If you wrote a list of films from 2008 that you would expect to get a Spin-Off, Forgetting Sarah Marshall would probably not be at the top of your list. However, it was an excellent movie and the character of Aldous Snow stole practically every scene he was in, so making a movie about him seems like a smart idea.

However...

Aldous Snow was also a self-centered prick, so making a movie about nothing but him would be insufferable. This is where Jonah Hill comes in. He was also in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but here he doesn't play a waiter, but a Music Industry intern whose job it is to escort Aldous to an tenth anniversary concert. If he succeeds, he will be a hero to his boss, because the concert was his idea in the first place. If he fails... Let's just say failure isn't an option. Since Aldous is a serious manchild, there should be plenty of opportunity for humorous exploits. I doubt it will match Forgetting Sarah Marshall critically, as it is a much more one-note film, but even if it just manages mixed reviews, it should top its predecessor at the box office.

Lionsgate tends to make films that are relatively low-budget affairs, like the Saw franchise and Tyler Perry films. The entire Saw Franchise has only cost about $50 million to make, so for the studio to make a movie that costs a reported $75 million is a bit of a change, and an even larger risk. Add in advertising, and the studio will have spent more than $100 million and change on this film by the time it hits theaters. And with two stars, Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher, who have made a total of three $100 million movies in their careers, this is a bad sign. Granted, Ashton Kutcher's most recent $100 million movie was released earlier this year and Katherine Heigl's three previous films have earned an average of more than $100 million domestically and nearly $200 million worldwide, so one could argue the pair are on a hot streak.

This runs into the fact that two of those last three Katherine Heigl films were slammed by critics, while Ashton Kutcher hasn't been in a film that earned overall positive reviews since... ever. Open Season remains his best movie in that regard. So it should come as no surprise that Lionsgate is not letting critics publish reviews till the day the film is released, while the negative buzz is overwhelming the film's chances.

That said, perhaps lowered expectations will help.

On the one hand, this film could be competing with Killers as the worst movie of the month; there is more than enough bad buzz to suggest that. On the other hand, it will likely become the biggest hit of the week. If Garfield was able to make $75 million way back in 2004, then this film should at least be able to match that with today's ticket prices. On the high end, both of the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies have made more than $200 million, but they had the holidays to boost their numbers. I don't expect this movie to win over many critics, but it should keep the kids entertained for 90 minutes or so. And since it's been a couple weeks since Shrek opened and it will be a couple more weeks for Toy Story 3 to open, this film has a small window of opportunity to earn enough to be considered a midlevel hit. I see it doing as well as Beverly Hills Chihuahua, more or less, while it should sell enough DVDs to show a profit sooner rather than later.

Written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, who previously wrote and directed Nothing. No, I don't mean this is his directorial debut, I mean he previously wrote and directed a film called Nothing. He also wrote and directed Cube, which has much more in common with Splice. In fact, Splice was originally going to be a sequel to cube.

In Splice, Sarah Polley and Adrien Brody star as genetic scientists that specialize in the cloning of chimeras. That's chimeras in the scientific sense (creatures with the DNA of more than one species) and not the mythological chimeras. They decide to up the stakes by incorporating human DNA into their next experiment. Of course, their brilliantly thought out experiment goes wrong and suddenly you have a monster run amuck.

So far the film's early reviews are excellent and it does have the backing of a major studio and Guillermo Del Toro as producer. However, this time last year saw the release of Drag Me to Hell, which had even better reviews, as well as Sam Raimi behind the camera. Even that wasn't enough for it to be a hit, so what chance does this small film from Canada have? Hopefully it will earn more theatrically than it cost to make, thereby paving its way to profitability, but that is hardly a sure thing.

This is a movie I'm of two minds about. Firstly, the TV show it is based on is quite terrible. Even as a kid, I knew it was bad. It was one of those shows that tried to show violent action, but was so terribly hampered by their inability to actually show the realistic consequences of such violence that the show quickly descended into self-parody. Every week there were massive explosions, people would fly into the air, but no one would ever die because of it. In this way, it reminded me of the G.I.Joe cartoon and the amazing ejection seats all their planes had. No matter how big the explosion, the pilot would always escape via a parachute and float to safety. Then again, I think the studio is hoping for a run similar to G.I. Joe's run, so the comparisons would be welcome.

When making the movie, they would either have to make the movie a lot more gritty than the TV show was, or make it a self-aware parody. Since Joe Carnahan is directing, I think it is safe to say the film will be a lot grittier than the show was, even with the PG-13 rating. I'm happy with the cast, the trailer is effective, but I'm worried they are missing some of the humor from the show. In the end, I see the film pulling in as much as G.I. Joe did, thanks in part to a slightly better release date and ticket price inflation. As long as the movie didn't cost too much to make, this will be more than enough to ensure a profit sooner rather than later. It might even be enough to get a sequel.

On the other hand: The Losers. These two films are incredibly similar in setup and tone, and while even low end predictions have The A-Team earning more during its opening weekend than The Losers made in total, the fact that that early film bombed could be a bad omen going forward.

When I first heard they were remaking The Karate Kid my initial reaction was, "Didn't they do that already? It was called The Next Karate Kid." It was a terrible movie and it bombed at the box office. When I heard the remake would star Jackie Chan, my concerns were not alleviated. Yes, Jackie Chan has made a lot of great movies in his time, but he hasn't starred in a movie than was an unqualified success since Rush Hour 2, which opened nearly a decade ago. Additionally, the buzz surrounding Jaden Smith was almost universally negative with a lot of people saying he only got the role because he's Will Smith's son. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but if the perception of reality is strong enough, it can be just as powerful as reality itself. I'm not saying that in a metaphysical sense like, "If you imagine your future, you can change your future!" I'm saying that bad buzz can kill a movie before it has a chance to open. Also, in the original, Ralph Macchio played a high school senior while Jaden Smith is 12 years old, so clearly they are going after a much younger target demographic.

On the other hand, there is still a lot of buzz, more than I was expecting, and not all of it negative. In fact, a lot of people are predicting this film will easily become a $100 million movie topping the second installment's domestic total of $115 million. (As long as you don't take into account ticket price inflation.) Perhaps they expect people who grew up on the first films to take their young kids to see this movie.

I just don't see that happening. Like I stated, Jackie Chan hasn't had an unqualified hit in nearly a decade and his last film, The Spy Next Door, is aimed at about the same target demographic and it bombed. Newcomer Jaden Smith has never had a film rest on his shoulders before, so he is a big question mark when it comes to box office drawing power. Finally, the director is Harald Zwart, whose biggest hit so far as been Agent Cody Banks. (It's also his best-reviewed film as well.) Maybe it will be a major hit and earn $150 million, but I think earning half that is more likely.

Playing counter-programming to a kid's movie, Jonah Hex stars Josh Brolin playing a bounty hunter in the post civil war West who has supernatural powers thanks to a near death experience. It also stars Megan Fox as a prostitute, a very well-armed prostitute. John Malkovich plays a former Confederate general who was the man that helped Jonah come so close to death in the first place and now wants to destroy the United States government because his side lost the civil war.

This is reminding me a lot of Wild, Wild West, and that's not good news. Granted, this film has a decade of ticket price inflation to help it out, but it also has a near total void when it comes to bankable stars. Josh Brolin has talent, but has yet to really carry a movie on his own. I'm not sure if Megan Fox has much talent... she hasn't really picked many projects that would show off what acting talent she might possess. On the other hand, I'm a little surprised that John Malkovich hasn't earned an Oscar yet. However, he hasn't been in a $100 million movie since Con Air. Add in extensive re-shoots and this looks like a troubled production.

With a reported $80 million price tag, the studio is obviously hoping for a $100 million run. I don't think it will get there; in fact, it might not get halfway there. For Megan Fox haters, this will be more ammunition. However, for ripping Michael Bay a new one, she has my undying loyalty.

Buy at AllPosters.com

Normally I start any monthly preview of a Pixar film with, "And the Oscar goes to..." However, there are two issues at play here. Firstly, Toy Story 3 is the third film in a franchise and the first two films earned perfect reviews. This sets up such huge expectations that it would almost certainly have an effect on this film's critical reception. The film would have to be near perfection to escape unharmed. (Even if it was perfect, there are one or two critics that will give it negative reviews just to be contrarians.) Secondly, How to Train Your Dragon performed so well with critics that even if Toy Story 3 is as good as the previous two installments, How To... would be serious competition for the Oscar, so it wouldn't be a slam dunk no matter what.

So while Toy Story 3 isn't the overwhelming favorite for an Oscar win, its box office chances are decidedly more rosy. Even its Tomatometer Score is below average for the studio, and it could earn 90% positive reviews and that would still be true, there is an excellent chance it will top $300 million at the box office. Most box office analysts think it will top Finding Nemo as Pixar's biggest hit ever and given the hype, the good will earned by the first two installments, and let's not forget about the 3D ticket prices, it is hard to argue against that prediction. As for high-end expectations, those reach $400 million, or more. I would love for this film to become the first Pixar movie to reach that milestone, while it would be incredible to have two movies earn more than $1 billion worldwide in a single year. (We might have three, if the latest Harry Potter film outperforms expectations.)

While I hope to be pleasantly surprised, I'm keeping expectations just slightly less bullish at $350 million domestically and $900 million worldwide. Both of which would be records for Pixar, while stretching its winning streak to eleven.

The film stars Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade, and Rob Schneider as five friends who were part of a championship basketball team when they were young kids and who reunite when their former coach dies. They decide to get together at the lake and try and recapture their youth. It's a good setup and if done well could please critics and moviegoers alike.

However, this doesn't seem particularly likely, as the film was co-written by Adam Sandler and Fred Wolf and directed by Dennis Dugan. Looking at their combined output and you find films like Problem Child, Joe Dirt, Benchwarmers, Beverly Hills Ninja, Strange Wilderness, which I still consider one of the worst movies I've ever reviewed. On the other hand, Dennis Dugan and Adam Sandler have teamed up in the past to make Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, and You Don't Mess With the Zohan, and while none of them earned overall positive reviews, all four were hits. The last three earned more than $100 million each.

Given this, I feel confident in predicting this is a movie that will please the target audience, but likely won't impress too many critics. I think you will hear it described as a movie for people who are getting old but refuse to grow up. It should be a solid performer at the box office eventually reaching the century mark. Hopefully it wasn't too expensive to make, because it is unlikely to do as well internationally.

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz star as two people who meet at the airport while traveling and there's an instant connection. Any potential romance complicated because he's a secret agent. Not only is he a secret agent, he might have gone rogue. Or maybe he's uncovered a government conspiracy and they are trying to silence him. Either way, he is in a lot of trouble and he's accidentally dragged Cameron Diaz along for the ride. This could be a great movie, after all, it's been a long time since Tom Cruise starred in a comedy, but his performance in Tropic Thunder showed he still had what it takes, while Cameron Diaz has starred in a number of films like this.

On the other hand, Tom Cruise hasn't had an unqualified hit since War of the Worlds. Tropic Thunder was a hit, but he was in a supporting role. Mission: Impossible: 3 made more than $100 million, but it was expected to be a bigger hit than that. Cameron Diaz does have a lot of recent hits as well, but the Shrek films don't really count because they are voice work. The Charlie's Angels films match this genre almost perfectly, but they came out so long ago that they are hardly that useful in gauging this film's chances. Even worse, this film has had about a half-a-dozen writers attached to it, which is never a good sign, and it had re-shoots in May. Yes. They were still filming the movie less than a month ago. Obviously there were some issues here.

The two stars and the studio support should help it reach $100 million, but it could be close and it will take strong international numbers and home market sales to recover its reported production budget.