It really seemed like we were finally going to get Garth Ennis' Preacher this time -- the dark, funny, and controversial comic book series seemed perfect for HBO. Isn't that what they do, after all?

Apparently not. Mark Steven Johnson told Comics Continuum that they've passed on the series. "We were budgeting and everything and it was getting really close to going. But the new head of HBO felt it was just too dark and too violent and too controversial. Which, of course, is kind of the point! It was a very faithful adaptation of the first few books, nearly word for word. They offered me the chance to redevelop it but I refused. I've learned my lesson on that front and I won't do it again. So I'm afraid it's dead at HBO."

But, Johnson says that he's heard that someone is trying to obtain the rights for a big screen adaptation, and that he hopes it happens -- and that whoever nabs it can do the stories justice in a series of films. "Someone" doesn't narrow it down much, but shall we let our imaginations run wild? Frankly, in this world where the legendarily un-filmable (Lord of the Rings, Watchmen) is being made every day, I can't believe Preacher remains untouched. Isn't every studio dying for its own mature comic franchise? Isn't there a daring young filmmaker who's just dying to be boycotted, picketed, and harassed? Aren't we constantly hearing that all publicity, no matter how bad and hysterical, is desirable? Let's put it to the test. Whoever that "someone" is that's angling for the rights, may they succeed, and get Preacher on the big screen.

We hadn't heard from child star extraordinaire Haley Joel Osment for a while -- at least not in any productive way. His last film (not counting the unreleased Home of the Giants) was the mediocre 2003 coming-of-ager Secondhand Lions; since then, news about him has mostly involved car accidents and drunk driving. But thankfully, things seem to be turning around. The actor, now 20 years old, will star in this fall's Broadway revival of David Mamet's challenging American Buffalo, alongside John Leguizamo and Cedric the Entertainer. I'm assuming that he'll be taking on the role of teenaged Bobby, played by Sean Nelson in the 1996 film. Not a huge part, but being one of a cast of three on Broadway certainly isn't trivial.

So few child stars make a successful transition into adult careers, but an actor of Osment's caliber deserves one. (The Sixth Sense is all well and good, but A.I.'s "David" was a masterpiece.) Now that he's no longer an adorable moppet, he should probably aim for "character actor" rather than "star." If that's the goal, then American Buffalo seems like a step in the right direction; there are few things like a little Mamet to establish some thespian street cred.

The play starts previews on October 31st and opens in November.

One of the more controversial and polarizing films at this year's Sundance Film Festival (and last year's Toronto fest) was Towelhead, a dark and uncomfortable comedy about a 13-year-old Lebanese-American girl living in Texas during the first Gulf War. It was directed by Alan Ball, who showed with American Beauty (which he wrote) and HBO's Six Feet Under (which he created) that he has a knack for finding humor in the sinister corners of suburbia.

The film is set for limited release on Sept. 12 (here's Cinematical's review from Toronto), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on Warner Bros. to change the title before it comes out. A press release from the Greater Los Angeles Area office of CAIR said, "The word ('towelhead') is commonly used in a derogatory manner against people of the Muslim faith or Arab origin." Furthermore: "The use of such a derogatory term by a major film studio will serve to increase its acceptability in public discourse."

Really, CAIR? "Towelhead" is a slur? Then I wonder why the filmmakers would use it as a title -- unless -- you don't think -- nah -- could it be that the whole point of the movie is that this girl is trying to find her identity, and that "Towelhead" is one of the epithets she has to deal with while living in a redneck town during the Gulf War? Could it be that one of the movie's messages is that slurs like that are unacceptable? Could it be that only the most bigoted and idiotic of viewers could come out of it thinking, "I'm gonna start sayin' 'towelhead' more often!"?

Long-time readers of Cinematical, or those thoroughly entranced in the world of Sean Connery, might know that before the man hit it big, he made a living with odd jobs, from junior horseman to milkman for one pound a week. If you're curious about all that hard work and pre-Bond life, CNN reports that Mr. Connery has written an autobiography called Being a Scot, which he's launching today in Scotland.

However, you won't get a lot of backstage secrets and celebrity gossip, which I must say is a welcome change in the world of celebrity memoirs and gossip writing. Connery focuses on his beginnings in a two-room home in industrial Edinburgh to his time as a milkman, and discusses "many aspects of Scottish culture and life, including sport, architecture, and of course the gothic tendency in Scots literature" featuring the likes of Robbie Burns and Sir Walter Scott.

Unfortunately, there is no word about when Being a Scot will hit shelves stateside. In the meantime, you can check it out through the UK Amazon site.

Movie studios are big on protecting their intellectual property, which is certainly understandable -- but sometimes they come down too hard. Take this new case. Warner Bros. is suing to stop the Indian release of a domestic film called Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors. Why? Because Hari Puttar is close to Harry Potter, obviously, and Warners damn well owns the film rights to Harry Potter.

Sounds fair enough -- except that the movie has nothing to do with Harry Potter, and doesn't even appear to be an attempt to capitalize on the Potter brand name. As best I can determine, "Hari Puttar" is the endearing nickname of a 10 year-old character named Hari Prasad Dhoonda. The movie itself appears to be an action-adventure fantasy, about a resourceful kid who saves his dad's top secret computer chip from some burglars -- sort of like a modern, Indian Home Alone. The title references Harry Potter, but there's no theft here; the closest parallel is Son of Rambow, which managed to avoid a lawsuit (reportedly by adding the "w" to the end of "Rambo").

Warners, of course, has to fight this battle in Indian courts, so it's hard to predict what's going to happen. But Harry Potter is such a prominent part of the zeitgeist all over the world, that the company may have a lot of battles on its hands if it chooses to go after every incident such as this.

It's a lonely day in the neighborhood ....

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: I'm not sure whether Warner Bros. was prepared for the ridiculous fanboy (and girl) backlash that came with pushing the film's release date back several months to the middle of July, 2009, though it looks like they've re-grouped, dusted themselves off and are preparing to get that marketing machine up and running again. Following a statement from Warners chief Alan Horn (included after the jump) comes word from our friends at Bloghogwarts that Warner Bros. has sent in a new trailer (marked at a minute and a half) to the BBFC for approval. Could this be the studio's version of make-up sex? (PG rated make-up sex, of course.) Only time will tell ...

Inglorious Bastards: These days, when it comes to the cast of Quentin Tarantino's WWII flick Inglorious Bastards, nothing is set in stone (or badass, motherf**king stone, as QT would say). Thus, we want to be real careful about this latest news (via Variety) that Michael Fassbender is "in talks" to join the ensemble cast. Note that he's "in talks", as were a few other guys (Simon Pegg, David Krumholtz, though the latter is still mentioned by the trade) before they dropped out. Though they don't say who he'd be playing, the German-speaking actor would most likely take on the role of badass motherf**king Nazi in charge of total damage ... which sounds about right to me. Fassbender, of course, is best known for his role as Stelios in 300, and is still set to appear opposite Abbie Cornish in Wuthering Heights.

The upcoming Death Race remake may look nothing like the original (nor have any awesome point collections like the original, which you can see above), but maybe that's because it isn't actually based on the classic cult movie?

The Hollywood Reporter posts that writer Adam Stone is determined to stop the release of Death Race, which is scheduled to hit screens this Friday. He's filed a copywright infringement lawsuit claiming that the film is based on a script he pitched to director Paul W. S. Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt. He thinks that a copy of the script, Joust, was kept and worked into what seems to be a Death Race 2000 revamp -- one with at least 39 elements that are just like his refused screenplay.

Is this why the film is darker, less campy, and with a lot less reported civilian casualties? Currently, Universal has declined to comment and there's no word on what damages Stone is seeking from the lawsuit.

It seems my favorite superhero is about to enter the land of ugly rumors. According to Hollywood Elsewhere, there's trouble on the set of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It seems that director Gavin Hood and Fox co-chairman and CEO Tom Rothman are butting heads over the look and feel of the film.

Hood, being a smart man who knows his character, wants the film to be dark and gritty. Rothman wants a happier, friendlier, Iron Man sort of film. Apparently, things came to a head at least once on set when Hood came to work to find one of his dingy and somber sets completely repainted into something brighter and more cheerful. (I bet they even put one of those "Hang in there!" kitten posters on the wall.) The set revamp had been done on Rothman's orders, who has a reputation for being stubborn and micromanaging. It's not clear from the second-hand story who won out on this particular battle, but if we see a chirpier set design on opening day, we'll know.

Word around town had production troubled for awhile (it's all anyone talked about prior to the footage screening at ComicCon, though it's all been very hush hush) -- and I'm also under the impression from ComicCon that the film has finally wrapped, so all this set redecoration may be very old and irrelevant news. Perhaps Hood has already won out, as the teaser footage certainly suggested that it was a bit grittier than Iron Man or the previous X-Men films. Please, let that be the case. If I'm disappointed by Wolverine (and I inevitably will be), I don't want it to be because my beloved Logan has a penchant for kitten posters.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine opens May 1st, 2009.

You may have heard that spoof veteran David Zucker's newest project, An American Carol, is a takedown of Michael Moore. You can now have a look at the trailer, online at Yahoo!. And then you can riddle me this: Does An American Carol look like a clever parody of Moore's documentaries, or just a partisan attack on the filmmaker? Or, put another way, is the clip of Bill O'Reilly slapping around Kevin Farley's "Michael Malone" a commentary on the rivalry between the two, or right-wing wish fulfillment? One thing to note before answering is that O'Reilly appears in the film himself, while Moore does not.

Moore is obviously fair game; I've enjoyed his films, and sympathize with (some of) his politics, but I'd eagerly watch a skillful spoof of the pudgy, faux-working-class provocateur. I think parts of the trailer are pretty funny ("Here I am on the island paradise Cuba!"). But if the point is just to pile on the guy, with a rah-rah patriotic, stop-hating-America message at the end, then I'm significantly less interested.

The thing is, the trailer really doesn't make clear what's going on. On one hand, prominent conservatives like O'Reilly and James Woods appear to deliver literal and figurative blows. On the other, "Michael Malone" gets accused of being a slaveowner, which sounds more like a parody of conservative attacks on Moore than of Moore himself. And is Trace Adkins poking fun at his image here, or is he for real?

We know that Zucker is himself conservative, and that the movie is political -- which is fine. But is it political in an incisive, worthwhile way, or in the brainless beatdown mode of Ann Coulter et al? What do you think?

When Warner Bros. announced last Thursday that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been pushed back from Nov. 21 to next July, hardcore fans immediately entered the five stages of nerd grief. So far we've worked our way through denial, anger, semi-literate Internet ranting, and conspiracy-theorizing. All that's left is acceptance, where we go ahead and watch the movie when it comes out next summer and forget any of this ever happened.

In the meantime, several myths about the date change have popped up, and we'd like to help separate fact from fiction.

MYTH #1: Half-Blood Prince was moved because WB was scared of Twilight.
According to some people who are fans of the Twilight novel and pre-fans of the Twilight movie, WB got nervous about Harry Potter coming out just three weeks before the teen-vampire chick flick, fearing it would siphon off too much of Harry's audience.

Most observers believe Twilight will indeed be a hit, but come on. The Harry Potter franchise the most lucrative in film history, with a total worldwide box-office gross so far of $4.5 billion. There's no reason for WB to fear any competition, no matter how formidable. Also, most of Harry Potter's income is from overseas, where Twilight, still largely a U.S. phenomenon, cannot hope to compete.

Plus, if Half-Blood Prince came out Nov. 21 and followed the usual pattern, it would have already made most of its projected income by the time Twilight showed up on Dec. 12 anyway. Three weeks is a huge gap in our modern, front-loaded, it's-all-about-opening-weekend movie culture. If there had only been one week between them, then maybe you'd have something.