, this particular popcorn movie runs almost three full hours, but if producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski had produced a quick-buck 92-minute third chapter, then the complaints would be legion. You can't win. Except at the box office, obviously.

Imagine a villain who's like a female Darth Vader, only more evil, and she'll invoke the worst nightmares for children since the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This is how Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw has described Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter in his review of The Golden Compass (aka His Dark Materials: Northern Lights, as it's titled in the UK), which he's given a rating of four stars. As if that's not appealing enough, he also claims the character is Kidman's "juiciest" role since To Die For. According to Bradshaw, it seems Kidman is the main reason to see the movie. His only other highlight is the look of the movie's universe, which he calls "wonderful" and "Gilliamesque." He also points out how it's obvious the movie is aiming for association with Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia. Well, that isn't very surprising.

For a "four star" movie, The Golden Compass, according to Bradshaw, sounds like a mess plot-wise. Aside from looking nice, the movie's universe is apparently "crowded" and "alienating" and the audience is expected to get used to it as best it can, despite a lot of missing background material included in the book. Also, it's apparently more "absurd" than the source novel. Of course, confusing plots and universes aren't always a bad thing to audiences -- just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean series. What could be bad for the movie's box office is its violence; Bradshaw claims a significant polar bear battle could be too much for younger viewers. I have a good feeling that other critics will be less favorable considering the faults that this review seems to address, but of course even with terrible reviews, The Golden Compass could be a hit -- again, just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

As much as I disapprove of most remakes, I don't really have an issue with Akira Kurosawa's films being redone. The thing is, Kurosawa was a master of remakes, having continually reworked John Ford and Shakespeare. And in turn, his films have been remade as or have influenced later classics, like The Magnificent Seven and Star Wars. Sure, it's worth complaining about The Weinstein Co. remaking The Seven Samurai, because, well, it's The Weinstein Co. But I see little issue with the news, courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter, that Japanese studio Toho, which produced the original, is working on a redo of The Hidden Fortress. This is the film, after all, that is constantly cited as the basis for Star Wars, and if it's good enough in the hands of George Lucas, it could be good enough in the hands of special effects wizard-turned-director Shinji Higuchi (The Sinking of Japan). Cast as General Makabe, the part originated by the legendary Toshirô Mifune, is super-tall (for his country) actor Hiroshi Abe (Godzilla 2000). The part of Princess Uehara will be played by Masami Nagasawa (Godzilla: Final Wars).

One issue that Kurosawa fans may have with this remake, and The Hollywood Reporter already points this out, is that the two comical peasant characters, Tahei and Matashichi, are being condensed into one character called "Takezo". The character will still serve the same function, with his point of view being the film's perspective, but unless he talks to himself a lot, he just won't be the same. Aside from inspiring R2-D2 and C-3PO, Tahei and Matashichi have obviously influenced other pairings, including the recent characters Ragetti and Pintel from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Perhaps Toho believes we've seen enough of such duos? The new singular version, "Takezo", will be played by Jun Matsumoto, best known as a member of the boy band Arashi.

Hi-Ho Silver, bring me lots of money! According to the Hollywood Insider, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, the pens behind Pirates of the Caribbean, are trying to cook up a draft of The Lone Ranger for Jerry Bruckheimer to turn into the latest cash cow. Yes, the old masked ranger who rides a white horse, righting wrongs with the help of Tonto. Sure, remakes of old stories, even radio classics, are all the rage, but is a cowboy on a horse going to rake in the cash for Bruckheimer and Disney? Could this really be true?

According to the report, the studio won't confirm the assignment, so they can only go by their sources, and as HI describes it, the writing duo is "trying to create a new juggernaut for Bruckheimer to exploit." Sure, they made pirates all the rage, but can they do the same with cowboys? It doesn't seem to be one of those areas that gets tons of mileage, at least, not in the wide world of kids and marketing. I guess if anyone could do it, it's this team, but still. Cowboys and Indians? Can they really pull it off?

As HI says, the concept hasn't been as popular as it used to be. After the '50s television show, there was a 1981 film flop, and more recently, the WB tried to get a television version off the ground with Chad Michael Murray. It's really too bad that that project didn't even make it to the boob tube -- CMM as the Ranger would've amused me. So there you have it, the Lone Ranger might hit the big screen once again, under the powerful arm of Bruckheimer. Does that scare you? Excite you? Or maybe make you feel a little queasy?

Manoel de Oliveira's Belle Toujours is back on the charts this week, playing on one lone screen, in Denver, according to my information. Among its other qualities and achievements, it marks the fourth collaboration of director Oliveira and actor Michel Piccoli (a fifth, a short segment in an anthology film, appeared earlier this year). At 81, Piccoli is practically a living legend, having worked with Alfred Hitchcock, Luis Buñuel, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, Louis Malle, Mario Bava, and many other greats. He also appears in Jean-Pierre Melville's 1962 Le Doulos, currently re-released on 2 screens. It's a delicate relationship between director and actor; Piccoli and Oliveira seem to be developing a comfortable working relationship in which each brings out the best in the other. This has happened relatively few times over the past century. When it happens, it can be very exciting, but when a director and an actor don't click, everything can fall to pieces.

Milos Forman has coaxed and guided some great performances over the years, notably Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Tom Hulce and F. Murray Abraham in Amadeus and Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon. But he has rarely been praised for directing women, as evidenced by his awkward handling of Natalie Portman in the awful Goya's Ghosts (37 screens). The movie earned advance attention for its nude/sex scene, but will probably be remembered for fitting Portman with a set of humorously bad fake teeth and for her self-consciously dazed walk, newly released from prison, through a chaotic town square. Forman may be to blame, but Portman is out there, on the screen, all alone and in front of everyone.

Chemistry -- you can be the best filmmaker, writer or actor, but nothing makes up for a lack of that intangible connection between two people. This is probably why so many actors can't keep up long relationships -- they continually get paired up with people they have great chemistry with and are weakened by temptation over and over until they can't help but break the ties that bind and go libidinously nuts. Oh, the devilish temptation! But on the flip-side, there are pairings that are just plain crappy -- painfully free of that interest and attraction that comes from the eyes. The CBC has reported that British cinema advertisers Pearl and Dean recently conducted a survey asking 3,000 movie-goers which duos have the worst on-screen chemistry, and came up with a list of the 10 worst offenders.

The top spots are no big surprise, really -- the 5th went to Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery in Entrapment, the 4th to Madonna and Adriano Giannini in Swept Away, Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom got the third spot with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, the runners up were the rockin' Bennifer pair for Gigli and the top spot went to Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen with Episode II: Attack of the Clones. I'd say they're pretty spot on, although my top offender are the two that hold that third spot, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks so. Granted, Johnny Depp can whip up some chemistry with almost anyone, which makes it hard to compete, but man, I hated Knightley and Bloom together. This also made many parts of the final film truly annoying, if you get my drift. Also, you've got to question your real-life couple choices when you can't cook up chemistry at work, with your significant other.

Finishing the list, there's Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell in the 6-spot with Four Weddings and a Funeral, Ben Affleck appeared again at 7 with Kate Beckinsale for Pearl Harbor, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman got 8 with Eyes Wide Shut, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal followed with Brokeback Mountain and Titanic got the final, 10th spot, with stars Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. Who would you pick?

A conversation arose in the screening room the other day about the sorry state of young, romantic performers in movies today and the overwhelming blandness slathered across our movie screens. Pretty, plastic, chiseled faces smile at one another and sometimes kiss, and their efforts leave everyone cold. Critics and audiences often use the word "chemistry" to describe these encounters; either the characters have it or they don't. Strangely, there's really no way to tell if it's even there until the movie is finished. You can put two actors in a room together, or screen test them, but none of it comes together until the audience becomes a factor.

One reason most movie couples have been so bland lately is the ever-increasing control that studios are demanding of their product. Every aspect of filmmaking must be regulated and stabilized, and so, to make the most of their romantic stories, these same studio people very simply cast the most beautiful actors they can find. Beautiful people sometimes explode on the movie screen with lots of personality and star power, but just as often, they don't, looking more like polished statues without so much as a heartbeat. James Dean was very handsome, but he had a surprising element, a kind of unpredictability, as well as world-heavy sadness. But James Franco, who played Dean in a TV biopic, has only the looks. As shown in his most recent film, Spider-Man 3 (151 screens), where there should be passion and danger and excitement, there's only grooming. At times I honestly can't tell the difference between him and Paul Walker.

Alright, all you movie hounds. We know you've spent all summer watching the endless slew of sequels, from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to Shrek the Third, from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to The Bourne Ultimatum, from Spider-Man 3 to Rush Hour 3 -- it's been one long, hot, summer. But how well do you know your movie sequel history? Over at the Guardian, they have a nifty little quiz up with questions that will test your sequel mettle. I scored 70% on the first pass, not too bad, I guess (hey some of the questions are a little tricky, I'm not that up on my Leonard Part 6). Go check it out, then let us know how you did.

Now here's a little movie sequel pop quiz for you: Can you put the three stills of each of these series in order?



More after the jump ...