In last year's Best Picture winner, No Country for Old Men, Tommy Lee Jones played a weary sheriff chasing after a man who was chasing after some money. Well, according to the San Antonio Express-News, Jones is now himself a weary man chasing after some money, specifically from the pockets of Paramount.

It appears that a contract signed by Jones between Paramount and its subsidiary, N.M. Classics, Inc. contained two "mistakes" that may have prevented him from garnering up to, and perhaps upwards of, $10 million in the wake of the film's success. What's worse is that he was still deducted for any number of expenses, despite alleged awareness of the errors on the part of Paramount. As such, Jones wants an auditor to go through their books and figure out just how much he is owed.

Naturally, neither side of the case has made much in terms of formal comment. As his character might say, if this ain't a mess, it'll do 'til the mess gets here.

[Thanks to Movie City News for the tip.]

Funny, too, because my friends and I were just discussing Inside Man last night. My good pal has a thing for when Denzel yells, "This ain't no robbery!" -- and for some odd reason, he's always saying it (in Denzel's voice). Everyone has THAT quote-crazy friend, ya know? But anyway, The Hollywood Reporter tells us that Spike Lee is moving forward with a sequel to Inside Man over at Universal -- a project that's been in the works for awhile now, but took a backseat when Lee decided to make Miracle at St. Anna. The director would return to the film in the same role, with Terry George (Hotel Rwanda, Reservation Road) currently in negotiations to write the screenplay.

Universal and Lee made a killing on the first Inside Man, which, in my opinion, was one of the more enjoyable heist flicks of the past few years, and so it's no surprise they're looking to dive in for more. Though they're not signed on yet, both Denzel Washington and Clive Owen are interested in reprising their roles -- and THR says the sequel will "continue the relationship between the two man characters but in a new high-tension situation." Not a big fan of the "it made $175 million so we have to do the sequel" thought process, but if there's a duo I'd like to see reunited on screen, it would be Clive and Denzel. Both were excellent in the first film.

What do you think? Down for more Inside Man? And where could you see them taking these characters?

The New York Post ran a little piece yesterday about hearing a rumor that Mark Cuban's Magnolia pictures has signed to distribute Steven Soderbergh's Che, which James and I saw at Cannes and very much enjoyed. I emailed Cuban earlier to ask whether the rumor is true, and got back from him "working on it," which to me sounds very promising. Cuban's a smart guy and he's not afraid to take risks; now he'll just have to figure out how to package and market the damn thing.

Many of us who loved the film at Cannes pondered over drinks after that screeing who would be brave enough to pick it up for distribution, and whether if it did get picked up it would show in one part in its entirety with an intermission, as we saw it at there, or two separate films, or perhaps one greatly edited shorter film. I'm glad to hear that someone's going to pick it up, and I'm curious now to see which way Cuban will play the release of the film. Any thoughts from those who've seen it as to which you'd prefer?

Acting couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly must have decided that life would be too calm after November 2008 -- so they have signed to play Charles and Emma Darwin in Creation. Yes, the Darwins. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film will be directed by Jon Amiel, from a script penned by John Collee, and based on Randal Keynes' book Annie's Box. (Keynes is Darwin's great-great grandson.) The film will portray Charles Darwin as a man torn between his love for his deeply religious wife, and his growing belief in a world where God has no place.

I hope that they explore Darwin's personal struggles and belief more deeply than the plot description suggests. To sell him as an athiest smacks of wanting to stir up controversy -- Darwin always called himself an agonostic, and his rejection of Christianity stemmed as much from the tragic death of his daughter, Annie, as his research. It's a complex and fascinating biography, one that, as a lover of science and the history of it, I would love to see done with real justice.

The cast is certainly more than capable -- Bettany and Connelly are both wonderful, and they'll be joined by Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Annie Darwin has yet to be cast. (I can't help but be amused by the fact that Bettany and Northam have played Darwin-inspired characters before, in Master and Commander and Possession, respectively. Pet interest, perhaps?)

I know the merest mention of Charles Darwin is enough to cause an epic flame war in the comments. If it's possible, try to keep discussion only to the film, the actors, the book, and Darwin's biography. That may be too much to hope for, but I beg you to remain respectful and tolerant of one another.

A double Academy Award winner is going back to the future. Denzel Washington will star in the post-apocalyptic drama Book of Eli, to be directed by Albert and Allen Hughes, according to Variety. He will play "a lone hero in a not-too-distant apocalyptic future who must fight across America to bring society the knowledge that could be the key to its redemption." Sounds like the best of all possible worlds, doesn't it? Denzel as an intellectual action hero of the future.

Denzel has been resolutely dealing with modern-day problems for the last decade, so maybe he felt like a change of pace. As far as I can tell, the only time that Denzel's tipped his toe into future waters was back in 1995 with Brett Leonard's Virtuosity. In that movie, set just four years into the future, he faced off against a virtual reality Russell Crowe. How far into the future will Book of Eli be set? Who gets the blame for the apocalypse? Will this be a tale of weary, wary survivors or vengeful warriors? And what's in that book, anyway?

Amazingly, this will be the first feature from The Hughes Brothers since 2001's graphic novel adapatation From Hell. They'll be working from a script originally written by Gary Whitta (the two new Akira films) and re-written by Anthony Peckham (Clint Eastwood's upcoming The Human Factor and Sherlock Holmes for Warner Bros). Joel Silver is on board as one of the producers. Filming begins in January.

I bet when you woke up this morning, you thought the same thing I did: "When are we going to get to see Tom Cruise viciously murder a whole bunch of people on the big screen ... again?" Right? We're SO on the same wavelength here, like internet, movie-related soul mates from outer space! That said, fellow soul mate, Variety tells us that Cruise and United Artists have acquired rights to The Monster of Florence, based on the book by Douglas Preston. Cruise will produce and possibly star, though there's no word on whether he'd play the killer or one of the men trying to crack the case.

This is actually a pretty crazy story, and I believe it was the subject of a recent 48 Hours Mystery (or Dateline) where these two guys -- Preston and Italian journalist Mario Spezi -- were on an intense search to find out who exactly committed eight gruesome double homicides between the years of 1968 and 1985. Both men claimed to have found the guy, but then -- since they knew so much about the case -- both became actual suspects themselves. It's a pretty wild story and one that's ripe for the big-screen treatment. Only problem is it kinda suffers from "the Zodiac issue" where no one currently knows who the killer is, and so they won't be able to tie a nice, shiny bow around this puppy. Regardless, it's a good story and I'm curious to see what they do with it. You?

We've stayed away from all the Ghostbusters rumors these past couple days because last time we crossed this road, we were told nothing existed. Well, seems that's not at all true: Variety reports that Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky (The Office, Year One) have been asked to write a script for a Ghostbusters sequel (reported earlier today by Pajiba.com) that may or may not "pass the torch to a new group of ghost chasers." Funnily enough -- and even though he flat out told us he had nothing to do with it -- this is totally in line with those early rumors that "The Apatow Clan" would be involved in some capacity; namely Seth Rogen. When we asked him about it during the Pineapple Express junket, however, the man denied knowing a thing. Then again, he's an actor ... and he's paid pretty damn well to pretend.

The Apatow connection is also there in that these two writers are behind the Apatow-produced Year One, which, ahem, is being directed by Harold Ramis -- who, in case you forgot, played Dr. Egon Spengler in both Ghostbuster movies. No word from Columbia Pictures on the project, and Variety is simply throwing out all the same fluff that's been reported on other sites for months now. Could we see a reunion and a torch passing? Will the Apatow folks take over the Ghostbusters franchise? I'd certainly be down for it.

You?

(And now we shall continue to run circles around this monster until someone finally caves ...)

After the unpleasantness that was You, Me and Dupree, Anthony and Joe Russo are looking to explore a different kind of darkness -- the gritty and corrupt city of Ciudad del Este. According to Variety, they're set to direct Ciudad, which will be based on a graphic novel they're writing for Oni Press.

The story will follow a battered hostage negotiator, who travels to Paraguay and the above mentioned city to rescue a kidnap victim. They've been researching the story for years, traveling to crime-infested cities across the world to flesh it out more. Ciudad del Este is next on the travel agenda, a city labeled by the U.S. government as "a threat to national security" that shelters terrorists, drug runners, and all manner of scary people. So stay safe, you two.

The brothers are said to be aiming for a return to their indie roots with this one -- they were formerly behind Pieces, and the seedy George Clooney outing Welcome to Collinwood. (That's a bit of a lost film, isn't it? Weren't those the days when people were still screaming he should have stayed on ER? How things change.) I wish I could say more, but the graphic novel won't be out until 2009, and there's nary a preview on Oni's website. All we can do at this point is give them props for their research, wonder if George Clooney liked them enough to play the weary hostage negotiator, and make glib comparisons to Proof of Life or even Man on Fire.

We all know that David Fincher is an uncompromising director (and why shouldn't he be? The guy is one of the best working today). But, even if you don't like the man, you have to admire someone who is truly willing to put his money where his mouth is. In an interview unearthed by The Playlist, Heavy Metal publisher (and Fincher's collaborator on the Metal reboot), Kevin Eastman, confirmed that the reason for the project's move from Paramount to Sony was not because of problems with the sex and violence (as earlier reported), but because of another film altogether. When Metal first jumped studios, there was speculation that Fincher was having trouble getting the green light because of Metal's risqué subject matter. But, it wasn't Metal they were fighting about, it was Fincher's upcoming fantasy tale, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

According to Eastman, "We developed it [Heavy Metal] for Paramount in January... And it was time for them to make a decision [about going forward with the project] and they were at odds with Fincher over another project, 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,' [because] they wanted him to reduce the running time... and so they said, 'Until you step up to do what we want you to do with Benjamin, we're not going to green light any other of [your] movies.' And David said, 'Fine, f**k you, I'm going to set up [Heavy Metal] somewhere else,' so we jumped over to Sony and set it up there." You can't help but wonder what Paramount was thinking? Maybe the likely answer is that they were not prepared for Fincher to call their bluff.

After the jump ... guess who's directing Heavy Metal???

Remember that ginormous project called 39 Clues that was announced awhile back -- a worldwide mystery to span books, interactive games, trading cards and a movie deal, courtesy of Steven Spielberg? The first book in the series, The Maze of Bones, hits shelves all over the world next Tuesday, the same day as its interactive online game. Will it spark an obsession along the lines of Twilight or Harry Potter? Time will tell.

Steven Spielberg has confidence in it, though. Acccording to Variety, he's hired his old pal Jeff Nathanson to pen the script, marking their fourth collaboration together. They paired up previously on The Terminal, Catch Me If You Can, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Spielberg is still eying Clues' director's chair, and it will be interesting to see where this can fit into his busy schedule, where Tintin and Lincoln were taking precedence. Does he want this worldwide money hunt (the prize for solving the project's mystery is $10,000) to be over before the movie, or will the bloom be off the rose by then? What if the whole multiplatform concept fails spectacularly? Are the books still filmable? The ambition of 39 Clues leaves me doubting whether it can deliver -- but I can hardly pretend to have better judgment than Spielberg. At any rate, I'll be watching the book pages with interest to see what audiences make of The Maze of Bones -- if anyone out there buys it, give us the scoop!