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.

It is no secret that horror maestro Clive Barker has not had good luck lately with feature films. But to his credit, it hasn't made him bitter about seeing his work translated for the big screen. In an interview with MTV, Barker got the chance to weigh in on the upcoming remake of Hellraiser for Dimension Films -- and judging from his comments, he seems to be in a good place with the project. Barker told MTV, "I never get tired of revisiting [characters] if there is a good story to be told." He seemed genuinely excited about what he has planned for the story of a puzzle box from another dimension and the 'human pin-cushion'.

Back in February, Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton were hired to work on the re-write of the Barker-approved script. But the project had another setback when the French directing duo of Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo (À l'intérieur) left the project due to "creative differences." So for now it looks like Pin-Head and the Gang are without a director. Hopefully, Dimension can get the ball rolling on the remake, because I don't think Barker could take another disappointment at the box office.

After the jump...find out what Barker really thinks about PG-13 horror.

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.

Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass seems to be one of the projects of the moment -- either because it's a super slow news time or because Mark Millar has taken over the Internet. I suspect the latter.

When this movie was officially pushed into gear, much was made of the violence of Millar's book, and how Vaughn refused to tone it down for the film. Studios fled screaming from it. But according to Nicolas Cage, it's not going to be excessive. "When I said 'yes' to this movie, it was to a script," Cage told MTV. "Then I started seeing the comics which are pretty far out in terms of violence. But I think Matthew and the script have a different style to it. I'm not fond of gratuitous violence ... There will be some moments of action that will be violent, but there will be a sense of elegance to it. [Matthew Vaughn] doesn't want to get gratuitous with it. At least that's what Matthew has told me."

Now, perhaps this is all a matter of perspective -- what studios see as over-the-top and gratuitous, Vaughn and Cage don't. But on the snap judgment surface, it sounds as though Vaughn is watering down Millar's book, which is hard to believe when he was so dedicated to the blood and guts that he funded it himself. I want him to stick to his guns (no pun intended) and make the movie that shocked studio executives. My future katana-wielding daughter must be portrayed accurately, in all her foul-mouthed and blood drenched glory. (For the record, I trained her, not her father. As if I would trust such a delicate task to anyone else.)

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!

There's an interesting trend going on in film right now -- everyone is grabbing up classic characters of pulp and adventure literature right and left. We've got Conan, Sherlock Holmes, John Carter, and now Tarzan. There's a sociological study in here for an aspiring student.

Tarzan has seen many a reboot, and there's always whispers of someone wanting to make a new version. This current project has been floating around since 2003 (the same year Warner Bros tried to bring Tarzan to television and the modern city), and once boasted Guillermo del Toro's name. Now, according to Variety, it has landed in the hands of Stephen Sommers, who is cowriting a script with Stuart Beattie. Beattie boasts some impressive credits, like Pirates of the Caribbean and Collateral, so the Lord of the Apes might be in quite capable hands.

But Sommers' movies tend to fall a bit short of expectation, to put it kindly. And I mean it kindly, from someone who does actually own Van Helsing -- I could write a long defense as to why, but it really just comes down to liking Hugh Jackman and David Wenham a lot. But, in my defense, I reportedly audibly booed the ending when I saw it at the theater, though I can't remember if it was because they so visibly CGI'd pants on a naked post-werewolf Jackman, or the floating head of Kate Beckinsale. I think it was the floating head, but knowing me, it may have been the pants.

So, while I want to think about how cool a new Tarzan movie could be, what hot dude they'll put in a loincloth, how feisty Jane will be, I can't. Because I'm picturing the whole thing saddled with the same CGI Sommers has used since The Mummy, a jungle peppered with apes that can stretch their jaws for miles. Am I wrong, readers?

Bringing the story of John Lennon and Mark David Chapman to the big screen didn't help Chapter 27. But perhaps a story of his life, one without Jared Leto and Lindsay Lohan, will fare better. And I raise that perhaps to a probably since this new biopic is coming from the writer of Control, which makes the news pretty damn sweet.

The Hollywood Reporter posts that a new biopic centering on John Lennon is in the works. Titled Nowhere Boy, the film was written by Matt Greenhalgh and will be helmed by visual director Sam Taylor-Wood. Nowhere will focus on Lennon's "childhood and subsequent journey to icon status." Basically, just the earlier years, and not the time that brought Yoko, Julian, and Sean. The script is said to portray his personal life as "a lonely teenager growing up as his aunt and the mother who gave him up fight for his love. His only escape is music, art, and his fateful friendship with Paul McCartney."

Casting is underway now, with plans to shoot on location in Lennon's hometown of Liverpool. I imagine that we'll see a collection of lesser and bigger actors flood the roles, but do you have anyone in mind for the famous Beatle(s)?

I can't help but feel bad for Garth Ennis because it seems like lately, the guy can't catch a break. It was bad enough that the long-awaited adaption of his controversial series Preacher was shelved at HBO; but this is just adding insult to injury. The Hollywood Reporter announced that Columbia Pictures has hired Matt Manfredi and Phil Hay to adapt Ennis' anti-superhero comic, The Boys. Back in February, Elisabeth gave us the heads up that Columbia had picked up the property in the 'spirit' of looking for some titles that could give Watchmen a run for their money on the topic of superhero subversion.

Originally published in 2006, The Boys was created by Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson. The story was "set in a contemporary world very much similar to real one, with one notable exception: a number of people have some form of superpower. The series follows a superpowered CIA squad, known informally as "the Boys", whose job it is to keep watch on superheroes and, if necessary, intimidate or kill them."

So you might be wondering why the addition of Manfredi and Hay isn't good news. I mean everyone likes a comic book movie, right? Well, a quick glance at their collective resumes solves that mystery. Between the two of them, they have created some truly awful scripts (notably, The Tuxedo and crazy/beautiful). Hopefully the two have been brushing up on their 'superhero skills' by finishing their adaptation of R.I.P.D. for Universal. If not, I can't imagine that fans of the dark and violent world of The Boys will be pleased.

[Thanks: Comics2Film]

Back in early July, we made mention of the fact that Bryan Bertino, writer/director of The Strangers, had at least two projects going on at Rogue Pictures since he ended up giving them a good ol' summer sleeper success story, the grosses for which inevitably prompted talk of a possible sequel.

Well, Variety now tells us that there surely will be a second Strangers, and that Bertino is returning to write (if not direct) it, with a certain star standing to return as well (profitable as the film may have been, I'd rather not risk spoilers, so don't bother clicking on either that Variety link or the 'certain star' one if you've yet to see the film -- after all, it doesn't open in the UK 'til tomorrow).

I felt that The Strangers milked enough tension out of a somewhat sparse premise to merit a watch, but I'm that much more concerned about how redundant or ridiculous a second one would have to be in order to follow it up. The point remains that, if they make it, I will watch it, and so will plenty of others. Let's face it: There are more vicious cycles operating in the world today.

Call me skeptical, but I'm willing to sustain myself entirely on a diet of my own words if writer Aaron Sorkin and producer Scott Rudin can actually manage to make something entertaining out of a film about the formation of social networking site Facebook and the success of its founders, as Variety reports they are working on over at Sony.

Honestly, what can an Oscar-winning producer and an oft-acclaimed scribe do with a rags-to-riches arc and the sight of two guys tapping away at computers and taking meetings? Sure, at least Sorkin and Rudin are two talented guys in their own right, but I'm really missing whatever inherent, original, exceedingly relevant drama they might see in this project. Killing time at work on Facebook is one thing; this is something else.

On the one hand, I'd like to see this fall through, and on the other, I'd only be rewarded with a good flick if proven wrong. Regardless, here's what appears to be the official Facebook group of the whole shebang, and if any of you guys get wind of a Fox-backed MySpace project with a title like Major Tom or something, be a pal and pass it on.

When two guys with a dozen episodes of The Office and an upcoming Judd Apatow project between them (that'd be next summer's biblical comedy Year One), I'd be willing to see what else they've got up their combined sleeve. For Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, that sleeve is home to Bad Teacher, the spec script that Columbia just picked up.

According to Variety, the story concerns "a foul-mouthed, gold-digging seventh-grade teacher who's dumped by her sugar-daddy boyfriend and turns her attention toward a colleague. That pits her against a rival who happens to be the school's model teacher." So at the risk of sounding shallow, it sounds like the Bad Santa of all those inspirational teacher movies that Dana Marschz would hold dear -- the prospect of which, by the way, I'm totally down for.

Now, what's going to be most critical here is the casting. At the moment, it's hard for me to not recommend Anna Faris for just about any part, although it'd be interesting to see her take on something a little more crass. What do you guys think? Who would you believe could not only land a job as a teacher, but then keep it in spite of harassing students (in the name of comedy, mind you)?

I'm not one of those waiting for Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen with a whole lot of anticipation. I feel bad about saying that, but let's face it, Transformers passed me right by as I was playing with Strawberry Shortcake. Many have tried to re-educate me on the awesomeness of Optimus Prime, and failed.

Nevertheless, even I have to admit it's pretty cool when a screenwriter drops in among their fans for a good sequel chat. That's what Robert Orci, one of the scriptwriters for Transformers 1 and 2, has done over at Transformer World 2005. The dedicated can sift through what is currently 82(!) pages of script Q&A, by the time you read this, it will probably be 182. Much of it is hints as to which robots might factor into the sequel -- including a tease that Arcee, the girl Transformer, might appear. On the other hand, he's careful to remind fans that anything you hear about the film is probably careful disinformation, but well meant. "It is fun to 'play' with fandom, not to toy with fandom -- I do not hand out disinformation."

But there's a few reliable sounding bits in here. According to Orci, the sequel will be more "global" in scale, and that there won't a lot of re-introductions. "The first movie is all about the mystery and reveal of the Transformers as a concept and a species, which means we had to hide them a lot in the first hour. In the second movie, now that everyone believes in the universe, we can jump right into the world of the Transformers." The movie will be firmly rooted in Transformers mythology, but will also maintain the "liberties" taken with it in the first film.

He insists they're listening to fan input, so anything you want to see, now's the time to demand it. I'm going to go ahead and demand Arcee, if only to ponder how Transformers can have gender, and whether she will be pink.

Fans of the Riddick franchise -- all six of us -- thought for sure that, despite occasional rumblings to the contrary, the series was dead. The expansive, expensive Chronicles of Riddick was trashed upon release, after all, and flopped at the box office (at least domestically). Another sequel seemed foolhardy, sure to be met with gales of laughter from the same peanut gallery that so readily dismissed Chronicles.

I still think that's probably true, but I won't tell Vin Diesel, who is determined to make two more sequels happen. In an interview with MTV, he said that writer-director David Twohy is currently working on the scripts, and that the "only question" is whether they will be shot together, LoTR-style, or as two separate productions. Why did it take so long? No money problems, Diesel insists -- they just want to get it right. This was, after all, envisioned as a trilogy, with Pitch Black acting as a stand-alone companion film.

I've wasted a lot of breath defending The Chronicles of Riddick to naysayers, and have pretty much accepted that the film will never meet with much popularity. (My hopes that it would become a cult hit on DVD despite its initial chilly reception have been cruelly dashed, though the spin-off video game proved popular.) I continue to think that it's an ambitious, genuinely interesting piece of science-fiction and world-building. So I'll gladly get excited for sequels from the same creative team, even as I harbor doubts that they'll actually get made.

My heart goes pitter-pat with a mix of both anticipation and dread whenever a classic sci-fi book is optioned. Even when I haven't read the book in question (and believe me, I know I need to read more Robert A. Heinlein), I know the bookshelves of the world are lined with great movie material. But I also know how devastating it is when the studio mangles a beloved book.

And here's one that could go either way. The Hollywood Reporter says that Alex Proyas and Phoenix Pictures have optioned Heinlein's The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag. It's the story of a man who, when asked what he does for a living one evening, realizes he has no memory of any of his daytime activities. He hires a private detective agency, run by a husband and wife team, and their investigation becomes a rather terrifying one. (Having not read this book, I'm trying to skim through descriptions without spoiling it -- but it sounds scary.)

The novella has been one of Proyas' favorites since childhood. "I read this story as a kid, and it really stayed with me. It's part of my creative DNA." (It had to have inspired Dark City.) From what I've gleaned of the story, it's right up his alley -- and he's penning the script, so there will be no wild departures like we saw with I, Robot. And it's about time Heinlein had his name on the big screen again. I know there has to be some Jonathan Hoag fans out there, so chime in with your thoughts.

As our Erik Davis reported over the weekend, Warner Bros and DC Comics are in the midst of rehashing their strategy, opting for the slow and steady route. But there's one franchise that has his "reinvention" movie, as it were: Superman. Word is, Warner Bros is utterly torn as to what to do with him.

Variety's Anne Thompson reports that the studio is really taking their time in deciding what to do, and how Bryan Singer will play into it. At this point, despite all the rumors and excited quotes from Singer, no one is working on a Superman script.

Surprisingly, they're with the majority of fans on this one, and feel that the movie didn't revive the character the way they wanted, or the way they know it can be done. (You really have changed things, Christopher Nolan.) Thompson was told that the studio is making the Man of Steel a top priority -- and if Singer is willing "to go in the right direction," they'll keep him, if not, he's off the property. One executive freely admitted that "it might be better to start from scratch."

Remember, Mark Millar and a "big name action director" who had connections at Warner Bros were readying themselves to make a Superman pitch. Millar claimed the world would know by December. Given that such sharks are circling, I won't be surprised if Warners does start from scratch. I'm as perplexed as anyone as to where Singer can go from Superman Returns. For a healthy franchise, they're going to have to reboot, and leave Returns in that misty category of a Donner long delayed sequel.

What do you think? Reboot or continue Singer's storyline?