Even though we were just treated to a movie about the birth of Jesus, there is another one in the works. This, in spite of the fact that The Nativity Story didn't do very well. MGM apparently thinks it can do better with Myriam, Mother of Christ. Here are some things this one has going for it: a screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald, who co-wrote The Passion of the Christ; a title that sounds more like The Passion of the Christ; the same release date (Easter) as The Passion of the Christ. Now all it needs is for Mel Gibson to direct and for Jim Caviezel's head to be planted on baby Jesus' body, Little Man style.

Ever since The Passion made tons and tons and tons of money, Hollywood has been interested in the religious film market. Unfortunately, The Nativity Story wasn't the only attempt to attract a Passion-size audience that failed. But obviously the studios are going to keep on trying, because nobody wants to believe The Passion was a one-time occurrence.

There aren't any plans for an official sequel to The Passion of the Christ (unofficial is another story), but one Bible publisher is producing what seems to be a related product. This October, Nelson Bibles will release a 25-hour audiobook of the New King James Version complete with a star-studded cast, including Jim Caviezel as the voice of Jesus.

The rest of the Passion cast has been substituted with other big names, and there doesn't seem to be any affiliation with Newmarket Films or Mel Gibson, but obviously Nelson is using the connection to its advantage. Otherwise the real appeal of the audiobook, entitled The Word of Promise: New Testament, should be Terrence Stamp, who provides the voice of God, and Richard Dreyfuss, who plays Moses.

There will be a follow-up (or, should I say prequel?) to the audiobook that will be based on the Old Testament, and Stamp and Dreyfuss will return in their respective parts. Unfortunately, Caviezel's role will not be included. Neither will the parts played by Marisa Tomei, Lou Diamond Phillips, Kimberly Williams, Ernie Hudson, John Heard or Luke Perry (try to imagine Judas with Dylan McKay's sideburns).

If this past weekend was any indication, people are a lot more interested in the death or Jesus than his birth. Or maybe they'd just prefer Mel Gibson's take on the classic story. Back in February of 2004 (Ash Wednesday, to be precise), The Passion of the Christ opened in theaters, and quickly became the highest grossing R-rated film in history -- it earned $25 million per day in its first five days. Of course, the built-in audience for this bad boy was massive -- not only in the United States, but worldwide -- and when it arrived on DVD on August 31, 2004, it reportedly sold 2.4 million copies by midday. There was controversy. There was buzz. And, once again, there was Mel Gibson.

Two years later (last January, to be precise), New Line acquired Mike Rich's spec script, Nativity, and vowed to have it in theaters by the following Christmas. Yes, for those who aren't aware, The Nativity Story (its current title) was thrown together in a little under a year -- from script purchase to finished product -- and was quickly released in 3,183 theaters last Friday. With Christmas only a few weeks away, you'd think this was the perfect time to release a film that revolves around the birth of Jesus, right? Wrong. The film took in only $8 million, the second lowest total in history for a film debuting on over 3,100 screens. But why did it tank? Bad marketing? Poor reviews? Were people too busy Christmas shopping? Was it because Mel Gibson and the controversy were absent? And why are people so afraid to promote a film whose story inspired the holiday they're about to celebrate?

So, I ask you: Why did The Nativity Story fail to put people in seats? And, on a more personal note, why didn't you go see it?

I'm getting ready to interview Todd Field -- one of those deals where the professional in you has to fight the movie-nerd: I'm gonna meet someone who worked with frickin' Kubrick! -- so I'm a little nervy about that. I also dealt with recompression last night -- after a week on Hawaii's Big Island, walking down Market to the Metreon (or, rather, Metreon) to go see Flags of Our Fathers, and the change from tree-lined lava paths to conventioneer-lined city boulevards is a little nervy as well: Where did all these people come from? And, to quote The Old 97's, how soon can they leave? So today I'm sort of mulling over the Eastwood in preparation to write it, and that's a little nervy too -- it's one of those deals where, like The Passion of the Christ or World Trade Center, judging the film is not connected to judging the events it covers, and yet it feels like there's that correlation. And speaking of Jesus, how did I miss the story about Keisha Castle-Hughes, star of The Nativty, getting pregnant? I mean, you can make your own joke here -- Talk about method acting! Or Wow, that's some immaculate promotion! -- but then you realize you're talking about, like, a human being. And that realization makes you nervy. And that you need to cut down on coffee and irony in equal measure.

What's getting you nervy?

J.

20th Century Fox is soon going to have so many specialty divisions that their brand is going to be completely meaningless. Of course, it makes sense for a studio named for a century long past to have a bit of identity trouble, but with Fox 2000, Fox Searchlight, Fox Atomic and now FoxFaith, there's definitely room for confusion. At least FoxFaith, their newest, Christian-themed division has an easily distinguishable name. In fact, it is so literal and appropriate in its name, it sounds more like a new TV channel.

FoxFaith will be producing* 12 films a year, with 6 of these released in theaters under a partnership with the AMC and Carmike cinema chains. While Fox has said they will be marketing the films specifically to evangelical Christians, it isn't clear whether or not the films will be sappy family films dealing with good moral values -- perhaps in conjunction with newly acquired production company Walden Media, which produced Fox's Because of Winn-Dixie -- or if they'll also include violent Bible films like The Passion of the Christ, which was released in theaters by Newmarket but on DVD by Fox. All that is known is that the division's first release will be Love's Abiding Joy, part of the Western series based on the novels of Janette Oke. I doubt this film will capture the huge audience that Passion and other blockbuster religious films have, as it is basically a made-for-TV movie, but otherwise Fox is likely to make some big bucks with this venture, which some might see as purely exploitative. ...

*Correction: Fox has stated that they will not be making any of the 12 films. They will only be distributing them on home video under the FoxFaith banner.

Say what you want about Mel Gibson and his recent run in with the law, the Jews and the bottle, but the dude definitely knows how to paint a pretty picture up on the big screen. Visually, the guy is a genius -- I mean, Braveheart will forever rank high up on my "fun flicks to watch when you feel like kicking the crap out of someone, but can't" list. Same goes for The Passion of the Christ, though, being Jewish, I wouldn't consider myself a member of the Jesus fan club, however Gibson certainly knows how to garner a reaction from an audience through the power of the moving image.

Case in point: The first theatrical trailer for Gibson's upcoming Apocalypto is now available online and, let me tell you -- the thing looks pretty fricking sweet. Set during the downfall of the Mayan Empire, the story revolves around one man's decision to flee his home after he's chosen to become a human sacrifice. While the pic probably won't do a ton of business for Disney (partly due to the whole drunk-driving episode, and also because the film's characters speak in an ancient Mayan dialect), I've decided to check it out based solely on the beautiful, yet awe-inspiring images included in this trailer. Apocalypto's release date was recently moved to December 8 (a day Disney insists will stick), and so we'll soon find out what the world really thinks of Mel. Will you shell out ten bucks for this?

Early this morning, Mel Gibson was arrested on suspicion of DUI by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in Malibu. There isn't much to report just yet, as the incident is still being investigated, but Gibson was released on bail, which was set at $5,000. All that is known at this time is that Gibson was pulled over while driving on the Pacific Coast Highway and he was administered a Breathalyzer test. He was arrested at 2:36am and booked an hour-and-a-half later.

It isn't being said what he was doing at the time the police decided to pull him over, but I imagine that when Mel is drunk, he likes to pretend he's Mad Max and go crazy out on the highway. And if he still has that ridiculously long beard he grew while shooting Apocalypto, then he probably looked even more like a nut to the cops.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother with the whole "He should know better, being an upstanding representative of Christianity" (you know, because he directed The Passion of the Christ, and all) thing, because it's not as if one has anything to do with the other. But I'm sure there are some of you who are going to point this out, so I figured I'd beat you to it and smash it. Besides, everyone should know better, regardless of profession or religious background, right? Right.

One of the greatest things about a controversial film is that it sparks debate. It shocks us. Scares us. Changes us. And helps us to look at the world differently. Be it about war, religion, politics or pop-culture, a good controversy will often lead to a colorful discussion. However, Hollywood doesn't really care about discussion or debate -- to them, controversy equals big box office numbers ... some of the time.

Take, for example, recent films like The Da Vinci Code and United 93. One was controversial for its belief that Jesus Christ was married and fathered a child -- an idea that goes against what many feel is a proven truth. The other was about a horrific event that took place only five years ago, and raised questions over whether or not it was too soon to come out with a commercial film about what actually took place. While The Da Vinci Code took in millions at the box office, United 93 didn't do as well. However, both were engulfed in controversy. What does this tell us? Well, for starters, Jesus will always be Hollywood's number one superstar.

This week's Entertainment Weekly ranks the 25 most controversial films of all time. Not surprisingly, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came in at number one. Also on the list are JFK, A Clockwork Orange, Natural Born Killers, Basic Instinct and Fahrenheit 9/11, among others. Some of these films are controversial because of only one or two scenes. I mean, Clockwork is number 2 on the list, mainly because of its one violent scene. Does it belong there? On a list that spans the entire history of film?

So, I ask you: How should we rate controversial films on a list like this? Also, what makes one stand out from the next. Oh, and for fun, what are some of your favorite controversial films of all time?

If you've read The Da Vinci Code (Seriously, it's okay to admit you never read it -- we won't make fun of you.), then you're familiar with the mysterious Opus Dei featured prominently in the book. Well, the real-life organization, which is made to look like some sort of freaky Catholic cult in the novel, is protesting Ron Howard's refusal to include the "this movie is fiction" disclaimer they requested in his film.

The director, who has already faced a ton of criticism from the Vatican, states that there's really no need to have a disclaimer since it's obvious the film is fiction. You know, because it's, um, a movie. Sure, there will be groups and organizations featured that are real, but the characters and story are not. Howard says, "It's not theology. It's not history. To start off with a disclaimer ... spy thrillers don't start off with disclaimers."

And he's right. I think. However, seeing as the book and film's themes are so controversial, do you think it would be wise to throw up a disclaimer to keep the peace? I mean, I chose not to watch The Passion of the Christ for my own personal reasons -- I'm curious, did it open with a disclaimer? One that said something like, "We're not sure if this whole thing actually happened this way because we weren't there ... but you never know?"

New Line has purchased Mike Rich's spec script, Nativity, with plans to develop the project into Passion dollars.The story is said to revolve around Mary, Joseph and their 100-mile trip to Bethlehem for the birth of that troublemaker, Jesus. Rich claims he came up with the idea after watching Passion of the Christ collect over $600 million worldwide. Okay, what he's actually telling people is that he thought of it after reading about the Nativity in Time and Newsweek. Sure...we'll let him go with that.

While everyone immediately compares this to Mel Gibson's film, thankfully the script was written in English, making it easier for those at New Line to pin-point the dollar signs. In fact, I believe one producer literally snorted them off page 46. The story also attempts to flesh out key characters such as King Herod and John the Baptist's parents, Zachariah and Elizabeth. Since I'm not Catholic, I'm going to assume those were important people. Rich also penned two other feel-good flicks in Finding Forrester and Radio, though neither one came with Jesus' much loved built-in audience.