As much as I love Monty Python, I rarely enjoy Terry Gilliam's movies. Since Python disbanded, Gilliam seems to have waged a one-man crusade to invent new cinematic ways to get on my last nerve. Time Bandits is the sole exception, even if its last line, "Don't touch that, it's EVIL!" is what women yell at their friends whenever I try to talk to them. Since 1981, when the film was released, there's been talk of a sequel. First it was a film, then a series of TV movies, then, apparently, a comic book. Now it's nothing. With the demise of Virgin Comics, it looks like the Time Bandits sequel is officially dead. I'm disappointed. It was the one time I was looking forward to seeing if Gilliam would find a new way to my nerves.

When I heard about Facebook: The Movie, two thoughts came to mind: 1) Crap! Hollywood is now making remakes of websites?!! and 2) Crap! It's going to be one of those interactive movies like Mr. Payback. I'm going to go see Facebook: The Movie, and at the theater Hasbro will sue me, weirdos will try to befriend me, my identity will be stolen and the seat is going to try to SuperPoke me. Then I learned here that Facebook: The Movie is about the creation of the site, not the site itself. There's a Facebook group devoted to Aaron Sorkin's upcoming movie. I joined it, making it the third group I belong to on the site I joined solely because I was in grad school. Since they didn't ask my help in casting, I won't bother with FBTM. But here are some suggestions for other filmmakers thinking about making a movie about a website.

One way that people rob something they fear of its power is by making fun of it. It's the basic tenet of propaganda and political campaigns, and I've always thought it also applied to the MPAA's treatment of nudity in the movies of late. For example, if a man shows his butt, the MPAA rates it PG-13; hell, Rob Schneider has made a career out of showing the place he pulls his movie ideas out of. But show a woman's ass and BAM!! Rated R! My explanation is that you can mine comedic potential from a guy's ass. I mean, it's where farts come from, and farts are funny!

The rumors about the amount of Steven Spielberg's input on the upcoming Tintin movie have been greatly under-exaggerated. The original plan was to have Spielberg helm the first in the series, with Peter Jackson succeeding him for any sequels. Recently, Herge Studios (Tintin's owners) released word Peter Jackson would be the director of the first film, not Spielberg. Now we have word that Spielberg is still slated to direct the kickoff Tintin movie, which is scheduled to begin lensing this October, and Jackson will produce. It's a lot of confusion over a movie about the German Shepherd who saved Warner Bros. from bankruptcy. Oh wait, that's Rin-Tin-Tin. My bad.

As Zach mentioned yesterday in the Moviefile, there are rumors swirling about Cher playing Catwoman in Christopher Nolan's next Batman sequel. Or, rather, there were rumors. Over the weekend, the Telegraph was reporting that a "studio executive" said that Nolan wanted Cher to play the feline beauty as a "'vamp in her twilight years.'" Turns out it must have been Joe Magination, Senior Executive in Charge of Hooey, because a post at the Geeks of Doom has quashed that rumor. A response from Warner Bros. says simply: "Those casting rumors are untrue."

A title says a lot about a movie. It's often the first thing a potential viewer learns about a project. Long before the actors are cast or a director is even attached, just hearing a title can make us salivate in anticipation or gurgle in dread. I, for example, will rarely ever see a movie with the word "movie" in the title. (I'm looking at you, Disaster Movie. Or, rather, I'm not looking at you.) Two titles are causing something of a stir for Warner Bros. today.

Babylon A.D. is terrible. That's not my opinion -- it's the opinion of one Mathieu Kassovitz. If the name doesn't immediately ring a bell, he's the director responsible for Crimson Rivers and Gothika. [He also acted in Amelie! - Zach] Oh, and he also directed the terrible movie in question. It's not often you hear a director badmouthing his own movie, but Kassovitz has more venom to spew than the Reptile House at the San Diego Zoo. He tells the AMCtv.com blog that he's "'very unhappy with the film.'" He goes on to talk about a script that wasn't respected by producers and partners. "'It was a terrible experience.'"

Across the country, fanboys are soiling their trousers waiting for Watchmen to come out on March 6, 2009. The trailer looks awesome, with a new behind-the-scenes video coming out every month showing more of the production, and the fact that Fox is threatening to torpedo it isn't making waiting any easier, either. Meanwhile, a completely different set of fanboys are also waiting with bated breath for the newly relaunched Star Trek movie to come out on May 8, 2009. And they've been waiting for a while -- Paramount has been teasing the film for years, and it got bumped from its December 25 release date to May long before the Harry Potter 6 bump got wizards' knickers in a twist. So while we're all sitting here waiting, where the hell is Kevin Smith? In screening rooms, watching our movies for free, apparently.

Warner Bros. apparently just got the news that superheroes have the potential to make money. Despite the fact that Marvel Comics characters Spider-Man, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four and the Hulk have been doing gangbusters in theaters over the past few years, it took The Dark Knight grossing over $800 million worldwide to convince Warner that maybe they should be doing more. So they're finally going to move ahead with a new Superman film in the wake of 2006's disastrous Superman Returns, only this time, they're going to emulate TDK and -- you guessed it -- go dark. Because as we all know, what's good for the goose who watched his parents get murdered is good for the gander who was rocketed to Earth as a baby.