The horrors of war and the atrocities of which humans are capable of have, of course, been documented extensively in film since the birth of the medium. From the recent slew of documentaries on the Iraq war to Atom Egoyan's controversial 2002 Cannes debut Ararat (about the 1915 massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman empire); from Schindler's List to The Killing Fields; from The Battle of Algiers to Apocalypse Now; from Ousmane Sembene's last film, Moolaadé (inspired by the genital mutilation of young girls in Burkina Faso) to The Devil Came on Horseback (a documentary chronicling the genocide in Darfur), recent cinematic history is filled with tales of human suffering, inflicted not by natural disasters, but by human beings upon one another.

Waltz with Bashir documents the struggle of the filmmaker, Ari Folman, to come to terms with the gaps in his memory surrounding the part he played in the first Lebanese war and the 1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the West Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Where Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis (to which this film will be inevitably, if somewhat inaccurately, compared) used stark black-and-white animation based on Satrapi's graphic novels to tell the history of one girl growing up during the Iranian revolution, Waltz with Bashir uses vivid, hand-drawn animation to bring to life interviews Folman conducted with friends who were involved in the Lebanese war in the early 1980s to bring to life harrowing memories of death, guilt and regret.

Thanks to Bourne, the spy-fi genre is alive and well and every studio is on the lookout for a franchise of their own -- even Disney. Variety reports that super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (along with the Mouse) has purchased the screen rights to David Ignatius' spy thriller, The Increment. Ignatius is an associate editor for The Washington Post and Increment will be his seventh novel. An adaptation of his 2007 book, Body of Lies, has already finished shooting with Ridley Scott at the helm, and Leonardo DiCaprio starring as a CIA agent hot on the tail of a terrorist.

The Increment centers on a "shadowy, elite group of British undercover intelligence operatives who are conscripted by a CIA agent to help a weapons scientist defect from Iran." Early reviews of the manuscript praised the story, citing the wealth of facts about the CIA and the international intelligence community. But insiders were shocked that Disney would want the property considering the amount of 'hot button' issues in the book, like Islamic politics and an invasion of Iran.

Ignatius' novel has not even been published yet, so it's very early days for the adaptation -- and leaving plenty of time for Disney to water down the story. In the meantime, look for Body of Lies to arrive in theaters on October 8th, 2008.

Fidel Castro might be showing up as a character in Steven Soderbergh's Che flicks, but it looks like his daughter, Alina Fernandez, is getting a bit more involved in the movie biz. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Crash co-writer and Oscar winner Bobby Moresco is bringing her story to the big screen. Fernandez will consult, Moresco will possibly direct it, and the project is currently out to writers. However, this won't be a straight biopic.

It seems that her story will somehow be intertwined with the stories of others, like Crash, to "show the Cuban and American perspectives and ideologies along with Fernandez's story." Basically, she's the product of an affair Castro had while married to his first wife. She "spent her childhood in the country's shadow, only learning at age 10 that the man who visited her at night and whom she saw on TV every day was her father." In the '90s, she disguised herself as a Spanish tourist and fled to Spain, and then the US, where she now lives.

Fernandez is involved to try "to make people be a little more aware of how glorious we are and how many limitations we have." I'm sure that will depend on how the film is portrayed and then perceived by audiences. I happened to really dig Crash, but many people were put off by it, so it'll be interesting to see if this project takes on a different tone to circumvent comparisons.

Well, for a tempest in a teapot the controversy over Mike Myers' comedy The Love Guru seems to be heating up by the day. CJ Report confirmed that the British Film Institute has responded to Hindu protests, and has issued a statement that the prestigious institution will "not be screening this title nor will be involved with a possible release of it." Now this doesn't mean the film will not be shown in the UK, but the BFI's refusal to support the film must come as a blow to Myers, a committed anglophile.

Guru is the story of an American-born guru who returns home to help coach a lovelorn hockey player with a struggling marriage. Sure, it looks silly, and a little stereotypical, but so did The Party and a lot of people seem to like that movie. According to CJ Report, "Hindu groups have recently been approaching film distributors associations, exhibitors groups, regulatory bodies, government ministries, theater owners, etc., in various parts of the world urging them not to distribute/screen The Love Guru till Paramount Pictures makes necessary changes to it." Paramount still maintains that they will screen the film for Hindu audiences, but they have not agreed to make any significant changes to the film.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty good as far as anti-Bush jeremiads go, but it ended with a cliffhanger. Would George W. Bush be reelected in 2004 despite all the reasons Moore laid out for his dismissal? Or would he overcome the odds, focus the campaign on silly non-issues, and get lucky by having a weak, boring opponent?

We know what wound up happening, and now Variety reports that Moore is making a sequel, as yet untitled but scheduled for release around this time next year. (There's a chance it'll premiere at Cannes, like Fahrenheit and Sicko did.) Moore is working with Paramount Vantage and Overture Films this time around, splitting from the Weinstein Company, which distributed his last two films. We're guessing he wasn't happy with the way Sicko underperformed and has struck out for new territory.

So what will the Fahrenheit sequel cover? Everything that's happening since the last film, apparently. It's interesting how much things have changed in four years. In 2004, Bush and the Iraq War were not terribly popular, but they both had enough supporters to get him reelected. Now, Bush's approval rating is at a record low -- and I mean it's a record not just for him but for all presidents since the polling began -- and a majority of Americans feel the war was a mistake and should be ended ASAP. All of which means Moore's new film will probably find a larger, more receptive audience than the last one did.

There's been a lot of buzz as Oliver Stone's W goes Speedy Gonzalez towards its impending October release. I'd say that it's mainly due to the kickass cast -- maybe not for being the perfect representations of today's political heads, but for being a collection of really great actors.

But still, the project makes me think back to other Dubyas in the entertainment ether. Brolin is certainly not the first. This might not be as old as some Stars in Rewind posts, but I couldn't resist adding a little Will Ferrell presidential fare to this sunny Tuesday. You know, sun and "so-called global warmings" go together. This happens to be one of my favorite blips by Ferrell, and I hope you enjoy it!

Really, who cares about a place where penguins can have an orgy? Nature needs to listen to us!

Bit by bit, we get closer to the soon-to-be-sped-through biopic on George W. Bush, W -- remember, although it hasn't been completely cast, and is just one day into production, it will hit theaters this October. We've got Josh Brolin as Dubya, Elizabeth Banks as Laura, Rob Corddry as Ari Fleischer, James Cromwell as George Sr., Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, Thandie Newton as Condoleeza, Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair, and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell.

And now, Empire reports that Scott Glenn is going to play former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It's a fair likeness, and not half as surprising as Brolin being Bush. It's also a fair casting move considering Glenn's previous work, from his CIA director in The Bourne Ultimatum, to his Jack Crawford in Silence of the Lambs, to his Lieutenant Richard M. Colby in Apocalypse Now.

But really, even with potential script issues and questionable likenesses, I'm completely charmed by this cast and hoping that it won't be one of those huge ensemble stinkers. I'm not even particularly interested in more Dubya, but I can't resist a film that has both Burstyn and Wright.

But who in the hell is going to play Cheney?!

Ever the astute observer, both of movies and of real life, Roger Ebert posted on his shiny new blog today a great post wondering what Hillary and Bill: The Movie might look like. Ebert talks about great political movies of the past, especially noting two of my own faves, Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog and Warren Beatty's fantastic Bulworth (two of the best political movies ever made). He ponders what a movie -- a narrative, not a documentary -- following the private moments of Hillary and Bill Clinton, during the last days of this seemingly endless primary campaign, might look like. Ebert writes:

Yet there must have been private moments of despair. The two realists, as able as anyone to read the trends, must have spoken privately about their shrinking options. And on Tuesday night, as Hillary's double-digit lead in Indiana dwindled to very small single digits, there must have come a time when one of them said, "We've lost this thing."

What were those moments like? What kept them going between themselves? Did they encourage one another, or was there an unspoken pact not to voice the unspeakable? Was there blame when Bill had one of his unwise moments? Did their shared past, of success and scandal, enter into it, or were they absorbed in this moment?

In answering those questions, there you would find the movie.

.

Now that you know what Josh Brolin's George W. Bush will look like, you should know that you'll get to see him in action real soon -- probably sooner than you thought. The ever-courageous Lionsgate has picked up Oliver Stone's W, and plans to release it on October 17th. Of this year. That's 2008. Before the election. Notably, the movie hasn't even started shooting yet -- it goes into production on May 12th in Louisiana.

I never really thought the film would fail to find distribution, though early buzz on the screenplay has been fairly toxic. I did think there was going to be a race between when W would be finished and when Dubya would be finished -- that is, out of office. But apparently Stone is not messing around and plans to deliver the film in a few months, with Lionsgate hoping to capitalize on the furor that will surround the election.

Jeez -- maybe it's because I read too many blogs (or because I live in Pennsylvania, suddenly a battleground state), but it's barely May and I'm already tired of the election. Is W really how people will want to spend their leisure time in late October? I can't imagine, but I respect the folks at Lionsgate enough to think they know what they're doing. Incidentally: Dick Cheney remains uncast. Any suggestions?

I think it's kind of funny that in Eugene's post about T4's start date, he says: "barring some Terry Gilliam-scale disaster." I wonder if the disaster could be a long and arduous SAG strike? The New Zealand Herald (Reuters) pointed out today that the production is moving on despite the distinct possibility that the movie industry could get hit with another strike very soon.

Right now, the SAG contract expires on June 30, which could very easily become the start of another strike. (Union leaders say they hope to reach an agreement, and of course they do -- but that doesn't mean they'll get one.) Nevertheless, Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins has started filming in New Mexico this week, throwing caution to the wind.

But this doesn't mean they'll speed through it. A source told Reuters there is no intention to finish production by June 30, and that legal precautions have been taken in case the strike happens. But still -- stopping for an undisclosed period of time right in the middle of production is very far from ideal.

It seems a bit cocky to me, to go forward now rather than waiting, but what do you think?

Should T4 be moving full steam ahead regardless of the strike? Or, is this just a careless or cocky move?

With every passing story I read about border control or security insanity, I'm beginning to think that once you have any responsibility for your country's safety, you go insane. Everyday objects become suspect (like a friend harassed in the US for having a couple pictures of an ex amongst the pics he was traveling with), and sometimes, objects are given extraordinary value. I was once charged a couple hundred dollars in Canadian tariffs for a Buffy DVD that was sent to me as a gift, and had to prove that the box set wasn't worth their astronomical estimated cost. But I guess I can consider myself lucky that "Buffy" didn't make the border powers that be think the discs were porn.

Canoe reports that a new Canadian film from John N. Smith (Dangerous Minds) was held at the border because of its name: Love and Savagery. The romantic drama headed to Ireland last month to shoot some scenes, and then the footage was shipped to Montreal for processing, where it was stopped by the border patrol. Smith says: "There was a big kerfuffle and they suspected us of being involved in the pornography trade. They were insisting they were going to send it off to the RCMP lab to develop it to see if we were engaged in pornography." This created a bit of a panic as they worried about the potential damage RCMP processing would have on the footage.

Last month, James Caan quit David O'Russell's Nailed because the two had a blow up over a cookie. Russell said he should choke and cough on this cookie at the same time, while Caan said it wasn't possible. I don't see why Russell wouldn't just show him, if he was convinced it was possible. Then again, the director isn't the most rational and level-headed man out there. Nevertheless, production moves on with a new man -- The Hollywood Reporter posts that James Brolin has replaced Caan in the role, and that Kirstie Alley and Olivia Crocicchia have also signed on.

As we know, Jessica Biel is playing a woman who gets accidentally shot in the head by a clumsy worker with a nail gun. The nail hits her noggin in such a way that she begins to have wild sexual urges. But she's uninsured, so she goes on "a crusade to Washington to fight for the rights of the bizarrely injured." The naughty congressman Jake Gyllenhaal, meanwhile, takes advantage of her urges.

So we've got Brolin now as the speaker of the house who chokes on a cookie. (Coincidentally, as his son chokes on a pretzel as Dubya.) As for Alley, she'll play a veterinarian aunt of Biel's character who fails to remove the nail. (No insurance = vet treatment, I guess.) And Crocicchia, she'll play a "disgruntled youth" who helps the nailed woman fight for health care.

I am so dying to see this. If it's even half as fun as Huckabees, the production turmoil should be worth it.

Last year, smoking became an action that would lead a film to a higher rating by the MPAA. A year later, the debate is heating up once again. This time around, The Hollywood Reporter posts that the anti-tobacco American Legacy campaign is descending on the U.S. Capitol for an event this Thursday. There's no word on what this event will entail, other than some guests who include Jonathan Klein and Stephenie Foster, but the goal is to get Congress thinking about smoking on film.

American Legacy says that 1/3 of all teens start smoking because of the movies, and that "the nearly 14 billion smoking images" they say young people see has contributed to "the nation's 40,000-person tobacco-related death toll."

Okay, I can see the old days where the Rat Pack and every other cool dude and dudette on screen lit up. These days, not so much. When I was in school and university, I knew a LOT of smokers, and each and every one of them started smoking because of their immediate surroundings -- friends and family. Heck, most of them didn't even watch a lot of television or movies. I agree that smoking is a problem, but it seems like the movie industry is getting way too much of the blame -- and I say this as someone who hates smoking, is allergic, and wishes it didn't exist.

I can't help but wonder: With this push to eradicate smoking on film, will old films fall victim at some point? Will their scenes full of the smoky haze of cigs only be allowed to screen on public stations late at night like those soft-core sex flicks?

Does smoking on the big screen bother you?

In these supposedly progressive times, gender equality is one of those touchy issues relegated to the last paragraph of a trend piece nobody reads. When Katherine Heigl suggested to Vanity Fair that Judd Apatow's movies were sexist, the assertion came across like an after-the-fact shrug of acceptance. Ever the galvanizing provocateur, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis confronts the issue head-on with a thorough analysis of the gender bias in this year's summer blockbusters.

With "Iron Man, Batman, Big Angry Green Man" and other massive expressions of virility invading the box office, female roles appear to be relegated to the back of the multiplex. Dargis touches on the rumors that Warner Bros head Jeff Robinov believes no woman has been able to sell a movie since Julia Roberts (a point that Natalie Portman might contest, but not Paris Hilton) before sizing up numerous upcoming studio releases, with particular attention paid to Anna Faris, "who could be the next Judy Holliday but without the right material will, alas, probably end up the next Brittany Murphy." It's the kind of pronouncement that hits you in gut.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, the sequel to the modern stoner classic Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, hit theaters last Friday. I sat down with the film's writer/directors -- Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg -- a few days after the release of their film. In the interest of journalistic integrity (and shameless name-dropping), I should tell you that the gentlemen are friends of mine, and all around great dudes.

Cinematical: How did the Hurwitz/Schlossberg magic begin?

Jon Hurwitz: Hayden and I became friends on the Randolph High School debate team and connected over a common love of comedy. We were both obsessed with the movies of the Farrelly Brothers and the Zucker Brothers. We loved Howard Stern. We thought it would be amazing if we could actually make movies one day. But it felt like it was the most unrealistic goal of all time for a couple of dudes hanging out in a basement in New Jersey. What changed everything for us was that in high school we were known for coming up with really funny "Would you rather?" scenarios. We came up with a list of 250 that we were going to try to get published.

Cinematical: What was the best one?

JH: "If you had to be sexually abused, would you rather it be by an android or a Muppet?"

Cinematical: Muppet. It's softer.

Hayden Schlossberg: Exactly. Plain and simple. It would hurt less. That is the correct answer.