As voiced by Dwayne "the artist formerly known as The Rock" Johnson, astronaut Chuck Baker is the paragon of all-American achievement -- that is, until he conquers a far off world with an unexpected population, one inexplicably steeped in our '50s-era culture and terrified by the prospect of an alien invader in human form. More unfortunately for us, Chuck has landed smack-dab in the middle of Planet 51, a short-sighted assembly of sci-fi references and scatalogical humor that should nonetheless placate undemanding tots and, by extension, their undiscerning parents for ninety minutes or so.

Despite all the jokes about Roland Emmerich's love for blowing up cities, how the hell Lloyd Dobbler will save the world, and of course, the infamous line "Download my blog," 2012 earned $225 million worldwide in its opening weekend.

I dislike adding "porn" or "-sploitation" to descriptive phrases (torture porn, poorsploitation, etc. etc.), but if anything could be called an exploitation of our natural fear of an upcoming worldwide crisis, it would be 2012. Eerie shots of crowds praying en masse and major landmarks crumbling are juxtaposed with smaller stories, like the family struggling to stay together, a personal crisis set off by an ethical conundrum, and, of course, the prophet-kook in the woods who's happy to see his greatest suspicions verified.

Orson Welles's radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds sent Americans running for their bomb shelters in 1938, and once everyone realized it was just a radio show (and recovered from their terror), a new type of horror was born: the fear of massive worldwide destruction.

Every US generation thinks it's going to be the last. If it's not the Cold War, it's the Middle East, and if it's not aliens, it's the ice caps. But it's also a reality; it's mind-boggling to turn on the news and see footage of a tsunami that's killed about 230,000 people and injured and displaced so many more.

Dear Sony,

As I am sure you are aware, you own the film rights to any adaptation of Metal Gear Solid, the outstanding brainchild of video game auteur Hideo Kojima. I have no doubt that since the property became a gaming icon after Konami brought it to the Playstation in 1998 many have tried to get a film adaptation off the ground. I'm sure you've heard pitch after pitch, and maybe even solicited some of your own, so I appreciate that no ground has been made on turning the beloved series - arguably the most cinematic game of all time - toward the big screen.

Yet I fear that with a big budget adaptation of Prince of Persia on the horizon, you might start getting antsy about making a big budget video game movie of your own; and if that's the case, please do not take up Paul W.S. Anderson on his desire to be the man who brings Solid Snake to movie theaters around the world. For the love of all that is sacred to gamers, please, please, please do not allow that to happen. I could rattle off a handful of different directors better equipped to bring the sweeping world of espionage, intrigue, double-twists, and giant robots than the man who simultaneously rendered two beloved franchises irrelevant with Alien vs. Predator.

Now I'm not opposed to making Metal Gear Solid into a movie. Though Kojima's storylines for MGS have become more twisted and entangled than a snake orgy at this point, I have no doubt that a competent screenwriter could make an excellent script out of the series' latest episodes. But it's going to take a director with real vision to transform Solid Snake from a game icon into the film God he deserves, and Anderson just doesn't have the minerals to do that.

The most common retort one gets when talking negatively of a film clearly intended to be consumed with a tub of popcorn and a brain switch in the off position is "Why can't you just enjoy the movie?" And I get that. I am the kind of viewer who can absolutely just sit back and let sights and sounds wash over them. But what some fail to understand is that even with the brain turned off, even with disbelief firmly suspended, some movies stink so ferociously that the stench wafts off of the screen, snapping even the most resistant critic to full alertness like a slap in the face by a glove spiked with smelling salts.

2012 is not immune to analysis simply because it is an openly absurd movie. Sure, it's about the end of the world taking place three years from now. Sure, it features some astounding special effects. Sure, it is in every way, shape, and form a popcorn tub movie. And sure, you know from the trailer alone whether or not you're game for yet another disaster porn movie from The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day director Roland Emmerich. But what the willing don't inherently know, and this is the most crucial piece of information one can be equipped with before hand, is that 2012 is 158 minutes long.

Granted, one would expect the end of the world to take more than 90 minutes, but the biggest failing of 2012 is that it barely has enough story to span half an hour, yet alone two more beyond that. Sign up for all the California-sinking, supervolcano-erupting mayhem you want, but what you're signing up for comes packaged with banal, one-dimensional characters who are only ever allowed to spew groan-inducing dialogue like so many fireballs from a, well, supervolcano. And considering the spectacle is unfortunately a fraction of the length, the audience is given more than enough time to wonder how so much mediocrity came to be from such talented people.

When was the last time you recall seeing an actual bicycle messenger? Unless you live in a densely populated, car-hating metropolis, chances are rather slim that you ever see someone on a bike with a package under their arm, ducking and diving all manner of obstacles before screeching to a halt in front of a skyscraper and racing inside to drop off said package just in the nick of time. Which is why it is simultaneously bizarre and fascinating to me that David Koepp would pick the high-stakes world of two-wheeled courier services as the frame for his next directorial project.

What's even more fascinating is the scale Premium Rush, which I am 99% positive is the name of a Capri Sun flavor I used to drink in the '90s, is set up to be. Sony is bankrolling the production, which Variety says they see as "a big-budget actioner, much like the films Koepp is known for penning, and will feature the kind of elaborate chases associated with a William Friedkin pic." The Friedkin emulation I can understand, as The French Connection still remains a benchmark chase film, but the big budget Koepp titles they're referencing include Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The war for your wallet may be shifting from DVD stores to your living room. Just yesterday, our own Jessica Barnes described the price war between Walmart, Target and Amazon as the three retailers have temporarily slashed their profits and passed the savings on to you. Now comes word that Sony will pre-empt retailers by making their animated hit Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs available exclusively to owners of selected Sony television sets and networked Blu-ray players more than a month before it's released on DVD. Sony, however, expects you to slash your savings and pass the profits on to them, charging $24.95 for a rental.

That's a big chunk of change for a pay-per-view movie, dramatically higher than cable and satellite systems charge for pay-per-view flicks in their window of availability before DVD and Blu-ray release. Details from a business standpoint are provided in The New York Times -- the higher price is meant to avoid angering Walmart, the largest and thus most powerful DVD retailer in the country, and the move is part of Sony's strategy to leverage its ownership of both hardware (TVs, Blu-ray players) and software (movies, television) production. I'm sure Sony shareholders will be pleased.

What about the consumer? In his Home Theater blog for ZDNET, Sean Portnoy wonders: "In this economy, is being able to rent this successful movie a few weeks ahead of the masses really worth an extra $20? In fact, if you're using Netflix or renting at $1 per night through Redbox, the pricing difference is even starker." Sony tried this last year with Will Smith and Hancock, but economic times are even more difficult now. Will you pay $25 for Meatballs?

The Internet loves casting rumors, but the gears of speculation are always at their highest when the topic is a superhero. Or, more accurately, who a superhero is going to be fighting in his/her's next trip to the big screen; and with Spider-Man 4 snowballing into production, the rumors have once again begun swirling around who Spidey is going to be web-punching this time around. First reports that Dylan Baker would finally be transforming into The Lizard seemed to confirm Sam Raimi's return to making a single-villain picture, but now a new name has been tossed into the ring.

Mania.com is reporting that their sources have cited Rachel McAdams as in talks with the film's producers to take on the role of Felicia Hardy, also known as Black Cat. If you're unfamiliar with the character, she is a sometimes good, sometimes bad cat burglar who, in addition to being a possible love interest of the web-crawler's, tries to use her less-than-legal prowess to break her father out of jail. It would be an interesting spin to have villainess for part four, but it's unclear at this point as to whether or not the film's Black Cat will ultimately be friend or foe.

A bigger shake-up to the film's line-up could come by way of the second bit of Mania's news, which stakes that the producers are also currently out casting a male villain. Assuming Raimi hasn't already broken with his desire to keep the baddies solo, this would mean that Dr. Curt Connors is not fulfilling his destiny as The Lizard after all, despite Dylan Baker confirming he'd be returning in the role. It's all very fluid and salty at this point, but if Mania's sources are indeed correct, Spider-Man 4 has either multiplied its villains once again or kept The Lizard caged until a later date.

At a press junket earlier this summer for 2012, Roland Emmerich told reporters he's not doing any more blow-'em-up flicks. "I would not know how to top this... It's just one of these things, you know. I had a hard time deciding to do another disaster movie, but... you cannot make a disaster movie if there's not something --- an idea in this disaster which elevates it to something more than a disaster. And so it was this idea, you know, that there will be a global flood and it's a retelling of Noah's Arc."

Later he added, "It's not my last film, it's my last disaster film. And that's because I wouldn't know what else to do. It's just, you know what, I really didn't want to do this movie at first... But when I decided that the idea was too good to not do it for the reason I had done before, I said, okay, if I do it, I will do it in such a spectacular manner that nobody can top it for a long time. I have that pride in my work."

Watching the trailer for 2012 I couldn't help but get the feeling that Roland Emmerich was trying to tell me something. There was a lot of camera shaking and screaming and really big objects rolling over, but I think it was seeing the entire state of California lift into the air like the climax of Titanic before sinking into the depths of the Pacific ocean: Roland Emmerich hates civilization. Sure, 2012 is bound to be full of roaring musical cues that signal the triumphant survival of a tiny, tiny percentage of people on Earth, but I think it's pretty clear that his movie is going to literally rip our world apart at the seams.

But apparently that's not all that big of a deal, because Emmerich has revealed to Entertainment Weekly that a sequel to 2012 is already being plotted. Yes, a sequel to the end of the world; kind of redefines the whole 'end' part of his film's synopsis. Tentatively titled 2013, he tells EW that the follow up to his story won't be a film, but rather a television show:

"It is about the resettling of Earth. That is very, very fascinating. (2012 writer/producer) Harald Kloser and I came up with the idea and we have the luxury of having a producer on the film who is a big TV producer, Mark Gordon. We said to Mark, 'Why don't you do a TV show that picks up where the movie leaves off and call it 2013?' I think it will focus on a group of people who survived but not on the boats ... maybe they were on a piece of land that was spared or one that became an island in the process of the crust moving. There are so many possibilities of what they could do and I'd be excited to watch it."

Sony's thriller The Tourist just keeps sending its talent packing. Originally set to be a vehicle for Tom Cruise and Charlize Theron, it shifted gears last month and was re-cast with Angelina Jolie and Sam Worthington. But once again, The Tourist finds itself without travel arrangements for a male lead as Variety reports that Worthington is out due to "creative disagreements" and Johnny Depp is in.

Depp is still in talks to play the hapless American tourist, and with the way this film is going, one can't assume it's finalized. But if it is, it might just be the casting coup of 2010. A Depp-Jolie pair-up has been something dreamed about by a lot of producers and studios over the years. Once upon a time, rumor even had them attached to play Cathy and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. People want to see them having onscreen sex. It'd be the hottest thing since ... well, Brad Pitt and Jolie having sex onscreen. (And off. Hey, I'm just being honest. There was a reason everyone wanted to see their offspring.)

The Tourist is also on the hunt for a director. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck was circling the project, but departed alongside Worthington over those whispery creative differences. Reportedly, a lot of directors are interested, including Alfonso Cuaron. While shake-ups can be be a sign of a bad film, I'd like to think that a thriller that winds up with Jolie, Depp, and Cuaron came together exactly as it was meant to.

We've already explored the history of 2012 here on Cinematical and what you need to know to see the movie (hint: the world might blow up!), but here's what 2012 stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, and Woody Harrelson and director Roland Emmerich have to say about the end of the world. Do they believe the world will end with a whimper or a bang, T. S. Eliot-style? Will we go out in fire or in ice? Do they even believe the world will end in 2012? Let's find out.

Roland Emmerich: It's always great if you find some sort of belief people have and put it in your movies, as fantastic as they may be. For example, Independence Day, I used Area 51 and centered my whole story around Area 51 because I found out in my research that people really believed in it. And in this movie, as we discovered the phenomenon of 2012, because some culture, the Mayas, gave the end of the world a date. An exact date. The 21st of December, 2012. And that's just so incredible and so interesting that a lot of people are fascinated by it and there's believers; there's people like you [who] just find it fascinating. I hope it will not happen. But when you research it a little bit deeper, you kind of find a lot of other cultures [that] believe the same thing. They only don't put an exact date to it, but they have other predictions which all point to 2012. It's quite eerie...

When Michael Jackson died a few months ago, I didn't have an opportunity at the time to write down any of my feelings about his passing, much less his career, his legacy, and his impact on my own life. I didn't cry, I don't remember being "shocked," and I didn't really react at all, to be honest, except with some mild degree of incredulity over the way so many people were just wracked with sorrow over the death of someone many of them would have vilified the day before it happened.

But a couple of weeks later, I spoke to my mom, whose well-worn vinyl copy of Off the Wall still takes up a place in my record collection, and who gave me Thriller when I was seven. She mentioned that I was the first person she thought of when she heard the news. Somehow that actually affected me more than his actual death, and I really started thinking about how much his music really meant to me. While that ongoing reflection has mostly manifested itself in repeated plays of both of the albums mentioned, as well as Bad, it made me both curious and apprehensive about This Is It, the documentary Kenny Ortega put together about his final tour.

Last Wednesday I went to see the film, and I wasn't deeply roused by it, either as a Jackson fan or a general filmgoer. Part of this can no doubt be attributed to the fact that the footage was by all accounts never intended to be seen by anyone other than Jackson himself, so any real structure or polish applied to its rough edges in order to create dramatic momentum was done posthumously. But even though I never judged Jackson for endlessly transforming himself into an almost literal shell of his former self, watching him on stage in this documentary, struggling to maintain the energy and focus that once came so easy and natural (or at least looked that way), I couldn't help thinking that Michael Jackson was a figure better celebrated in our memories, even before he passed away.

Given the topic at hand, I'd like to make it clear up front that neither I nor Cinematical are taking sides in this story about Roland Emmerich's forthcoming All Landmarks Must Die opus, 2012; I just find it a curious insight into the mind of the man who knows how to make a building fall over but good.

The trailer for 2012 plays like a highlight reel of civilization falling apart all over the world, but it's religion that gets the brunt of Emmerich's digital pounding: A Buddhist temple gets hit by a tidal wave. The Sistine Chapel crumbles to pieces as a split tears right down the middle of Michelangeo's painting of God touching Adam's finger. St. Peter's Basilica rolls over onto a crowd of devoted worshipers. Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Reedemer statue falls to earth as its wracked by shockwaves. The White House is even crushed by, of all things, an aircraft carrier. But eagle eyed fans of watching organized religion get its disaster porn comeuppance will have noticed that there are no Islamic landmarks on the CGI chopping block.

That wasn't always the plan, however. Emmerich explained to SCI FI Wire that he had originally hoped the Kaaba, one of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion, would join the visual wrath of 2012, but that his co-screenwriter Harald Kloser talked him out of it:

Back in August, we reported that the Terminator franchise was in some serious legal and financial trouble. The rights are currently owned by the Halcyon Company, who have managed to make more court appearances than they have films. They were in danger of losing the rights to their hedge fund, Pacificor, who was poised to claim them if Halcyon defaulted on their loan.

But according to The Financial Times, Halcyon has now filed for bankruptcy after their lawsuit with Pacificor, and is selling off the rights to Terminator. It would appear that filing for Chapter 11 afforded their precious franchise some protection from the hedge fund, and they can now sell it to bail themselves out. The sale will be conducted by FTI Capital Advisors, and does not cover rights to the earlier Terminator films.

The Times notes that this auction is coming at a particularly tough time for Hollywood, who is feeling the economic crunch just like everyone else. But it notes that Terminator is one of the rare "blockbuster brands" not controlled by a big studio, and that alone has may drooling at the chance to control future properties. Summit is said to be particularly interested (they can probably pay for it just out of Twilight proceeds), as is Sony and Media Rights Capital. But remember, this is America! Everyone has a chance at destroying mankind, and if you have millions (estimates put the sale beyond $60 million, the benchmark set by the sale of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), you can buy them for yourself. I would have faith in something other than John Connor if a Cinematical reader took the reins of this franchise.

As I watched Michael Jackson's This Is It, I found myself wondering exactly what I was supposed to be reviewing. It's nearly impossible to separate the context of the film from the film itself -- that it was supposedly never meant to be a documentary and is only now being seen by public eyes because of Michael Jackson's death in June as he was preparing for his last tour. And, as difficult as it is, I'm obviously not reviewing the person himself. Was I reviewing his performances? That's not it, either, because they're rehearsals and Jackson was saving his voice and strength for the tour. The documentary itself is a strange, confusing look into Michael Jackson's world, or at least the version of it that his friends, family, and/or estate wanted us to see.

Producer Randy Phillips is quoted in the production notes as follows: "What makes this footage so compelling is that Michael is so open and unguarded. From March 5 when we did the press conference [announcing Jackson's tour] to June 25 when Michael died – we had a three-person crew with HD cameras." The production notes also say they shot "more than 100 hours of rehearsal footage shot in Los Angeles." Why were three people shooting with HD cameras, producing over 100 hours of footage that "was never intended for wide release"? And if it was eventually going to be part of a behind-the-scenes doc, then why did it often look blurry or shaky, and why, if there was so much more footage to choose from, are we seeing rehearsals that seemed to be from a handful of different days, judging by the different clothes Jackson wore?