Given the relentless awfulness of the first, I wouldn't normally give a whole post over to The Punisher but the wranglings going on regarding it are very interesting.

Over the past few weeks, the problems have centred on whether the film will be cut to be either PG-13 or R rated. First, director Lexi Alexander was thrown off the project after fighting over Lionsgate wanting this to be PG-13. Then, it was reportedly confirmed that the film would indeed be PG-13 rated. Now, it seems that rumour has been debunked and it will actually be R.

The gossip-y backstabbing is all very scurrilous and interesting but what's really to discuss is why it's such a problem. I understand that fans want this to be a R because the comics are pretty violent and revenge-filled. But surely the key issue is whether this will actually be a decent movie. Fucking and fighting do not necessarily make a decent film and maybe the real issue should be over whether the story, characterisation and general thematic direction will be good rather than whether you're going to see a head blown off a neck.

• Steve Carell and Tina Fey will team for Date Night.
• Does Tarantino really mix with a Holocaust movie?
• Sony is considering a remake of Candyman.
• The Ferrell/Baron Cohen Sherlock Holmes project will remain true to the stories, apparently.
• Check out this lovely Michael Cera nightlight, made by a fan.
• McLovin is teaming with Matthew Vaughn for Kick-Ass, based on a Mark Millar comic.
• The rumour mill is running regarding The Punisher: War Zone and what rating it will get.
• Philip Seymour Hoffman is to make his directing debut with an adaptation of off-Broadway play Jack Goes Boating.
• Has Frank Miller's The Spirit already died.
• Paul Greengrass will not be taking over Chicago 7.
• Finally, here's a primer on the work of Woody Allen. My advice; if you only purchase one, make it Manhattan.
  

Sad news indeed folks. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, which looks pretty marvellous based on the trailer, has been shunted back until July next year rather than its Thanksgiving release.

I would love to theorise why this is but I really am coming up blank. The early buzz and trailer have indicated this will be a continuation of the darker path taken by the last instalment. Warner Bros have released a statement but it doesn't seem to be telling the whole story, especially given that the promotional bandwagon for the film has already commenced. The only theory I've yet read is that ticket sales of Equus haven't been strong in New York and maybe that will garner negative press for Daniel Radcliffe but that seems unlikely. There is no way that weak sales of that play will harm the Potter juggernaut. Cinematical threw out a better idea, that they need a PG-13 hammer-blow for next summer and so are using Potter to corner that market in the same way Dark Knight did for them this year.

So we will have to wait nearly a year for the next movie, the first one I've managed to perk up any excitement for, and that my friends, on a Friday, makes me sad.

Yes, folks, it appears that Mike Myers, esteemed star of The Cat in the Hat and The Love Guru, has joined the cast of Inglorious Bastards. I've managed to sound really quite snippy there but I don't mean to, I think this is the most inspired piece of casting yet pulled off by Tarantino for his new project.

Think back to 1994 and Pulp Fiction. Think of the nadir of John Travolta's career being turned about with one conversation about hamburgers and the world getting back a great star. Myers doesn't have the chops Travolta had and hasn't filled his early career with great films in the way John did. But this is a possible revival moment for Myers, just as his career reaches its lowest point.

Myers is to play a British General in the film which has also seen Brad Pitt and Eli Roth confirm as cast members and is in talks with Simon Pegg, Nastassja Kinski and David Krumholtz over additional roles. Right now my expectations are at neutral for this given my love and adoration for Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, my indifference to Jackie Brown and both Kill Bills and my near-hatred for Death Proof. This casting provides a nice opportunity for career reboot so right now, the scales of my anticipation have tipped into Quentin's court.

When the first trailer for this arrived, I was entirely unconvinced on this being a decent movie. The trailer played like we were going to be delivered a play-by-play account of all the well-known incidents in George W Bush's life along with a subplot about how his Papa was an overbearing prick.

It seems however that perhaps I was slightly off base as the posters for the movie have turned up in Denver which, as pointed out by Film School Rejects, is the home of the Democratic National Convention.

The posters basically just depict Josh Brolin as Georgey Poo slumping in a couple of different ways with the tagline 'A Life Misunderestimated' above his head. Is this a gag? I'd doubt there are too many folk in the entire Western world who would stand up for Bush at this point but this is just kind of lazy. I mean, making jokes about the mistakes he makes during speeches was done about a year after he came into power. And, these attacks don't work. When Michael Moore unleashed his misguided and over-personal attack on Bush with Farenheit 9/11, he basically managed to engender a great degree of sympathy for Bush by pissing off the wrong people which can at least partly be blamed for the second four years he spent fucking up politics in the US. Oliver Stone's film looks to be a very similar deal with a chunk of comedy thrown in. Not to be a killjoy but honestly, what the fuck is there to laugh about from his presidency?

• Darth Vader emulates Michael Jackson in Thriller.
• Liam Neeson has joined Orlando Bloom in Sarajevo-war flick Fools Rush In.
• Christian Bale will not face any assault charges following his little tiff in London town.
• Anchorman in space? Possible, according to Paul Rudd.
• Edgar Ramirez is replacing Javier Bardem as Pablo Escobar.
• Walt Stilman, the director of the perennially underrated Metropolitan, talks to IFC.
• Do movie posters ever change your mind about a film?
• Shia's gone back to work on Transformers 2.
• Rorschach is unmasked in the most recent Watchmen video diary.
  

He was among the biggest stars of the eighties and nineties, an unstoppable box-office force. Then he turned to a deeply sinister and all-pervasive cult organisation (and fell in love with Joey from Dawson's under somewhat suspicious circumstances) and boom, Tom Cruise is fucking nuts. That's about the only opinion people tend to have of the guy now, he's a fruitcake. This is a guy whose religion denotes him to be able to perform telekinesis and control others minds with his own. He's barmy.

He's also back. Tom Cruise is in the midst of a potential comeback that may rest later this year on Valkyrie (now move to a Boxing Day release) and is likely to be sparked by his Tropic Thunder cameo. He's come under further scrutiny in the last day after Paula Wagner, his longtime producing parter, stepped down as CEO of United Artists.

Whether he makes his comeback or not really depends on whether we can forgive him. This was the golden boy of American cinema for some time, willing to take on massive, challenging projects and blockbusters all over the place. The dude is thrice-Oscar nominated (and should have won for Magnolia). But he's batshit crazy. Can we look past this and allow Tom back into our lives? Yes, he'll be tainted. But more roles where he is reassuringly committed and/or funny, and I think we'll be welcoming the little dude back into our movie-going hearts.

Having said that, Valkyrie really does look shit.

After talking yesterday a bit about the space for a Pixar sequel to The Incredibles, it seems perhaps a little churlish to now lambast a rival studio for announcing extra sequels for its projects. But, this is completely deserved and I will tell you why.

The situation is that Dreamworks' head honcho and former Disney executive Jeffrey Katzenberg told people at the screening of new footage from Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (what's with this insertion of the number into the title? See: Step Up 2 The Streets) that he sees more sequels in the future of the company.

This really just provides me with an opportunity to further laud the brilliance of Pixar but it does stand in stark contrast to this tactic from Dreamworks. The only sequel thus far from Pixar was the outstanding Toy Story 2 and this was done because they saw the potential of making a second tale with those characters. Is there absolutely anyone out there who really wants to spend more time with the inhabitants of Madagascar? Really? Sure, it's a pleasant enough movie, much like all the Dreamworks pieces, but there just seems no real requirement other than money. I'm not naive, I realise that money makes Hollywood spin and that's fine but there seems to be no real artistic intent to this film and also, no real sense of the kind of ideas making Pixar so good at what they do. Finding Nemo has grossed a chunk of change but no sequel is coming because the film is fine as is. Add to this that the Shrek pics got less enjoyable as the series progressed and really only carried on because it's such a lucrative character.

Add to all this that there is to be a Kung Fu Panda 2. Kung Fu Panda is great but it really felt like a singular, self-contained story and I see no reason to ruin probably the best piece of work the studio has ever produced by throwing in ever more referential, star-studded sequels. As my tone suggests, I'm not a Dreamworks fan and I am a total Pixar fanatic but really, have they ever stood in such stark contrast as regards ideas, innovation and passion for creating something worthwhile that isn't in your cinema entirely for the purpose of emptying your wallet?

I'm a devotee of Pixar. Who isn't? The fact of the matter is that it is probably the most consistent studio ever with regard to the quality of product they put out. Wall-E is instantly among my favourite films of the year and both Toy Storys, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles would all rank high on my all-time list. The Toy Story films especially are close to undebatable classics.

So the nice little piece of news to come from Comic-Con this year about them is that they will be teaming with Boom Studios to create a series of comic books based on their franchises. First up is The Incredibles, one of Pixar's absolute finest creations and something that lends itself nicely to a potential furthering of the story. When you create a set of characters that well written, you really should keep exploring their evolution and this could provide a really nice avenue for Pixar to do just this.

Whether this leads to another movie is another question entirely. As I said (and as Cinematical says here), The Incredibles is the one work in the Pixar canon which really lends itself to sequels (barring Toy Story) and so a franchise of those, with the proviso that Brad Bird is on board, would be cool. Mostly though, it will be nice to have yet more opportunity to be beguiled and bewitched by the storytelling genius of Pixar. Long live the Kings.

• Downey Jr offers his opinions on The Dark Knight.
• Woody Allen is interviewed here about Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
• Antichrist, the horror movie from Lars Von Trier, is going ahead.
• The line-ups for the respective film festivals in Toronto and New York have been announced.
• New photos from Tom Cruise Nazi drama Valkyrie have turned up. Check out the horrifying bad trailer here.
• James Franco will don a fake member for Gus Van Sant's Milk.
• Ratner is producing a remake of 1980 horror flick Mother's Day.
• A sequel to Serenity? Apparently a no but if we all just extend positive energy its way, maybe. Just maybe.