Seth Rogen has signed to direct and star in The Interview, a comedy about a talk show host and his producer who get caught up in a plot to assassinate the prime minister of North Korea. Rogen is also set to co-author the screenplay with his frequent writing partner Evan Goldberg. The film is based on a story written by Goldberg, Rogen and former Daily Show writer Dan Sterling.

The Hollywood Reporter is stating that Rogen’s Pineapple Express co-star James Franco may sign on to play the talk show host, though it does note that talks with Franco have yet to commence. Rogen will take the part of the producer.

The film will be Rogen’s directorial follow up to This Is The End, an apocalypse comedy due out this summer.

While I wasn’t the biggest fan of Pineapple Express, this does sound like a promising project with a funny premise. It’s been awhile since North Korea was the topic of a comedy, I’m think probably Parker and Stone’s Team America: World Police. And since this looks to go in a different direction, there is plenty of fertile ground for them to work.

1. Jack Reacher (Paramount, 3,352 Theaters, 130 Minutes, Rated PG-13): So, the problem with this film is not that Tom Cruise is trying to play a bad ass. He’s starred in the Mission Impossible films, and he had bad ass moments in all of them.

The problem is that he is playing a character described in the novels the film is adapted from as being a 6’5″bruiser. No matter what you think of Cruise’d acting skills, there’s no way the 5’7″ actor can pull off looking almost a foot taller.

Of course, the last time Cruise was criticized for being miscasted as a popular literary character–Lestat in Interview With a Vampire–he acquitted himself quite nicely. So, maybe the same will happen here.

2. This Is 40 (Universal, 2,912 Theaters, 134 Minutes, Rated R): Judd Apatow is billing this as the “sort-of sequel” to Knocked Up. “Sort-of” is right. Outside of Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Apatow’s wife) as Pete and Debbie and Maude and Iris Apatow (Apatow and Mann’s daughters), the only other person from the original cast is Jason Segel, who, if I recall correctly, had little or no contact with either Pete or Debbie in the orginal film. IMDB doesn’t show either Seth Rogen or Katherine Heigl, who played Debbie’s sister, in the cast list.

But it appears that this film is trying to attract the same audience. Good luck with that. Ilike Apatow’s work, but Knocked Up focused on a bunch of 20-something stoners goofing around until life butted in. This is about a pair of 40-year-olds dealing with the fact that they are on the cusp of not being able to be called young and beginning to be called old. I don’t see a lot of cross over in those audiences.

1. The Guilt Trip (Paramount, 2431 screens, 95 minutes, Rated PG-13): Studios are always looking for a crossover hit – a movie that will appeal to more than one demographic so as to increase business at the box office. The pairing of Seth Rogen and Barbara Streisand looks like it was tailor made to appeal to both teens and their parents which sounds like a great idea as we all know how much teenagers just love to be seen out in public with their parents.

Anyway, Rogen stars as a struggling businessman who has to drive across country for an important, potentially life-changing meeting and his mother decides to tag along. Hopefully the film come ups with a reasonable explanation as to why he just doesn’t fly out to the west coast that is something a little better than “Well if he takes a plane we don’t have a movie.” Anyway, the pair get into a series of wacky adventures and mishaps and will probably learn something about each other and themselves along the way. The trailer makes the film look pretty formulaic but it should be noted that the original screenplay by Crazy Stupid Love writer Dan Fogelman for the film made the 2007 Black List under the title My Mother’s Curse, so there is hope that the film will surprise us. Of course, 2007 is a long enough time ago for a number of rewrites to have taken place, wearing down whatever edge the original screenplay may have had.

In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

1. The Watch (Fox, 3,168 Theaters, 98 Minutes, Rated R): On paper, this film has a lot going for it. It’s Ben Stiller reunited with Vince Vaughn for the first time since Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. This film was co-written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg of Superbad and Pineapple Express fame. It’s directed by Lonely Island’s Akiva Schaffer. And it should be the first widespread exposure America get of talented British comedian Richard Ayoade (The Mighty Boosh, The IT Crowd).

However, Stiller and Vaughn seems to be just doing the same roles they have done in most fo their other movies (Stiller as the uptight and slightly anal man who takes thing much too seriously, Vaughn as the sarcastic man-child who doesn’t take things seriously enough), the plot–a neighborhood watch group uncovers an alien invasion–seems a bit too one-note to build a film around, and the last film Rogen and Goldberg wrote was the incredibly lame The Green Hornet. So, it’s anybody’s guess what kind of film you will be getting.

2. Step Up Revolution (Summit Entertainment, 2,567 Theaters, 99 Minutes, Rated PG-13): So, it appears that they are still making Step Up films. And why not? They are the McDonalds of the film world–made cheaply (no -name actors are a must), the quality is bad (hackneyed plots are the rule) yet enchantingly tasty (there’s a lot of flashy dancing and attractive people wearing tight clothing to ogle) , and you forget the experience hours after you leave the building (I defy you to quote me the plot of any Step Up movie without getting it mixed up with the plot of another Step Up movie).

This year’s version focuses on Emily, a girl who loves to dance who relocates to Miami. While there, she falls in with a group of flash mob dancers and falls in love with their leader, Sean. The group is ready to combat a land developer who is looking to raze a historic district to modernize it. In a stunning plot complication, the developer just happens to be Emily’s dad.

Now, Sean and his friends have to fight back the only way they know how–with intricately choreographed dance routines that seem impromptu but are not and Emily has to decide where she stands–with the man who loves her, provided for her, and brought her up, or that cute guy who dances she just met.

Sometimes its not how much your movie makes that will determine if a sequel will get made but how much your movie cost that will be the determining factor.

Case in point – last year’s The Green Hornet starring Seth Rogen. Despite middling reviews, the film did some fairly respectable numbers at the international box office, enough so that some folks have speculated about a second cinematic adventure for the classic old time radio hero. But in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, producer Neal Moritz stated that it is the film’s $120 million budget that is standing in the way of a sequel.

The movie did almost $250 million and was actually very well liked, but we made the movie for too much money. One, we made it in L.A. for certain reasons, and two, we decided to go to 3D — that added another $10 million. If I had done it in a tax-rebate state and not done 3D, it would have been considered a huge financial success for the studio. So we’re not making a sequel right now.

Personally, I’m not all that disappointed. As a fan of the original radio series, outside of a few visual flourishes from Michel Gondry, I didn’t like the film much at all.

But Moritz’s comments spark a question in me. Will this become a new trend in Hollywood to not make sequels just because your first film made a profit but only when your film makes a certain big enough profit? While I hope not, I wouldn’t be surprised. It almost feels like the next logical step coming from a system that is increasingly putting the emphasis on the “business” part of “show business” rather than finding a nice common ground in the middle. I can see the businessman’s mindset working to say “Why invest time and money into a project that will only have a small return when we could invest in something with a bigger return.” Understandable, but I see that line of thought leading to an even smaller diversity of films than we already get at the box office. And no one wins then.

British comic actor Richard Ayoade, best known on this side of the Atlantic as one of the socially awkward The IT Crowd, has been cast in the upcoming Akiva Schaffer-directed science-fiction comedy Neighborhood Watch. Reportedly, Ayoade got the role after filmmakers passed on using Chris Tucker.

The film, written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, centers on a group of suburbaniutes who form a neighborhood crime watch group only to uncover a much larger conspiracy. The film stars Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and Rosemarie DeWitt.

Ayoade has been making some headway into Hollywood over the last couple of years. His British independent film directorial debut Submarine was distributed by the Weinstein Company last year. He has also directed a number of episodes of the series Community. His IT Crowd co-star Chris Dowd has been making similar in-roads as well. This summer he had a co-starring role in the hit Brides Maids and next summer will be seen in Judd Apatow’s This Is Forty. Hopefully, their success will not preclude them returning for another season or two of IT Crowd.

1. Paul (Universal, 2,801 Theaters, 104 Minutes, Rated R): Seeing Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in any film not directed by Edgar Wright seems to veer a little too close to sacrilege for my tastes (same goes the other way too, it just doesn’t seem right).

But yet, here we are, with the pair joined up with Superbad‘s Greg Mottola as a pair of comic book afficiantos making a pilgrimage to the San Diego Comic Con who pick up a rather unique hitchhiker near Area 51, an alien named Paul (voice by Seth Rogen).

Considering the people involved, it should be impossible that the film is not funny at all. The premise is kind of meh, but the cast is good enough to bring some oomph to it.

2. Limitless (Relativity, 2,756 Theaters, 105 Minutes, Rated PG-13): If it wasn’t for one particular plot point, this film would be your typical high finance thriller.

Think about it. A young skilled hotshot enters a corporation. His talent shoots him quickly up into the highest eschelon, and his ego makes him a lot of enemies on the way up. Once his luck runs out and his talent fails him, the wolves begin to circle. Sound familiar?

The twist is that the hotshot’s talent is brought about by a pill that unlocks the untapped potential for the human brain. That kind of sci-fi swerve does add something to the film, but it only barely makes it more unique than your typical Wall Street clone.

3. The Lincoln Lawyer (Lionsgate, 2,400 Theaters, 119 Minutes, Rated R): This might be opening myself to ridicule, but I believe Matthew McConaughey can be a great actor when he wants to be.

Sure, most people when the first think of him, think of him as a stoner characture who’s acting talents would be strained if he goes beyond the realm of the chick flick.

But this is a man who did some pretty fine acting in Contact and A Time to Kill. These were solid dramatic roles and McConaughey excelled in them.

He returns to the legal-potboiler-adapted-from-a-book genre with this one as he plays a lawyer with a client who is hiding something. Not exactly fresh and unique, but could be something that could remind people that McConaughey can really act.

1. The Green Hornet (Sony/Columbia, 3,584 Theaters, 108 Minutes, Rated PG-13): The project has gone through a number of directors, including Kevin Smith and Stephen Chow. There have been numerous changes in the lead actor before they arrived at Seth Rogen. Not every Hollywood franchise gets this kind of persistence granted to it.

It seems like the powers that be think the property will be like printing money. That the Green Hornet is such a known quantity that it is guaranteed to be a success.

But it has been decades since the short-lived TV series was on and even longer since the radio show that originated the character was on the air. The character is known primarily by historians these days and I’d wager a bet that if you asked any young person about the Green Hornet, you’d get a blank stare.

So, it remains to be seen if this film would be a slam dunk or not or if the chances the producers made will pay off.

2. The Dilemma (Universal, 2,941 Theaters, 112 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Seeing Ron Howard’s name attached to this project might seem strange. After all, his career for the last 20 years has been Oscar fodder, more or less. But Howard has a history with comedy. His first two “break out” films were comedies–Night Shift and Splash.

Even still, this film seems beneath him. Vince Vaughn plays a man who sees the wife of his friend and business partner kissing another man. He must then debate whether or not to tell his friend.

I do like the cast, which is pretty strong top to bottom. And I like Howard as a director. But the film still seems to be the kind of brainless farce that stinks up theaters these days. If this is true, it would be a true shame.

Well, this is a bit more like it.

Last night I was not that impressed with the brief glimpse we got of the upcoming Green Hornet film starring Seth Rogen. I felt that it played up the expected Seth Rogen screen personna at the possible expense of what the film is really about.

But now we have the film’s first official trailer and it feels as if it has a much different mission than the Entertainment Tonight clip. Here, the trailer is introducing the character to audiences who are probably unfamiliar with him. It sets up Britt Reid’s motivations in becoming the Hornet as well as the hero’s fairly unique modus operandi of posing as a criminal to bring down organized crime. It sells both the action and what appears to be a light tone for the film without dipping into camp territory.