This weekend's release of The Forbidden Kingdom, starring Jackie Chan and Jet Li, features the first teaming of the two Asian action heroes. (My review is here.) Jackie is older and got established first as a comic martial arts master before making a string of modern-day thrillers and adventures. Jet came along later and became known as an ultra-serious, ultra-deadly lethal weapon. Their relative merits have been debated endlessly, and The Forbidden Kingdom finally gives fans a chance to see them go man to man -- first against each other, and then against the bad guys.

Now it's your turn to weigh in. Who's your favorite Asian action hero? (For the purposes of this poll, we'll stick to the living, so that's why Bruce Lee is not included.) Do you prefer Jackie's humor and larger than life thrill-seeking stunts? Or do you favor Jet's solemn precision and frequently death-dealing fighting?

Or ... have you always been a secret backer of Donnie Yen? (He had his own square-off against Jackie Chan in Shanghai Knights.) Sammo Hung? (The former Martial Law TV star is still active in Hong Kong.) Michelle Yeoh? (Tomorrow Never Dies, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) Or the younger generation represented by Tony Jaa (Ong Bak, The Protector), Collin Chou (Jade Warlord in The Forgotten Kingdom), and Wu Jing (Invislble Target, Kill Zone)? Sound off in the comments to tell us your faves and let us know about anyone else we haven't mentioned.

While I'm personally much more excited about Iron Man and Indy 4, there's certainly been lots of buzzing amongst the internet bees about the Wachowski's adaptation of Speed Racer. In case you haven't seen the millions of trailers, the film looks ... well, it looks pretty damn trippy. Like they took the old cartoon and dosed it up with acid. It looks visually intense, with lots of brought, swirly colors, speedy-fast cars, and fairly simplistic dialog. Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere put up a post noting that the tracking for Speed Racer looks a bit concerning, with not as many people as the studio might like saying they plan to see it opening weekend.

As commenters on Hollywood Elsewhere have noted, Speed Racer's target demographic looks to be A) fanboys who will pay to see anything about the cartoon they loved in their youth, especially if it's made with groovy CGI and shiny, pretty colors; and B) four-year-old boys. I can't really see a lot of chicks begging their boyfriends to see Speed Racer on date night, though there may be more than a few guys bargaining and sitting through Baby Mama or Made of Honor in exchange for a Speed Racer date.

Cinematical's James Rocchi caught Speed Racer last night at a sneak screening. I caught him on his cell at the Speed Racer junket this morning to ask his initial impressions of the film; here's what he had to say about it: "It's pure, pop family fun, a bold, bright kids' movie that's visually exciting and keeps the tone right." James noted that his overall impression of the film was "generally very favorable -- as a kids' movie." If any Cinematical readers have been to a preview screening of Speed Racer, let us know what you think of how the full movie plays. And the rest of you movie fans -- does Speed Racer look hot, or not? And are you planning to see it in the theater?

So far, there are only a few actors officially attached to Oliver Stone's W., the epic biopic about our current commander-in-chief. Josh Brolin was cast as President George W. Bush back in January, then recently Elizabeth Banks was chosen as his wife, First Lady Laura Bush, and last week James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn were locked into the roles of former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush, respectively. Unofficial casting bites, though, include a lot of other big name actors. Jeffrey Wright is reportedly in negotiations to play Colin Powell, Tommy Lee Jones is supposedly being sought for Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Duvall has been rumored to be the choice for Vice President Dick Cheney and now both Paul Giamatti and Toby Jones are being named as potentials for the part of Karl Rove (who Giamatti may have already channeled for his character in Shoot 'Em Up).

With the announcement today that Paramount is attempting to lure Sam Raimi into developing and directing several films based on the popular Jack Ryan character, it would certainly appear as if the man is officially done with Spidey. Of course, there's always a chance he'd stay on as producer, but will that be enough to bring back his original cast? Probably not. Paramount is targeting the summer of 2010 for their first Ryan flick, which -- from what we hear -- is right around the same time Spider-Man 4 would hit theaters (if all things stay as planned). The next Superman flick is also supposed to touch down that same summer, so it will be interesting to see a re-vamped Spidey go head-to-head against a sequel they really can't f*ck up.

Variety claims Raimi is not out of the running to direct another Spider-Man film, but since he's in the middle of helming Drag Me to Hell, it would be near impossible for the man to deliver both a new Spidey film and a Jack Ryan film at the same time. Both franchises are in need of some serious work, and it will take time to develop. There's been no word on the current Spidey script, other than it's being worked on -- so for all we know, that could be just about ready to go. Of course, the strike probably didn't help much. What do you think?

Los Angeles-based writer Ellen Alperstein, blogging at LA Observed, digs into the reasons why Angelenos tend to watch the closing credits: "When my out-of-state visitors go to the movies here, they often comment on the locals' habit of sitting all the way through the final credits before getting up to leave." In the past, she had the impression that locals were concentrating on looking for the names of friends and associates in the credits, a combination of competition and curiosity, but a recent experience watching Atonement opened her eyes to other possibilities.

After the final scene unfolded, she felt "violated, cheated" when the house lights "blasted on in full illumination." She notes: "This movie might be over but our feelings were not resolved, and it was going to take the privacy and safety of darkness to revisit them, and reject or accept them." I think she nailed the reasons why I like to sit in the dark for a few minutes and absorb what I've just seen. Sure, I've bolted from my seat before, but usually because the movie was a stinker and I couldn't wait to wash it from my mind. But a good movie inevitably leaves me reflective. As Ms. Alperstein writes, "Sometimes it's about processing what you've seen and felt."

How about you? Do you linger in your seat and watch the closing credits? Do you rush out as soon as possible? Or does it depend on the movie you've been watching? Feel free to elaborate on your reasons in the comments.

Over at indieWIRE, Anthony Kaufman has an excellent piece up on Michael Moore's proposal that theaters across America designate a night each week at "Doc Night at the Movies." Citing the dismal box office returns for docs in the past year (only Moore's Sicko, No End in Sight, and In the Shadow of the Moon grossed over a million dollars), Kaufman seems intrigued by Moore's proposal, if somewhat skeptical it would work. Kaufman raises some interesting points about the feasibility of a "Doc Night," including these questions:

• Who will select the documentaries that are chosen? And on what basis will they be chosen?
• Will the documentaries already have distributors or not? Or will there be a mix?
• Will participating filmmakers pay a fee? Or conversely, will they get a split of the ticket sales?
• If most multiplexes are film-only, and the majority of documentaries are finished in a high-definition digital format, how will they be screened? Will expensive projectors be rented? Or will filmmakers need to pay for costly film transfers?

... and perhaps the most interesting question: Will Moore's next film also go out through the program?

The decision for any actor or actress to appear naked, whether on screen, on stage, or in photographs, can sometimes help, sometimes hurt, and sometimes not make any difference at all to the performer's career. In the case of Lindsay Lohan, her freckle-baring photos in New York Magazine may reinforce the public's perception of her as a "bad girl." We saw a very different reaction when "good guy" Daniel Radcliffe, better known as Harry Potter, stripped down for a production of the stage play Equus. While some decried the example he was setting, young women reportedly attended in droves for the opportunity to admire his (acting) form. From a career standpoint, he widened his future possibilities far beyond the family market.

On the big screen, Viggo Mortensen's deadly naked spa duel in Eastern Promises caught everyone's eye. Playing a "bad boy" with a good heart, Mortensen's willingness to display every inch of his physique only expanded his appeal. His performance earned him a nomination for an Academy Award as Best Actor. Portraying both "bad boys" and "good guys," none of the other Best Actor candidates appeared in the buff in their nominated films, though all have in the past.

As we did yesterday with the women, today we offer a selection of five Academy Award-nominated men. All have appeared naked on the big screen, either this year or in the past, with their most revealing appearance noted. Whose career benefited the most from their willingness to bare all?

The firestorm sparked by Lindsay Lohan's decision to pose naked for a photo spread in New York Magazine is fascinating. The comments in response to Erik Davis' post were mostly negative, either disparaging Lohan's looks or her reputation as a "bad girl." I'm sure her age (21) also affected how people felt about the pictures and her exposure in them. Would the reaction have been the same if she had appeared naked in I Know Who Killed Me, in which she played a stripper who kept most of her clothes on?

We'll never know, but we do know that not every actress who doffs her duds provokes such a heated reaction. And, sometimes, it's not even the actress' body parts on display. For example, initial reports were that Cate Blanchett appeared nude in Elizabeth: The Golden Age, but that proved to be false. The actress didn't feel the nudity was required, and so a "bum double" was called in. None of the other women nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Actress category appear naked in their nominated films, though three of them have done so in the past. In the Best Supporting Actress category, we find only Tilda Swinton has bared all before. Therefore, we'll cheat a little and add screenwriter Diablo Cody, who worked as a professional unclad dancer for a brief period in her life.

We've listed four nominated actresses and a nominated writer, all good women of distinguished accomplishment who, at one time or another, have appeared naked in public, all but one on the big screen. Who's Your Favorite Good Girl Gone Nude? And don't worry, the boys get their turn tomorrow.

Here's something interesting ... Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere posted a "salute" yesterday afternoon to Steven Spielberg, who announced yesterday that he's withdrawing as an artistic advisor to the Beijing Summer Olympics. Here's the kicker though ... Spielberg didn't pull out because of the Chinese government's continued human rights abuses within its own borders, or for its oppression in Tibet, but over Darfur.

According to this piece over on Variety, which broke the story, "I have made repeated efforts to encourage the Chinese government to use its unique influence to bring safety and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan," Spielberg wrote. "Although some progress has been made ...the situation continues to worsen and the violence continues to accelerate."

As Wells noted, Spielberg's "enlightment" about China may be due, at least in part, to Mia Farrow's ripping him a new one over China's human rights issues (and bankrolling of the genocide in Darfur) back in March. So kudos to Spielberg for finally getting on the human rights bandwagon here, but geez, how about getting on China for all its human rights issues, while you're at it? And while we're on the subject, how do you feel about celebs and political issues?

During an interview for the Aussie paper The Advertiser, actor Christian Clark inadvertently announced that he had landed a part in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, though because of a gag order in his contract he couldn't elaborate further. Clark, who stars in the upcoming George Miller-directed horror flick Prey, as well as the thriller Crush, is relatively unknown to us in the states, though he definitely has that 'break-out Aussie star' look to him. Rumors suggest Clark may have landed the role of a young William Stryker, the villain from X2 (as played by Bryan Cox), though Michael C. Hall's name is also being tossed around with regards to that part.

Directed by Gavin Hood, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which is shooting now) takes place several years before the recent X-Men films and follows Wolvy (Hugh Jackman) while he searches for keys to his past. Liev Schreiber was originally thought to be playing a young Stryker, though it recently came out that he'd be playing the villainous Victor Creed (Sabertooth) instead. Wolverine's girlfriend Kayla Silverfox will also play a role in the film, though an official casting announcement (Maggie Q was rumored) has never been made. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is due out on May 1, 2009.

[via X-Men Films, JoBlo]

One of the more interesting-looking films in the SXSW lineup is Second Skin, directed by Juan Carlos Piñeiro Escoriaza. The film is a documentary about people who are utterly obsessed with the virtual worlds of Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs). The film follows several folks who spend all or most of their spare time (and perhaps even their time that's not really spare) immersed in virtual worlds in places like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Second Life and other MMOs. Firstshowing.net has the trailer up, and from watching it, it seems the filmmakers handle the subject matter without looking down on or making fun of these folks for whom virtual life is as important as real life.

It looks also like they examine both the dark and light sides of gaming. There's Kevin and Heather, who met online as a knight and a cleric slaying dragons on Norrath in Everquest, fell in love and then met in real life; then there's a guy on the trailer who talks about playing obsessively for 14-16 hours a day, to the point that his addiction to gaming was ruining his life and he became suicidal. I wonder if they'll delve at all into people using Second Life as a virtual space for sexual encounters and affairs (which personally, I find beyond creepy, but whatever gets you off, I guess). I'll be the first to admit that I don't get the whole appeal of virtual worlds and virtual identities; I can grok the concept that people get really into their video games, but the idea of not having much of a life outside of a virtual reality game puzzles the hell out of me.

Best Screenplay

Nominees:

Diablo Cody -- Juno

Joel & Ethan Coen -- No Country for Old Men

Christopher Hampton -- Atonement

Ronald Harwood -- The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Aaron Sorkin -- Charlie Wilson's War

Predicted Winner: Diablo Cody -- Juno

Often, it's not the finest writing that wins the screenplay award, it's the flashiest. Cinematical doesn't think Globe voters will be able to pass up Diablo Cody's hyper-verbose, show-offy script, chock full of memorable one-liners and quotable dialogue. Plus, Hollywood just can't get enough of her stripper-turned-screenwriter tale. Juno what I'm saying?

Now it's your turn to vote ...

I was having an interesting heated argument friendly little discussion over IM yesterday afternoon with one of my Cinematical colleagues about what exactly designates a film as an "indie" film. Does it have more to do with the money spent on making it, or the artistic style of the film? Is a film an indie film if it's financed by an indie arm of a studio, like Juno? Or does it have to be financed by filmmakers on their credit cards, ala Four Eyed Monsters? What if it gets financed independently by a rich guy, like Little Miss Sunshine, and then bought by a studio for $10 million? And if an indie film gets bought by a studio and goes on to get Oscar nods, has it "sold out" like an indie band hitting the Top 40?

As you might expect, it was Juno that started this whole discussion. To me, Juno is clearly an indie film: it was financed not by Fox, but by Fox Searchlight, which is a studio arm set up specifically to buy and create indie films. Artistically, it certainly feels "indie" to me, although crossover hits like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Little Miss Sunshine have helped to blur the line between indie comedy and mainstream. If Jason Reitman had gotten independent financing for it instead of getting it done through Searchlight, I don't think anyone would question its indie status. I understand, though why some folks feel a film like Juno, which had the benefit of backing by a studio to get it made, and a tremendous, well-executed marketing push, is straddling the indie line.

Personally, I see Juno as nothing but great news for other indie films, and I think Fox was smart to recognize both the power and passion of indie filmmakers, and that they don't know how to make indie films themselves. Partnering with filmmakers like Jason Reitman, who have both a solid background and a good eye for what works, especially with indie comedy, allows Fox Searchlight to target the indie market with films that are likely to also appeal to a broader audience. They've found a niche that works, they're both making and acquiring good films, and if all that expands the audience for indie films in general, opens up the popcorn crowd to checking out more indie fare, and ultimately paves the way for more indie films to be funded that's a good thing.

What makes a film an indie flim? Let us know what you think in the poll, and make your arguments in the comments.

Breaking news, hold onto your seats, people. The folks at Fox have just announced (well, late last night) that the release date for 27 Dresses is changing from January 11 to January 18. I know, it's gonna screw up your movie-going plans for next weekend, but don't blame us.

Apparently it's taking a while for the news to filter down, though -- as I was sitting down to write this, I was IMing with a colleague who was watching The View (no, I'm not telling which of my male colleagues watches that show, that would be cruel) and he saw an ad for 27 Dresses that still has the release date as January 11. Someone better get their ads changed out. Anyhow, here's the new artwork with the date change reflected, so you can rest easy knowing that you, at least, are better informed than people who watch The View.

The date change is moderately interesting for a couple of reasons: first, the date change squares 27 Dresses and Katherine Heigl off against another film targeted at about the same demographic, Mad Money, which stars Queen Latifah, Diane Keaton, and Katie Holmes. There was nothing really competing against 27 Dresses for the chick demographic group on the 11th -- the only films opening then are The Bucket List (depressing film about dying with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman) and In the Name of the King (directed by Uwe Boll, so what are the chances that one will be any good, really?).

With the move to the 18th, 27 Dresses will now be facing off against Cloverfield (scary monster) and Teeth (scary vagina)so it will be interesting to see how the box office numbers fall out. I'll be immersed in Sundance at that point, so I wouldn't be going to any of them anyhow, but which film are you most likely to check out that weekend?