A few months ago, I saw two new sci-fi movies at the San Francisco International Film Festival, and now both are in limited release: Duncan Jones's Moon (21 screens) and Aristomenis Tsirbas' Battle for Terra (2 screens). And it got me thinking. These two movies couldn't be more different, and the main distinction between them is this. Moon is sci-fi based on an actual sci-fi idea. That means that science actually figures into the fiction somewhere. And Battle for Terra is the perfect example of a war film decorated with sci-fi trimmings; its big "twist" is that the humans are the bad guys and the aliens are the good guys, but aside from that the story unfolds exactly like a regular war film. The aliens, spaceships and other gizmos don't really figure into the major themes or plot.

It got me thinking about how many science fiction movies are really just war movies in disguise. (The current Terminator Salvation is another one.) It's very easy to transform the combatants of a war to alien races and make the cause of the war something fictitious, like the "spice" in Dune (1984). It's much easier to explain why people are fighting over that powerful stuff than why they're fighting over differences in religions or beliefs. And it's much nicer to justify battling alien invaders than it is to justify humans fighting humans. Frankly, I'm all for this little bit of deception, provided the sci-fi movies have three things. Battle for Terra has none of them.

Did you watch the New Moon trailer and wonder if wolfy Jacob would've been any more scary if he could morph into a little guinea pig?

You may have noticed that little hairy beasts are fighting their way to the big screen later this month with G-Force. To help kick off the film, which opens on July 24, Electric Spoofaloo has been holding a contest. Viewers pitch ideas for spoof trailers featuring the little hairy beasts, they're voted on, and then the site makes the pitches come to life.

There's a faux Harry Potter that isn't all that funny, but Spoofaloo really hits the nail on the head with their take on the New Moon trailer (which you can see after the jump). It works so well that it seems like Stephanie Meyer's world was just destined for guineadom. There's the dramatic kiss, and then Bella's cataclysmic paper cut that sends her whole life into upheaval. (Whoever knew that paper could be so destructive? Good thing no one ever got one at school during the few years Jasper went to Forks High.)

From beginning to end, it's all there, right down to a ridiculously beefy guy filling in for Taylor Lautner and exploding into a guinea pig -- one that looks just as frightening as that big, fluffy wolf. How sad is it when your menacing animal can be easily replaced by a hand-held pet? I mean, I have a tendency to think lots of scary animals look cute, but that's the least menacing movie wolf I've ever seen!

Seems like a small war is starting to brew between Michael Bay and Megan Fox, after the latter said some unflattering things about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, telling the Early Show recently that she still doesn't understand the movie and that it's apparently made for geniuses. Bay, of course, is not one to take criticism lightly -- especially from some girl who was nobody until he dropped her into the first Transformers movie.

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal about the situation with Fox, he says, "Well, that's Megan Fox for you. She says some very ridiculous things because she's 23 years old and she still has a lot of growing to do. You roll your eyes when you see statements like that and think, "Okay Megan, you can do whatever you want. I got it." But I 100% disagree with her. Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him, nor was Ben Affleck before I put him in "Armageddon." Shia LaBeouf wasn't a big movie star before he did "Transformers"-and then he exploded. Not to mention Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, from "Bad Boys." Nobody in the world knew about Megan Fox until I found her and put her in "Transformers." I like to think that I've had some luck in building actors' careers with my films."

We shouldn't worry whether this war of words will hurt either person's involvement in a third Transformers movie because according to Bay that's not happening anytime soon. On a third Transformers film, he says, "I just want to take some time off. It's been almost three years that I've devoted myself entirely to this world of robots. At some point, enough is enough-and I literally carried this movie on my back. ... I don't know who [would] want to take on my shoes with this franchise. We might just take a year down."

Lots of movie geeks (yes, like us) have been abuzz with the vague discussions regarding the Predator remake / reboot / sequel / whatever. All we really knew was that the generally kick-ass Robert Rodriguez was on board to oversee, as the producer, but now we have confirmation have Robert's good pal that the director has been named. And that name ... is Nimrod.

Nimrod Antal, to be precise, who fest-goers will know from Kontroll and thriller fans will recall from Vacancy. Harry's got a whole bunch of cool info on the project right here, but I've chosen a small segment that makes me particularly happy: "It involves a very intense group of people stranded on a Predator planet discovering unspeakable horrors." Yes! Plus Mr. Rodriguez shares some enthusiasm from a Fox colleague: "No one is going to talk about AVP again after this movie. I stake my life on it."

Hell, just give us a knock-down, drag-out Predator fest with a few meaty characters, a whole lot of action, and maybe a few storytelling hooks. That'll make a whole lot of people happy. Speaking only for myself, heck, I thought both of Antal's films were darn good, so I've no reason to doubt RR's call on this one!

Some more concept art from Tim Burton's upcoming Alice in Wonderland film has arrived online, courtesy of the French website, The Art of Disney. Some of the art you'll remember from the recent USA Today spread, but then there's other stuff -- like Alice's trip through the giant mushroom patch -- that we haven't yet seen. I attempted to translate the French text on the site (if you speak French, feel free to correct me here), and I believe it talks about how this film will be a continuation of the classic novel, with Alice traveling back to Wonderland 10 years after her original trip.

Directed by Tim Burton, and starring folks like Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway, Matt Lucas, Christopher Lee, Crispin Glover, Alan Rickman and newcomer Mia Wasikowska as Alice, the film will be a mixture of live-action and animation, and will arrive in theaters on March 5, 2010.

We've added a few of the images to our Alice in Wonderland gallery below, and you can scope out the rest over at The Art of Disney.

[via AICN]

The numbers are in. Moviegoers worldwide voted with their hard-earned dollars (and euros and other monetary currencies) and elected to go see Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Box office receipts placed the sequel at the top of this year's heap o' blockbusters, and by the time all is said and done, the film could rank among the top box office earners of all time. But why did so many people go buy tickets? Why did you?

As pointed out by Eugene Novikov, Transformers 2 "received the most hysterically negative reviews of 2009." Only 21% of reviews by critics at Rotten Tomatoes were positive. (Surprisingly, it fared better at the pickier MetaCritic, with 36% positive.) Eugene acknowledged that it's the kind of movie that defines "critic-proof." So, obviously, critical opinion had no bearing on the box office. Why did this movie hit so big? In his analysis, industry observer David Poland felt that producer Don Murphy and director Michael Bay should be celebrated, the former "for truly believing in this concept being a big home run" and the latter "for understanding the images that will draw massive numbers of people based on 2 minutes or less of images." So was it all about the concept and the trailers?

Marketing obviously plays a huge role in determining how a movie opens, as does, to a somewhat lesser extent, the cast and director. But what was it about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that pushed your button(s), elevating it to "must see" status? Take our poll and let us know!

Now that the Academy Awards have extended the best picture category to include ten nominees instead of five, you bet your bottom half we're going to start seeing some pretty bold claims when it comes to fan favorites, like Star Trek, Watchmen and the upcoming Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. With a couple weeks still to go before Half-Blood Prince finally hits theaters, Hollywood.com's Paul Dergarabedian looks to be the first to champion the film for a possible best picture nomination.

Having watched the movie at an advanced screening, he says, "... the Potter loving beast in me has been unleashed after having witnessed a film that was not only exquisite in its production values, but was also charming, funny, scary, enchanting, moving (stop me, the adjectives could go on and on) and dare I say, sexy. Brilliantly directed by David Yates (he directed 2007's "Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix"), "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is a tour-de-force that combines style and substance, special effects and heart and most importantly great performances from all of the actors young and not-so-young. Not only that, half-way through I'm thinking the unthinkable - "ten academy awards nominations are available this year, hmm I wonder...."

Granted, the folks from Hollywood.com could be angling themselves for some Potter quotes in print and in future trailers, but seeing as Lord of the Rings had its time in the Oscar spotlight -- coupled with the fact that Potter is nearing his big-screen finale -- I wouldn't be surprised if Half-Blood Prince nabbed one of those ten spots. You?

Over on the website TNMC (via AICN), they have up a review of the Star Trek shooting script which picks out and describes the scenes that didn't make the final cut -- scenes that were probably shot and cut for a number of different reasons (pacing, running time, etc ..), but will hopefully arrive on the DVD. It's a shame, too, because some of these scenes seem to address my main problem with the movie: the boring villain, Nero (as played by Eric Bana). The scenes in question (which involve an entire Klingon subplot!) appear to give Nero more depth as a character, so hopefully we'll get to see them eventually. Here are a few descriptions from the site:

"The opening sequence, which sees the destruction of the USS Kelvin at the hands of Nero and his mining ship the Narada, has an extra bit we didn't see. While the Narada is trying to recover from being rammed by the Kelvin, bunches of Klingon warbirds decloak and surround it. This leads to a major subplot entirely removed from the final film."

"Next we go the Rura Penthe Klingon Prison Asteroid where Nero and his crew are being held. The Klingons catch someone trying to smuggle Federation maps to him. The Klingons begin to interrogate Nero, during which we learn that he has been there for ten years and hasn't said a word that whole time. The Klingons have a notebook of his that is full of drawings and calculations relating to Spock and his Jellyfish ship. They decide to use that slug thing we saw Nero using on Captain Pike in the finished film."

Read more at SciFi Squad