I tell you what the world need right about now: a remake of Grease starring Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, Susan Boyle, and Cheryl Cole. I’m kidding, of course, the world needs anything but that, but Justin Bieber knows what we want, and would like to see it happen.

He reportedly told The Sun:

“It would be a lot of fun. It’s been talked about a lot over the years but it would be awesome to play Danny.”

“I would go for Miley Cyrus [as Sandy] without hesitation. She can sing, dance and act. I’d want some great people to star in it. Wouldn’t Susan Boyle make an amazing Principal McGee? We’d just need to write it into the script that she broke into song. I would love to include Cheryl Cole as well. She would look great in the Rydell High cheerleading uniform.”

I say “reportedly” because The Sun has been known to, well, report stuff that isn’t quite true or as it seems in the past. Still, those stories usually quote one of those oh-so-useful ’sources’ that can’t ever be traced to either confirm or deny they said what is attributed to them. This story, on the other hand, quotes Bieber directly, so maybe it is true.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that this is a truly terrible idea. For starters who wants or needs a remake of Grease? The original stands up to scrutiny to this day, and High School Musical and Glee have succeeded Grease, providing a new generation with more singing, dancing cheese than they could ever need.

Even if Grease were to be remade, would anyone over the age of 14 want Bieber in the lead role? I’d guess not, unless he fancies getting dressed up and playing Sandy.

Sean Connery is, I think it’s fair to say, an absolute legend. He’ll forever be remembered as James Bond, especially as he’s many people’s favorite Bond of all time. And if the series comes to a permanent halt due to MGM’s financial woes then that is unlikely to change.

Unfortunately, it looks as though Connery’s acting days are behind him, with the Scottish bard recently saying:

“I don’t think I’ll ever act again. I have so many wonderful memories but these days are over. From Russia With Love was my absolute favorite. The story was intriguing and the locations were intriguing. It was an international movie in every sense of the word.”

I guess this should come as no big surprise. Connery has recently turned 80, and apart from a couple of voice-only roles hasn’t starred in a film since The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen in 2003.

I recently watched Highlander for the first time, and wouldn’t recommend it for those seeking out Connery’s greatest hits. Not only is the film a load of old tripe, Connery’s performance is particularly bad. So maybe he should have retired as soon as his stint as Bond came to an end.

I’ll fondly remember Sean Connery’s acting career firstly for his masterful portrayal of Bond, but also for the fact he never quite managed to hide his Scottish roots. The best example of this is in The Hunt For Red October, in which he played a Russian submarine captain with a Scottish accent.

Mel Gibson once had a really big career.  

The headline on The Hollywood Reporter’s article reads “Moviegoers still want to see Mel Gibson,” but is that really true?

The point is that Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes did a poll where they asked 847 randomly selected adults “Are you less likely to see a Mel Gibson movie as a result of the recent scandal?” The answer choices were “Yes, less likely” and “No, no effect.” 76% of the respondents, broken out as 80% of the men and 72% of the women called, said “No, no effect.”

So that might lead you to believe that audiences don’t care who is in a movie, as long as it’s good, or that they have a lot of good will towards Gibson. The truth, though, is that Gibson hasn’t been a major star for years (mostly due to his own choices, as he retreated behind the camera) and even before this recent threatening/beating up his girlfriend scandal, would not, I don’t think, have been considered a big box office draw anymore. What this poll is missing is the question “Before this recent scandal, how much would Mel Gibson’s presence in a movie make you want to buy a ticket?” The choices would be “very likely” or “not very likely” to match the other question, though to be fair, it should also include “I don’t care who’s in it as long as it’s good.”

What I’m trying to say is that there’s a big difference between concluding that just because 76% of Americans said Gibson’s presence would have no effect on their going to a movie and saying that 76% of Americans WANT to see Gibson in a movie. I think even if this recent disaster hadn’t happened, most moviegoers would say that they would not go to a movie just because Gibson is in it, and the real definition of a star is an actor who people would go to see stand on a box and read the dictionary. He’s just not really a star anymore. For some actors, especially those who felt they’d been pegged as just a pretty face, reaching that stage in their career can bring some relief because it means they no longer have to carry the movie and maybe can play more interesting parts. Because of his personal problems, though, I don’t know if Gibson can do that, or if he even wants to do that.

A biopic of Tupac Shakur has been in the works for some time, but it’s now taking a different direction than was previously announced. Stephen J. Rivele and Chris Wilkinson, who have already brought us Ali and Nixon, are bringing their considerable skills to the project.

A previous script was very much a biopic bringing the facts to the big screen in as simple and straightforward a way as possible. But Rivele and Wilkinson have used a different approach for the new script, with the bulk of the movie based on Shakur’s last day alive, with flashbacks looking at the four years leading up to the moment he was shot.

Rivele told Vulture:

“I knew nothing about [Shakur], [but once I did] it became clear that he was essentially a 19th century Romantic poet who found himself in the 21st century. This is the story of an artist whose character is at odds with his medium. He was a really sensitive, very romantic, talented young poet who also could sing, dance, and act. But the realities [of the hip-hop record business] were that he had to create this persona of the gangster.”

While the movie biopic won’t attempt to uncover the people responsible for Shakur’s death, or why it happened, Rivele has an opinion on the matter, stating:

“He was in the process of changing himself, and entering a new phase of his life — essentially a Romantic vision — and had set up a new label, and a new production company to create it. He saw the contradiction between the musical persona of ‘Thug Life,’ and his essential nature as a gentle, sensitive person. And that was partly responsible for his murder: He was not a gangster, but the people around him were. They saw he was going to leave, that they were going to lose him, and so I think they decided to kill him.”

That sounds pretty controversial, but maybe that’s a widely-held view. Not being a huge fan of hip-hop or Tupac, I’m not too hot on the subject matter.

Still, I’d be interested in seeing this biopic of the rap star’s life because I trust the writers to make it as interesting as it possibly could be. It might not please all Tupac’s fans, but it should make for a hell of a movie.

No, that isn’t Ricky Gervais pictured above. I’ve never seen The Office star looking that camp, at least not in public. In fact, it’s Elton John, who is the man who apparently dictated the year Cemetery Junction was set in.

For those not aware of Cemetery Junction, this was Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant’s first attempt at writing and directing a feature film. It told the story of a group of teenagers as their lives changed in small-town England during the early-1970s.

But why was Cemetery Junction specifically set in 1973? Did Gervais and Merchant spend a long time analyzing which period of time it would be best to base this story in? No, not at all. In fact, the timing of Cemetery Junction was all down to Elton John, as Gervais recently explained:

“About four years ago, I asked Elton John if I could use his song ‘Saturday Night’s Alright (For Fighting)’ to open a film with. He said yes, so I told Stephen Merchant, and he said, ‘Right, let’s set it in 1973, then’. That’s the truth.”

That’s truly bizarre. It’s strange enough to imagine Ricky Gervais hanging out with Elton John, but to then find out that the extravagantly camp pop star had a hand in the comedy duo’s first movie is even more so. Or is it just me?

They’ll take second place. 

The numbers right now, which, as you’ll see, are very subject to change:

1. The Last Exorcism $21,300,000

2. Takers $21,000,000

3. The Expendables $9,500,000

4. Eat Pray Love $7,000,000

5. The Other Guys $6,600,000

“The Last Exorcism” and “Takers” are in a dead heat for box office winner of the week. Considering that both are not very good movies, this is the equivalent of watching the Senior Citizen Cheerleading championships; the outcome doesn’t have much meaning, and really, we’d all rather watch some better-looking people compete (no offense to your hot grandma, of course). “Exorcism” was in more theaters and therefore more reachable for the movie desperate, so that might give it the final edge.

“The Expendables” and “Eat Pray Love” dropped moneywise, but they’ve earned their keep.  Same with “The Other Guys.”

The “Avatar” re-release earned $4 million at 812 theaters, for a $4926 per screen average. That puts it in 12th place for the week. I don’t know what they were expecting, but I think it’s fair to say that the re-release didn’t exactly take the world by storm. Then again, it’s also fair to say that “Avatar” has already earned some money so it doesn’t care what happens anymore.

Next week we have some more interesting releases: “Machete” seems like a good bet for first place. George Clooney’s “The American” may not be a huge release; I don’t know what the theater count on that is yet. “The Winning Season” looks like a tween film that could do okay, but may have been better off premiering on cable–Nickelodeon or Disney, whoever owns it. “Going the Distance” looks like another awful romantic comedy.