Rumors are swirling around the internet that PRINCE OF PERSIA hottie Gemma Arterton might be up for the lead in Ridley Scott’s ALIEN prequel two-fer. However, don’t expect her to be playing a young version of Ripley, as all previous reports about the project seem to indicate that it will take place a good many years before the original ALIEN.

Here’s the quote from the Sunday Times that started the whole she-bang:

“Ridley Scott saw ‘[The Disappearance of] Alice Creed’ and loved it. He wants me to meet for ‘Aliens: The Remake’, or something,”

I’m guessing that ALIENS: THE REMAKE bit is a slip of the tongue and that Scott is remaking ALIENS. He’s not, right? Pretty sure she meant ALIEN and not ALIENS, otherwise there might be some Cameron acolytes out there getting their torches and pitchforks ready.

As for Arterton as some kind of Ripley-esque character, I’m pretty sure there won’t be any complaints from the fanboy legion. She’s cute, spunky, can kick ass and definitely can act. If you don’t believe me on that last one, just check out THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED. It’s pretty easy to see why Scott was impressed with her in that, it’s a star-making role if there ever was one.

It should be stated though that if she is indeed playing some reboot of Ripley or a prequel version of her that this is a very bad idea. I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case, but if it is, Arterton is no Sigourney Weaver. Just saying.

[via Sunday Times]

Dredd takes us to the wild streets of Mega City One, the lone oasis of quasi-civilization on Cursed Earth. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is the most feared of elite Street Judges, with the power to enforce the law, sentence offenders and execute them on the spot – if necessary. The endlessly inventive mind of writer Alex Garland and the frenetic vision of director Peter Travis bring Dredd to life as a futuristic neo-noir action film that returns the celebrated character to the dark, visceral incarnation from John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra’s revered comic strip.

Simple, to the point and a tiny slap to the face of those who actually enjoyed the Stallone version of DREDD (like myself), it’s nice to see that this project is actually happening. It’s been on the table for years now and I (along with a good many others) had begun to think this was some project that might never happen (kinda like the film version of HALO which, ironically enough, also had Garland attached). Glad to see that those fears were unfounded and that audiences will be getting another trip to Mega City One sometime next year.

[via Cinemablend]

I still hate the idea of a SPIDER-MAN reboot, but because my hate doesn’t stop movies from getting made, so I feel obligated to still talk about it. In other words, I don’t really want to talk about how Hilary Duff might be up for a role in the flick, but I feel like I need to inform you of this.

Long story short, Moviehole posted a story that they found over at The Globe And Mail that says that Duff might be up for the female lead in SPIDER-MAN REBORN. To be more precise, Duff is reading the new SPIDER-MAN script and could be playing anyone in the movie. There’s no exact statement saying that she’s the lead or rumored love interest Gwen Stacy.

Well, just read it for yourself (it should be mentioned that the original piece is about Duff, her husband Mike Comrie and their home):

Although tastefully furnished (Comrie says he’s unsure if anything is from The Brick), it is relatively humble by Beverly Hills standards. The kitchen contains evidence of their professional lives – his daily diet is posted on the fridge (from a bacon cheddar burrito for breakfast to five pigs-in-a-blanket as a nighttime snack) and a script marked “Spiderman” sits on the table, with lines for a character simply called “girl” highlighted in yellow (rumors swirl about who Spidey’s love interest will be in the series’ next installment.)

See? Most sites are reporting that she’s up for the female lead, but who can really tell from a script lying in a house? She could be up for anything, a large part, bit role, random passerby, anyone. Plus, I’m pretty sure that Columbia is aiming higher than Duff for the female lead.

Don’t get me wrong, Duff is a cutie and she’s matured into a pretty good actress. She’s one of the rare child stars (remember LIZZIE MAGUIRE?) who actually entered adult roles without having to go to rehab or suffer through a scandal. The problem is that she’s just kind of there right now. Her current work is mostly on TV or in DTV material, and that just doesn’t scream lead in a major tentpole pic to me. That isn’t to say she isn’t doing good work, she’s just doing good work in stuff that nobody is watching.

However, I could be wrong and maybe she’s up for Gwen Stacy. While I don’t think that’s the case, I’d be down for her playing opposite Andrew Garfield as Spidey.

[via Moviehole and The Globe And Mail]

Again it’s time for Alanna to open her big mouth and spread the wonderful word of HARRY POTTER. Yes, I love my Harry Potter, and this time I’m bringing you my top 10 list of things that should have been transferred to the HARRY POTTER movies from the books.

Though there are many inconsistencies from book to movie, and I can bring up about a thousand things from each book, I had to pick out the top 10 for ALL of the movies that have been released so far, and that was quite a task (though I do cheat by grouping). For some of these, they are things that actually play a vital role in the later movies, for others, they are things that irked me to no end and I absolutely had to include them or explode with words.

And because I had so many words to share, the list has been broken up in two parts so your information intake isn’t so tortured; the second part will be posted tomorrow for your viewing pleasure! So, please enjoy my list and understand all the things the HARRY POTTER films COULD have been. *wink*

10. Peeves

If you haven’t read the books, you haven’t ever heard of Peeves. We all know about the regular ghosts of Hogwarts (hopefully)– Nearly Headless Nick, The Bloody Barron, Moaning Myrtle, etc– but few movie-watchers know of Peeves. Peeves the Poltergeist is just what his name suggests, a poltergeist. He roams around Harry Potter-land (aka Hogwarts) telling riddles, revealing secrets, tossing ink bottles, and picking on First Years.

Though he is annoying, he wasn’t really necessary for the movies, but it bothers me nonetheless that he was stolen from my Hogwarts experience. All the movie makers had to do was have him floating in the background spouting idiocies, and I would have been a happy camper! Where hath thou gone, Peeves?

9. S.P.E.W

SPEW, or the Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare, was founded by Hermione Granger in Year Four, but didn’t become really noticed until Year Five. I include SPEW because Hermione is plain awesome for making this group. Actually, in Year Five (aka ORDER), she begins knitting socks and hats and sweaters for the house elves of Hogwarts and hiding them in the Gryffindor Common Room; incidentally, the Hogwarts house elves take offense at this and the only one left to clean up after the Gryffindor house members is Dobby (remember him? More later on the list), because he is already free, and would love nothing better than to help “Harry Potter”.

8. Marauder’s Map History

Oh Light, how this bothered me in PRISONER OF AZKABAN! Though it is my favorite book and movie, I was always bothered there was never an out and out explanation about the founders of the Marauder’s Map, connecting the four friends and Snivellus Snape. All right, Severus! I’ll be nice to the boy! Anywhosit, the founders (aka Marauders) were Mooney, Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail (aka Mad Eye Moody, Sirius Black, James Potter, Peter Pettigrew, respectively). And the poor boy that they bullied throughout schooling was dear Severus Snape (more later). So, this map belonged to the four friends, it was eventually swiped from Argus Filch, Fred and George Weasley swiped it from him later, and then they gave it to Harry Potter in Year Three (PRISONER).

More about the Quartet: Three of them (Sirius, James, and Peter) became Animagi (successfully in their Year Five) during their stint at Hogwarts as a precautionary system for the werewolf Lupin. Every full moon, they would go to the Shrieking Shack and allow Lupin to transform, and the Stag, Dog, and Rat kept children (and Snape) away and the Wolf under control. Actually, at one point Sirius tricked Snape into running into Lupin during a full moon, and James saved his life, further making Snape hate them both.

7. Dobby, or lack thereof

After the Second Year (CHAMBER) and trying to get Harry out of Hogwarts, Dobby basically disappeared from the films. In the books though, he remained a good, loyal friend of Harry and was there the whole time. My question: filmmakers, why did you leave Dobby out?! In GOBLET OF FIRE, Dobby found the Gillyweed for Harry; in ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, Dobby was working in the Gryffindor common room and he also found the Room of Requirement for Dumbledore’s Army (it wasn’t Neville). In DEATHLY HALLOWS, well, you’ll just have to see.

I’ve added Dobby to the list because he is an amazing character and is a definite point of interest in the last book; he is loyal to his last and that is his flaw, poor little guy. This little house elf gets all the honor he deserves at Shell Cottage in the final book. Anyways, when you see him in the last movie, it will feel like a giant hole in Dobby’s timeline from when he was seen in Year Two to current time.

It’s not fair, and robs the book-readers and movie-watchers alike of Dobby-time. Dobby’s story line should have been continued throughout the series, even if they could have done it in the background or some such.

6. The Burrow and The Missing Weasleys

I have so much to say on this that my mind is currently overflowing with thoughts. Let us first begin with the Burrow: why did they think it was a good idea to burn it down in HALF BLOOD PRINCE (Year Six)? That most definitely was NOT in the books and it never would be. Their reasoning was a fight scene, but this wouldn’t have been necessary if they would have left the actual fight scene (more later) in at the end of the movie! The scene was weak and awkward and a disappointment to me (like the film GOBLET OF FIRE was to everyone. Oooh, BURN!). The Burrow is supposed to be a safe place, and protected as well. It’s also the location of Bill and Fleur’s wedding in the next book/movie (now you can ask: who’s that?).

The wedding brings me to my next point. Anyone know who the hell all the other Weasley kids are? Anyone realize that there are seven Weasley kids? Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ron, Ginny. Now, since the BATTLE (more later, again) wasn’t shown in HALF BLOOD PRINCE, Bill was attacked by Fenrir Greyback (in human form) and he was disfigured. Alright, along with this, Bill is dating/will be marrying Fleur Delacour (contestant in GOBLET OF FIRE). Bill also works with Gringotts bank and is a member of the Order.

Charlie works with Dragons in Romania, Percy is the son that works at the ministry and has been estranged from his family for quite a while now (he sided with Fudge about the Voldemort issue), and the rest of the Weasleys we know. My curiosity wants to know how utterly confused people will be in the next movie when they hold the wedding and Bill is all disfigured and they don’t give any explanations, then the Burrow is ACTUALLY ATTACKED. Also, will there even BE a Burrow or a wedding? Please, let me know what you know!

~~~

Okay, that’s all for today! Hopefully you survived through the first half of Alanna’s top 10 things that should have been in the HARRY POTTER movies, and I bet you can’t wait to see the rest of the list! For a few hints, we’ll see our favorite dog, HBP is brought up again and again, and what exactly is the deal with Snape?!

About a week back, AngieBee and I went and saw THE EXPENDABLES (click HERE to read that review) and while it was a good movie, it wasn’t what I was expecting. What we were expecting was the ultimate homage to the action flicks of yesteryear, the brawny muscle epics that she and I had grown up on. What we got was a decent, but very modern and cold, action pic that barely resembled the movies that Stallone was hoping to pay homage to.

The main fault, the almost crippling issue, with the movie was that there was no motive, no reasoning. “The Expendables” of the title were simply kicking ass and taking names because they wanted to. Sure, there was some bullshit reason about how some Latina gal had a connection with Stallone and he had to save her, but it didn’t work. There was no driving force that made me connect with the characters. And while it was an action pic and that’s a genre that doesn’t really deliver much in terms of story, there needs to be something for us (the audience) to relate to. We need that small morsel of plot or motive that allows us to understand why our hero is killing everything and everyone in sight. That’s just something that THE EXPENDABLES didn’t deliver and it failed in it’s “action epic homage” mission.

That is not the case with MACHETE. Not only did this flick manage to be everything that I was expecting it to be, it also simultaneously was more than I was expecting and it was a perfect homage to the action epics of yesteryear. Not the big-budget muscle-bound epics that Stallone was trying to ape, but the Cannon films. The movies that starred the likes of Charles Bronson, Christopher Mitchum, Michael Dudikoff, Steven Seagal, Robert Ginty and Jean-Claude Van Damme. Flicks that may not have won awards or changed the world, but delivered good cheap thrills with heroes that you could relate to.

Danny Trejo as Machete is a hero I can relate to. In the opening moments of MACHETE, you see that he was good cop fighting the fight against a ruthless drug lord named Torrez (Steven Seagal). However, as is the case with all “good cop trying to take down the main baddie in the opening moments” prologues, things go bad. Like “Torrez slaughters your wife and child then burns down a building around you” bad.

Bad for Machete, but good for the audience. Right off the bat, we get this guy. Avenging the death of loved ones might be the oldest trick in the exploitation book, but it’s a trick that works. Everyone can associate with the idea of bloody revenge against those who took away what you loved, it’s a universally accepted thing. Hell, if anyone hurt my family, I’d probably grab a machete and start hacking away at bad guys.

What’s better than that is that MACHETE doesn’t stop there. Oh no. Machete is also set up and double-crossed by Jeff Fahey, gets stalked by a goofball assassin Osiris (played by FX god Tom Savini, of all people), involves himself in a massive conspiracy to keep Mexicans in Mexico and he basically ends up starting a revolution by films end. What’s amazing about this is that I bought every minute of it. Maybe its because all of these plot points are relatable or maybe its because Danny Trejo is a super badass, but I bought it and that means a lot to me as a moviegoer.

After all, who wouldn’t want to get revenge if double-crossed by Jeff Fahey? Especially when he’s playing a slimy senator’s aide that has designs on his own daughter (Lindsay Lohan)? MACHETE is exploitation, knows it and relishes in it. Every baddie here is ultra-bad, having layers and layers of evil coating. I mean, as if it wasn’t bad enough that Fahey sets up our hero, the film gives him a bizarre subplot about him lusting after his daughter, who happens to be played by Lohan, who is basically spoofing herself (in other words, she’s a drugged-out whorish socialite). And let’s not even get into the fact that Machete, while infiltrating Fahey’s home for info, ends up scoring with both Lohan and her mom, at the same time, while Lohan records it. Oh and the tape ends up in Fahey’s hands. This is that kind of movie.

Yeah, I know that I’ve spent seven paragraphs yammering on about how plot development and motives are vital to an action movie’s success, but I also need to mention that this flick is pure exploitation goodness. Or, more appropriately, as director Robert Rodriguez calls it “mexploitation”. MACHETE settles in very comfortably next to other Rodriguez efforts such as EL MARIACHI, DESPERADO and ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO. Matter of fact, this could be some spin-off of that series, like how BATTLE FOR ENDOR was spun off of the original STAR WARS trilogy. Oh wait, that reference doesn’t work at all, does it? Anyways, if you dug RR‘s “Mariachi“ trilogy, you’ll be right at home here.

The main difference between them however is that MACHETE is a bit of a message movie. Granted, Rodriguez and co-director Ethan Maniquis bury that message under a giant wave of bloodshed and nudity, but there is a message here. Basically, MACHETE takes the whole Arizona immigration issue head-on. Rodriquez doesn’t offer any answers, per se, but he does make the viewer very much aware that shit like this is going on and it needs to be stopped.

In case you’re not getting what I’m saying, Arizona is basically trying to force Mexicans to carry around their papers much like the Nazis made Jewish folk did back in WWII. In other words, a complete violation of their rights. And this is being done under the guise of “oh, we just want to make sure they’re legal and if they’re not, we’re gonna toss them back down south of the border”. In other words, bullshit reasoning for bullshit laws.

MACHETE doesn’t take place in Arizona, but it’s close enough, opting to take place in Texas. And while this is a very hyper-realized version of the entire situation, the movie does make some good points. Like the fact that Americans have no issues letting good, honest, hard-working folk do all the shit work for us here in the US. Sure, we’ll let them do tons of yard work, clean bathrooms, hard labor and for pennies, but we don’t really want them here if they’re not legal. What a load of horseshit.

This is supposed to be America, land of the free. I’m curious as to when this country became a “Members Only” club. Aren’t we supposed to let anyone across our borders, regardless of race, creed or religion? If that’s the case, then someone needs to explain to me why the fuck Arizona is doing what they’re doing. Somebody needs to explain to me why a country that love and I would die for is turning away people by the truckload when we’re supposed to be giving them freedom. Somebody needs to explain to me how the hell I derailed this review so bad!

(Climbs down from soapbox)

Like I said before, I get why Machete kills the bad guys. His plight is relatable and Trejo is a likable guy. Against all odds, Trejo is a likable badass. How the hell does that work?

If I had to guess, the reason that Trejo makes such a good hero is the “Charles Bronson” factor. Neither actor was much to look at. Matter of fact, both were stone-faced men who looked like life had beaten them down and called them names. Both of them had a way about them, an inherent coolness that allowed them to own the room whenever they were in it. Bronson had it and Trejo does too.

You don’t argue with the guy when he’s busy cutting down drug lords while brandishing a machete, you don’t argue with him when he gives away a briefcase full of money to help support illegal immigrants and you don’t even question the fact that 66-year-old Trejo scores with not one, not two, but FIVE full-blown hotties before the movie is done. Danny Trejo is just that cool and it’s about time he headlined a movie.

And thankfully, Trejo’s one-man parade to badassery keeps the movie rolling. His charisma and epic coolness masks some rough patches and makes every minute of MACHETE work.

Take, for instance, Jessica Alba. Now, for my money, Alba is a great-looking actress who is merely okay acting-wise. Sometimes she works, sometimes she doesn’t and in MACHETE, she somehow manages to do both. Early on, her cop character is not that great. She’s too soft spoken, seems afraid and really doesn’t manage to register. Oh sure, she clocks in a shower scene and the male component of the audience thanks her, but a shower scene does not a performance make. Basically, for the first thirty of MACHETE, Alba is doing her normal boring schtick.

Thankfully, Rodriguez remembered that he was the guy who gave Alba her best performance (that would be SIN CITY) and he somehow manages to get her into that zone again, albeit thirty minutes into the movie. And while she does misstep once more before the end credits roll (that would be her ridiculous rally cry for revolution), Alba does manage some okay work here. Fortunately, Trejo lifts most of her scenes out from being painful to tolerable.

Performance-wise, Alba is definitely the weak link, but everyone else seems to be having a ball. Folks like Don Johnson, Cheech Marin, Robert DeNiro and the crazy babysitter twins from GRINDHOUSE (Electra and Elise Avellan) all float in and out of the movie, enjoying the hell out of their pulpy roles. Seagal and Fahey fare the best out of the villains, both managing to steal whole chunks of the movie out from under everyone’s noses. Hell, Seagal is so good here you have to wonder why he hasn’t played a bad guy before. Not to mention, dude steals the very last scene of the movie without even trying. That’s pretty impressive.

Four standouts need to mentioned here, simply because they are too awesome to lump into one paragraph. First up is Savini as hitman Osiris. I’m not sure how Rodriguez came up with the concept of a guy who advertises on TV with 1-800-HITMAN commercials, but I thank him for it. Savini rocks here and while the movie sort-of leaves his plot thread hanging (where exactly does he disappear to in the finale?), his Osiris seems to be a spiritual brother to a character he played about fifteen years back: “Sex Machine” in FROM DUSK TILL DAWN. Anytime I get reminded of DAWN while watching a flick is a good thing. A “contact high”, if you will.

Michelle Rodriguez is up next and what can I say? I dig her and love her work. Plain and simple. She’s hotter than hell here and when she pops up in the finale, it’s a nerdgasm moment of epic proportions. Looking like an uber-sexy version of Snake Plissken, Rodriguez manages to not only kick ass but also launch any teenagers who’ve snuck into MACHETE straight into manhood. My wish is that this flick does gangbusters and RR delivers a “She” movie ASAP.

Believe it or not, Lohan actually manages to clock in decent performance here. Oh sure, she’s basically spoofing herself in her opening scenes, but once her threesome with Trejo goes down, gal manages to do good. Granted, I might be suffering some residual high from her copious amounts of nudity, but there’s no argument that her appearance on the final battlefield is some seriously surreal stuff.

Finally, Nimrod Antal as Booth’s Bodyguard #1. You might not recognize the name, but Antal is the director of such flicks as PREDATORS, ARMORED and VACANCY and while acting might not be his main calling, he’s funny-as-hell-here. Actually, all of Booth’s bodyguards are hilarious and their round table speech about why deporting illegal immigrants is pretty fucked up (and the aftermath of that scene) is one of the funniest moments I’ve seen all year.

Sorry for the extreme length of this review, it’s early in the morn and I’ve been spending all week with AngieBee who’s been on vacation. Basically, I’m rambling, so I hope it all turned out well.

Back to the movie, MACHETE is good times. See it with a bunch of buddies, a super-cool gal you know (like my  gal AngieBee) or just somebody who digs action movies because this is one of the good ones. MACHETE doesn’t make any excuses or take any prisoners, it’s a badass homage to exploitation flicks that manages to not only thrill but deliver a little bit of social commentary. And it manages to kick THE EXPENDABLES ass and deliver some great late summer thrills. As far as I’m concerned, that’s everything I could want in an action movie and more!

Sexy violent and chock full of Trejo goodness, MACHETE gets a five out of six Adamantium Bullets.

Just in time for the release of MACHETE, AICN has premiered the HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN trailer. If you’re wondering what the connection is, both MACHETE and HOBO appeared as faux-trailers at the beginning of GRINDHOUSE three years back and both have now become feature films. Kinda cool, kinda crazy and a little bit meta, seeing these two come to life makes me wonder when Eli Roth is going to get off his ass and finally make THANKSGIVING a reality.

Oh well, here’s the HOBO trailer. Be warned that the whole thing is pretty NSFW and totally awesome. Also note that star Rutger Hauer seems to be channeling a little bit of Batty while warning a bunch of babies about the horrors they’ll face as they grow up. Gotta love that kind of pseudo-parenting.

[via CinemaBlend]

For those unaware, TANNER is a novella that takes place during and before ECLIPSE. If you caught ECLIPSE recently, you might remember that Bree Tanner was actually in the movie and was played by SILENT HILL actress Jodelle Ferland. And if that doesn’t jog your memory, Tanner was the little girl that (SPOILER ALERT!!) refuses to fight in the big werewolf VS vampire brawl and gets mind-murdered by Dakota Fanning.

And if that doesn’t help, then you probably should move along because, chances are, you’re not a TWILIGHT fan. And if that’s the case, I posted some nice FRIGHT NIGHT news earlier, not to mention a lovely Olivia Munn pictorial.

Anyways, chock this wonder under the rumor category till confirmed by Summit, but I wouldn’t doubt that this is actually in motion. TWILIGHT is big business for Summit, and with only two more movies left (that would be the BREAKING DAWN two-fer) and no sequel books in the pipeline, they’ve got to be worried.

Unfortunately, if you’ve read TANNER, you already know what the problem with turning it into a movie is: it’s just too short. 178 pages short, to be exact and some it overlaps with ECLIPSE. And while re-using footage from ECLIPSE might not be a problem, it is a problem when Summit is reportedly considering re-casting the role.

Yeah, you read that right, “re-casting”. Turns out, they want someone bigger than the little girl from SILENT HILL headlining a new TWILIGHT flick and they’ve set their sights high. The two names that are reportedly on the short-list for the lead are Elle Fanning and Chloe Moretz. Moretz is hot stuff right now, having played “Hit Girl” earlier this year in KICK-ASS and headlining LET ME IN this October. Not to mention the fact that she’s starring in THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABARET for Martin Scorsese. I doubt highly that Summit will land her, unless maybe she’s a Twi-Hard and is dying to appear in one of the flicks.

As for Fanning, that’s just creepy. The character of Tanner is killed by Jane in the books and the movie, and if Fanning is cast, that means that she’ll be murdered by her real-life sister. Adds and extra layer of “ick” to the whole scene, but who knows? Maybe that’s what Summit is aiming for.

Personally, re-casting the role seems pretty daft. TWILIGHT fans didn’t dig the last cast switch-up (that would be Rachelle Lefevre being replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard in ECLIPSE) and they’ll probably not enjoy another facelift. What’s stranger is that Ferland (pictured above) is a solid name, so why not just keep her? It certainly can’t be the age issue because that gal has looked the same for nearly a decade now.

Regardless, this one is purely a rumor for now, but don’t be shocked if it turns out to be true.

[via What’s Playing]

Definitely quells the rumors that this one was going to be PG-13, doesn’t it?

Second, we’ve got a French one-sheet for the remake. Nothing to spectacular, but it is a semi-fresh twist on the whole “floating heads” poster design. Unfortunately, the “blood dripping from the mouth” motif reminds me of the JENNIFER’S BODY teaser poster and the season one pic for TRUE BLOOD. Not exactly bad company to be in (in my book), but maybe the wrong idea for those who don’t know what LET ME IN is all about.

Thanks to Shock Till You Drop for both items and don’t forget that LET ME IN hits theaters October 1st.

[via ShockTillYouDrop]

Shock Till You Drop dropped some pics (I guessing these are set pics, but not sure) of David Tenant in the upcoming FRIGHT NIGHT remake and I think it’s pretty safe to safe that The Doctor has definitely left the building. Hell, it looks more like Lucien from the UNDERWORLD movies has entered the building and got himself a magic show (slyly titled “Fright Night”).

I’m not complaining. My biggest gripe with horror redos of horror classics is that they simply copy and paste the original barely warranting the remake in the first place. Obviously, FRIGHT NIGHT isn’t going that route. I mean, seriously, just look at that pic! Tenant is a thousand miles away from the Vincent character in the original FRIGHT NIGHT (wonderfully played by the late, great Roddy McDowell) and that’s a good thing. Little shocking to see at first, but good.

FRIGHT NIGHT is set to hit theater on October 7, 2011.

[via ShockTillYouDrop]

Okay, I probably need to say a little more, so how about I list some of the places where you can find her? Currently, she’s the co-host of ATTACK OF THE SHOW, but you already knew that. But did you know that she’s also a correspondent on THE DAILY SHOW and that she’ll be starring in a sitcom called PERFECT COUPLES on NBC this fall? Well if you didn’t, now you know and knowing is half the battle!

Anyways, enjoy the pics and don’t say I never do anything nice for you. And be sure to click over to GQ and read their interview with her, it’s pretty funny and definitely worth a look-see. Be sure to click on the pics to check out the full size versions!