Blog

Went to BarCamp Philly last weekend and had a great time. Gave a talk on my failed attempt to revolutionize the online interview. Attended some cool sessions on social networking for offline communities and career transitions between independent and corporate environments.

Also met some folks from Wharton and the rather sizable Comcast contingent that participated and reconnected with standards guru Kim Blessing, whom I hadn’t seen since SXSW 2003.

My favorite part was the fact that, at the beginning of the day, everyone wrote down the sessions they wanted to give on index cards and posted them to an actual physical bulletin board (see above). Only then did a guy post them online. I dont know if this was the most efficient way to do it, but there was something refreshingly low tech about the method.

Russel Mulcahy defined the modern music video as a cinematic experience. At least, he did for me. I grew up on his videos without even knowing it. At the time, MTV didn’t advertise the name of the director in the little lower left blurb, so I had no idea the same man directed The Wild Boys and Pressure (although the preponderance of people being bound to things while forced to watch a large screen television might have tipped me off). Mulcahy’s grand yet surreal imagery (excessive, cheesy, but somehow kind of brilliant) informs my own warped filmmaking aesthetic. Most videos these days seem lazy by comparison.

“Video Killed the Radio Star” - The Buggles

That’s right. He directed the first video to air on MTV.

“Hungry Like the Wolf” - Duran Duran

The best Mulcahy videos look like they belong to a larger feature. Hollywood should stop making movies out of old movies, and start making them out of old music videos.

“The Wild Boys” - Duran Duran

Here Mulcahy came up with the idea for the song itself, which was to be part of a soundtrack to an adaptation of William S. Burroughs’ The Wild Boys: A Book of the Dead. All I know is they spent a million dollars to strap Simon Le Bon to a windmill and it. is. awesome.

“I’m Still Standing” - Elton John

You get the feeling Elton told Russell, “I really like what you did with the ‘Rio’ video.”

“Bette Davis Eyes” - Kim Carnes

Even with a minimal set, Mulcahy can still bring the WTF: “Okay. The choreography for this scene is just slap the shit out of each other.”

“Total Eclipse of the Heart” - Bonnie Tyler

It only makes sense. Mulcahy really is the Jim Steinman of music video directors. And, no, I don’t know what part of this song screams, “Fucked Up Boarding School!” but Mulcahy sure does. He also finds the absolute creepiest way to visually represent the line, “Turn around bright eyes.”

“Vienna” - Ultravox

See, this is why Mulcahy is awesome. “Okay, in this scene we’re at a classy dinner party. Oh, and you over there, put this spider on your face.”

“Pressure” - Billy Joel

Mulcahy’s surrealism really gets to come out and play here. Probably my favorite.

Now, Mulcahy did (and still does) get into the movie game, directing the highly celebrated (except by me) Highlander, among other things, but my fondness for his work will always rest with his incredible run of early 80’s music videos.

Nailed Madagascar. Overestimated Soul Men. Underestimated Role Models, which I could tell waiting in line for Zack and Miri this weekend (not Smith’s best, but still very, very good). Half the crowd was there for Paul and Sean.

Another little detail about that Zack outing. The Un-fortunate back-to-back juxtaposition of the trailers for two January titles.

Trailer the first.

Trailer the second.

See if you can tell any difference between the two.

11/14

Wide

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
James Bond vs. raised expectations.

WILL IT SUCK?
Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) is a good director, but is he a good action director? The trailers seem to indicate yes, but there’s a big difference between a great shot and a great sequence. I have no doubt he can handle the dramatic elements. The same writing team from Royale returns. And Mathieu Amalric as the villain may be what I’m looking forward to the most.

Early buzz isn’t as impressed with it as with Royale, but it is impressed.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
With the departure of Harry Potter, this is the premiere action event of the fall. Of course, with the $160 million it’s already made overseas, does it really matter? $168mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
If any action film gets Academy love this year, it’ll be The Dark Knight.

Limited

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Kid from the streets of Mumbai tries to make it big on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is fawning. Won the People’s Choice Award at Toronto. And this is Danny Boyle directing, son. One of the most underrated directors of our time.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This is one of the most anticipated indies of the season, and it’s got a strong rep as a crowd pleaser. And Fox Searchlight knows how to market crowd pleasers, which is probably why they snatched it from the jaws of Warner Independent’s demise. $15mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
The Academy buzz for this is only growing, and the variety of films jumping ship (The Soloist, The Road) means slots are opening up. Where I might have only pegged this for Screenplay before, I now think Director and maybe even Actor or Picture is a realistic possibility, too.

A CHRISTMAS TALE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
One of them there family reunion Christmas flicks, but, you know, in French.

WILL IT SUCK?
Reunites Matheiu Amalric and Anne Consigny from Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Catherine Deneuve and Jean-Paul Roussilson from Kings and Queen, one of writer/director Arnaud Desplechin’s previous efforts. This is, in fact, his highest rated film on IMDB. Early buzz elsewhere is equally enthusiastic. And, personally, I can’t wait to see Amalric play the drunk sheep of the family.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Kind of a crowded time for something like this to get noticed. $500,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
With the French submission for Best Foreign going to The Class, it’s unlikely.

Next Week: Seriously, have you ever seen a vampire with better hair?

Michael Crichton has passed. I didn’t even know he was sick.

I hadn’t followed him as closely as I used to. I’d heard bad things about Next and didn’t even read it. I read State of Fear and liked it, even though I ultimately disagreed with it.

And that was one of the things I respected about the man. He always showed his work. Even though I don’t come to the same conclusions about global warming as he does in that book, in that book I can see every single reference, every single study, every single article he cites in coming to his conclusions. That kind of discipline and honesty in argument is rare these days.

I’ve read almost all of his books. He’s one of the few authors where I actually looked forward to his next book coming out. He’s one of the few authors whose books I’ve read more than once.

I think two things kept me coming back to his work. I always felt like I was learning something when I read a Crichton book. He’s one of the few fiction writers that gave me the same thrill as a non-fiction writer like Malcolm Gladwell.

And then there’s his sense of narrative. At his best, he kept to a very simple but effective puzzle structure, laying out all the clues you’d need in a pattern that you could not recognize until the most powerful moment.

The best example of this can be found in my favorite Crichton novel, Sphere. I still remember the sensation of reading the plot point that occurs about 3/4 of the way through. My jaw literally dropped. And it was a plot point that answered the unanswerable questions that came before it with elegance and teeth.

That skill - to set up the seemingly inexplicable and get your audience to ponder that and engage with it until you finally pull the rug out from under them with the hidden reality of the world or situation you’ve created - is something that sets a bar for me as a storyteller.

Film adaptations of his work were inconsistent at best, although if you look at the early ones (The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man) you’ll be more impressed than you will with the second wave that came after the success of Jurassic Park.

And then there’s his own film work (Looker, Runaway, Westworld) which I always enjoyed with a bit of camp flavor in retrospect, but still engaged me with interesting concepts (I mean how cool were the heat-signature-seeking bullets in Runaway, seriously?)

But ultimately it’s Crichton the novelist that I celebrate. He helped me fall in love with writing and with books, and you can’t ask for much more than that from an author.

The only thing remarkable about this weekend’s box office is that it’s November and Eagle Eye is still in the top ten.

11/7

Wide

MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
The Madagascar animals go to the plain-y part of Africa instead of the jungle-y part.

WILL IT SUCK?
Same director. Same cast with additions like Sacha Baron Cohen and the late, great Bernie Mac. Looks like they’ve got new writers this time, including a guy who worked on Tropic Thunder and Idiocracy..

Early buzz is mixed.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
It’s not that Quantum of Solace is going after the same audience, but it will be a drag on the second frame. $194mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
They didn’t remember the first one.

ROLE MODELS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott do the whole man-child learns values by mentoring actual children thing.

WILL IT SUCK?
David Wain directs and co-writes with some of his State cohorts. Love The State. Haven’t been as impressed with State alums’ film work since (though I have yet to see Wet Hot American Summer…I know, I know). I will say this, however, the red band trailer is much funnier than the, um, green band trailer.

Oh, and Elizabeth Banks is officially in every movie coming out this year.

Early buzz is good.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
2nd frame of the much-higher profile Zack and Miri’s gonna hurt and this week you’ve got Bernie Mac and Samuel L. Jackson in Soul Men. $18mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No.

SOUL MEN

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Sam Jackson and Bernie Mac try to put their 70’s soul act back together.

WILL IT SUCK?
Director Malcom D. Lee (The Best Man, Undercover Brother) more often than not brings it (Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins notwithstanding) but a bigger concern is the writing team behind Life penning the screenplay. Seeing Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes in the same film (both passed on the same weekend) is sure to make one misty, but the chemistry between Mac and Jackson could be interesting.

Early buzz is mixed.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Bernie Mac has to fight himself in Madagascar this week before Quantom of Solace knocks everything out of play the following week. $38mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No, but it will be sad to see Mac and Hayes in the dear departed montage.

Limited

THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Boy becomes friends with a prisoner in his dad’s Nazi concentration camp. This can’t end well.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is strong. From writer/director Mark Herman, he of the excellent Brassed Off and Little Voice. David Thewlis plays the dad in what looks to be some real tour de force shit.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Two major indie releases next week could obscure this in the long run. $1mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Depending upon the push from Miramax, who has this film’s opposite number to promote in Happy-Go-Lucky, you could see Thewlis up for something, with a longer shot for screenplay or one of the boys.

REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Musical taking place in a dystopian future where replacement organs are sold and, if you miss a payment, get repossessed.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good in a very cult classic sort of way. Interesting to see this as Saw II, III and IV director Darren Lynn Bousman’s first step out of that wheelhouse (check out this episode of “The Business” for the fascinating story). From the writers of the original cult musical. Interesting casting as well. Anthony Head plays the repo man in question, and I can’t think of a better first lead for him. Andrew Lloyd Webber vet Sarah Brightman is up in here, too, along with an all-growns-up former Spy Kid Alexa Vega. Oh, and Paris Hilton.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Being a cult classic almost precludes you from making a lot of money until you come out on DVD. $6mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Might even be too out there for the Indie Spirit Awards.

HOUSE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Kind of like a Christian Saw.

WILL IT SUCK?
As you may or may not know there is a Christian horror novel genre of which Frank Peretti is the Stephen King. This movie is based on a novel he co-wrote with Ted Dekker (the Dean Koontz?) in 2006. Peretti also co-wrote the screenplay. Robby Henson, who helmed a film version of Dekker’s Thr3e, directs. Buzz has it that Thr3e (the movie) pretty much sucked so I’m not breaking out the champaign for this one just yet.

Early buzz is not so hot.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Will build on the modest b.o. of Thr3e. $2mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Not so much.

JCVD

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays himself in this satirical version of his life in which he, down on his luck and out of money, gets caught up in a real-life bank robbery.

WILL IT SUCK?
This one has my vote on concept alone. Fortunately it has the good early buzz to back it up.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Travolta set the standard. If you want to revive your career, go indie. Unfortunately, this isn’t Tarantino’s follow-up to Reservoir Dogs so it’s not going to have quite the same effect. $2mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
That would be awesome. Jean-Claude Van Damme gets a nod for taking the piss out of himself. But no.

Next Week: That buff guy from Munich takes on that French guy from Munich.

After the success of Understanding Military Rank Through Film (Parts One and Two), I thought it might be a good idea to try to figure out how police ranks work. Granted, a lot of this shifts between precincts, but this will give you a good overview. We begin, as always, at the bottom.

Officer

Where it all begins.

Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) in Die Hard.

Detective

Now you get to wear normal clothes.

Detective Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) in Beverly Hills Cop.

Sergeant

Now you’re in charge of people.

Sgts. Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh (Mel Gibson and Danny Glover) in Lethal Weapon. They both got promoted to Captain in part four.

Lieutenant

Welcome to middle management.

Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) in The Naked Gun.

Captain

In charge of a whole precinct, which may or may not be assaulted.

Capt. Dudley Smith (James Cromwell) in L.A. Confidential. Real nice guy.

Major

Haven’t actually found any of these, but in some departments it’s the same as Commander, so let’s skip there.

Commander

AKA “inspector,” but in San Francisco an inspector is the same as a detective, which is how Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan can be outranked Lt. Al Bressler.

Commander Adam Beck (David Morse) in The Negotiator.

Commissioner

AKA Chief of Police. There are several ranks of commissioner, but this is the only one that ever gets a speaking role.

Commissioner James Gordon (Gary Oldman) in The Dark Knight.

You may be wondering about the sheriff and the deputy (and if they were shot by one person or two). In some counties, you can have an elected position called sheriff, with deputies working under him or her. You can also have a second-in-command called an undersheriff. Here’s how it all breaks down.

Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy) in First Blood.

Saw may have lost the battle with High School Musical 3, but it won the war with Jason, Freddy and Michael to become the highest-grossing horror franchise of all time.

10/31

Wide

THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Kind of like Reaper with a chick.

WILL IT SUCK?
Looks like it. Seriously, were it not for Gossip Girls‘ Chace Crawford having a supporting role, I’m thinking straight-to-DVD.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Even Chace can’t save this one. $10mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Not so much.

ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Title leaves little to the imagination.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz has this as pretty much the best little Kevin Smith film ever. Looks like the perfect storm of Smith dialogue and Apatow players (though Apatow has no involvement). Check out the hilarious red band trailer.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I think audiences are ready to love Smith again. $58mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Just once I’d like to see my homeboy get a screenplay nod. Just once.

Limited

SPLINTER

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Carjackers and kidnapees vs. deadly parasite.

WILL IT SUCK?
Been getting raves on the horror fest circuit.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The much higher profile Repo! The Genetic Opera opens the following week, and even that ain’t gonna do well. $500,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
It would be nice someday to see one of these claustrophobic horror flicks make a dent.

THE OTHER END OF THE LINE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Sleepless in Mumbai

WILL IT SUCK?
You don’t expect the director of Behind Enemy Lines 2 to helm a romcom, yet here we are.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
It’s not so much that there’s a lot of genre competition as I don’t think anyone is going to hear about this. $750,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Again with the no one will ever know.

Next Week: The late, great Bernie Mac shows up in two wide releases.

Just finished watching Bigger, Stronger, Faster*. Wow. Changed my worldview about steriods. Confirmed a lot of what I suspected after reading Gladwell on the topic. Namely that we, as a country, need to have a much more intelligent discussion about steroids than we’re probably having.

First off, the idea that steroids are somehow a “shortcut,” as Bush labeled them in his 2004 State of the Union, is kind of a misnomer. A shortcut suggests what I’ll call The Popeye Theory of Steroids, which is that all you have to do is take them like Popeye’s spinach and all of a sudden you’re a superhulk.

Not so much.

It’s more like this. Without steroids, if you work your ass off, eventually you could lift, say 400lbs. On steroids, you could work your ass off much, much more and lift 700lbs. You’re not reducing the amount of work necessary, you’re increasing the amount of work possible. Like one guy says in the movie, guys on steroids train harder than guys who are not. This is not because they have a better work ethic. It’s simply because they can.

This is part of a very old paradigm. The notion that technology (and drugs are a technology) somehow makes our lives better by decreasing the amount of time it takes to accomplish a given task, thus giving us more free time to do whatever we want. Put simply, technology makes us lazy.

This almost never happens.

What actually happens is that we end up doing more of whatever that task is that just got easier. The washing machine suddenly makes it take less time to do a load of laundry? Guess what? You’re doing more loads of laundry than ever before. Steroids suddenly make you capable of growing more muscle? Guess what? You’re working out that muscle to its fullest potential.

So steroids are actually the opposite of a shortcut. They’re a completely different, and longer, route to a different destination.

Another misconception is that we know how unsafe steroids are. Actually, we only really know how unsafe they aren’t. The film asserts that, for example, only three deaths a year are attributed to steroids (I believe they cite the CDC here, but I’m still looking for confirmation). No long term studies have been done to give us the kind of data that we have on, say, cocaine. What studies have been done suggest that steroids are pretty much like any other prescription drug. You do too much, you’re fucked. You use it in moderation, it’ll do what you want it to. This is unlike, say, heroin, where there really is no moderate way to use it.

So if we can agree that steroids don’t belong in a category with crystal meth (which is how the DEA, AMA and FDA felt when Congress first asked them for recommendations on how to classify them), we can discuss other reasons to demonize them. Namely, fairness. It is cheating to use steroids. Why? Because the rules of the game say so. Just like they say it’s cheating to use sandpaper on the ball. Easy.

But let’s back up a little bit more. Why do the rules of the game say it’s cheating? Well, it can’t be because of the Popeye Theory. Athletes who use them are actually working harder than those who do not. Are we penalizing them for that? Well, they get an unfair advantage over players who don’t use. Except, if they’re working harder for that advantage, is it really unfair? Well, steroids cost money, so the athlete or team with more money gets an unfair advantage. I’m not even going to dignify that one with a rebuttal, except to say that if you can afford eye surgery (I’m lookin’ at you, Tiger) is that an unfair advantage? If so, I recommend that you give every team the same amount of money to spend on everything (and not just a salary cap).

Perhaps the best compromise is to simply have a Steroid League. Do all the drugs you want. Those who want to play with their “natural ability” (that means no surgery, not even contact lenses, and if you want to be really anal you could argue means no exercise that uses technology - even then would training at a high altitude to promote red blood cell generation count?) can play in the Normie League.

Guess which Barry Bonds would play in the Normie League?

The best part of all of this would be the kick-ass names the druggie leagues came up with:

The Cincinnati Juicers

The Kansas City Speedballs

The New England Crackheads
(actually the name of a Fantasy Football Team I had once)

The Seattle Black Tar Heroin Scrotum Injectors

And so on…

On the other hand, if you want to say that using drugs, even if they aren’t as bad as PCP, sends the wrong message to kids, then the powers that be have to stop profiting off of them. Steroids saved the MLB’s no-ratings-gettin’ ass in the same way that day laborers make business possible for many of the people demonizing illegal immigration. If you’re going to be black and white about things, pick a side.

Oh, and this will all get ten times more complicated when genetic doping, which doesn’t use any drugs, becomes the norm.

Anyway, the film’s director, Chris Bell, makes a lot of these points more elegantly than I, interweaving a compelling personal narrative to boot, so check it out.

Called the B.O. for just about every wide release this past weekend (multiply their take by three to get a rough estimate of their final take, which is what I predicted). Overshot W. by a bit, but that’s about all. Hopefully this makes up for my terrible, terrible Chihuahua misstep.

10/23

Wide

HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3: SENIOR YEAR

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Prequel to Community College Musical.

WILL IT SUCK?
Director Kenny Ortega helmed Newsies back in ‘92 which, in my mind, makes him the perfect choice to have directed the first two High School Musicals. He directed this one, too, with the same writer so expect more of the same. That having been said, the trailer actually looks pretty good.

And yes, a High School Musical 4 has been announced.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This is the first time a TV movie title has had a big screen sequel so, by definition, the audience is built-in (and large, or why make the leap). Let’s say only the people who watched the premiere of HSM 2 buy tix. That’s $172mil (assuming an average ticket price of $10).

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
The Academy, of late, likes their musicals dark.

SAW V

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
The Jigsaw mantle gets passed on.

WILL IT SUCK?
This series has been around so long that people are being promoted from production designer to director. Written by the guys who wrote the last Saw movie and, if you haven’t noticed, those things have been getting diminishing critical returns, even from fans.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Why is this not being released on Halloween which is, you know, on a Friday? Do they think the demo will be trick-or-treating? No, instead let’s open against one of the few surefire blockbusters of the fall. Especially since profits have been falling steadily since Saw II. $48mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Punctuality? These things really do come out every October like clockwork.

PRIDE AND GLORY

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Ed Norton ends up investigating his brother Colin Farrell’s precinct as part of a murder investigation.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is kind of confirming what I suspected, that this is a by-the-numbers police corruption flick. Doesn’t seem like co-screenwriter Joe Carnahan’s contribution has added anything juicier or Miracle director Gavin O’Connor (who also co-wrote the screenplay) has added anything more original.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Given the lackluster performance of Righteous Kill, which had much bigger stars, I’m not optimistic. $17mil. (By the way, exactly how many trailers can you have where titles appear above an extreme close-up of a badge?)
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
I look forward to the day when Norton does something Oscar-worthy again, but this probably ain’t it.

Limited

CHANGELING

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Angelina Jolie gets locked up in a mental institution for claiming that the boy the police brought to her in a missing persons case was not actually her son.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is mixed. You’d expect more since not only have you got Clint (Eastwood, not Howard, though that would be cool, too) at the helm, but you’ve got John Malkovich in a leading role, with support from Colm Feore, Amy Ryan and that dude from Burn Notice (Jeffrey Donovan, not Bruce Campbell, though that would be hellacool). Strangely enough, the screenplay comes from Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Clint plus stars equals indie gold. Hell, they could have probably released this shit wide. $30mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
While critical response has been more lukewarm than you usually get for Oscar fare, I can see the Academy’s love for Eastwood (depending upon the strength of field) turning into multiple nods.

PASSENGERS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
U2 records a really weird album with Brian Eno. Oh, you mean the movie. Patrick Wilson starts getting all these creepy abilities after surviving a plane crash.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the guy who wrote that 10.5 earthquake TV movie…you know what? I’m just going to stop right there.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
You’ve got a paranormal thriller with Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, Andre Brauer and David Morse and you’re going to release it limited near the end of October? Yeah, that’s a body dump. $4mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Nope.

SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Charlie Kaufman writes and, for the first time, directs this straightforward story in which nothing unusual happens. Nah, just kidding. It’s pretty fucked up.

WILL IT SUCK?
If you “get” the title, this movie is probably for you. Early buzz is good, but terms like “surreal post-modern metanarrative” are thrown around freely in reviews, so consider yourself warned. If you need more reason to get psyched, look at this cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Emily Watson, Dianne Wiest, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Hope Davis and that dude who played the bad guy in Manhunter.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Unless Kaufman has a Jim Carrey or a Nic Cage in the lead, it’s hard for his scripts to make bank. $17mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
A screenplay (or maybe even directing) nod isn’t out of the question, and with all the makeup changes maybe Hoffman could get a nod, and there’s no lack of Supporting Actress roles, but overall the reception hasn’t been on the level of say, the love for Eternal Sunshine, so I wouldn’t put any money down.

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Vampire flick for those who think the bloodsuckers in Twilight are too old.

WILL IT SUCK?
Ha ha! That never gets old! Been leaving an army of devoted fans in its film festival wake, racking up awards including a big win at Tribeca. In reviews, the term “classic” comes up a lot. It’s a Swedish import so, of course, there’s going to be an American remake (by Cloverfield helmer Matt Reeves) so probably best to check this one out first.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
These festival horror darlings almost never do well theatrically. $1mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Ditto, minus the “almost.”

FEAR(S) OF THE DARK

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
A collection of animated horror shorts by leading graphic artists (none of whom I’ve ever heard of, but that’s not saying much).

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good. Cool concept. Even the less scary parts are supposed to have amazing animation.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the mainstream audience (or even a lot of the indie audience) hasn’t heard of Blutch, Charles Burns, Marie Caillou, Lorenzo Mattoti, Pierre Di Sciullo or Richard McGuire, either. $500,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
It would be pretty cool to see a horror film sneak in by getting an animated nod. I think it’s unlikely, though.

I’VE LOVED YOU SO LONG

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
French film in which two sisters are reunited after 15 years.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is great. Kristin Scott Thomas is supposed to be awesome. I didn’t even know she spoke French.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
There are some high profile indies this week, but this is not one of them. $1mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
The way they’re talking about Thomas, you’d think so, but the language thing is going to be a dealbreaker.

Next Week: Zack and Miri make Kevin Smith’s best-received film in years.

Anyone who saw Nixon knows that Oliver Stone probably wasn’t planning on doing a hatchet job on George W. Bush in his latest film. Stone seeks to understand his subjects, not forgive or excoriate them. However, anyone who saw Nixon may find that W., while a solid film, suffers by comparison.

The film cuts between Bush’s first term and the road that led him there. It’s a fascinating story. The family fuck-up becomes the 43rd President of the United States. If you were to sell it as fiction it would be a comedy (and the film is very, very funny at times). It’s also an archetype, in Stone’s interpretation. The black sheep, trapped beneath his father’s shadow, seeks to win his approval by besting him.

This paradigm produces the film’s weakest moments. The screenplay, by Wall Street scribe Stanley Weiser, relies on routine father/son conflict patter that wouldn’t be interesting except for the fact that it’s being spoken by Presidents. Not helping matters any is a sentimental score which, even if it’s being ironically saccharine, is too much.

When it comes to politics, however, the screenplay crackles, with back room debates over everything from the Iraq War to the invention of the term “Axis of Evil.” Rich monologues remind you of what made Wall Street so compelling.

The performances are top notch, though at first there’s an almost inevitable SNL effect of perceiving impersonation instead of performance. Richard Dreyfuss however, leaves this perception in the dust more than most, fully embodying Dick Cheney. James Cromwell, on the other hand, takes a completely different tack, making no effort whatsoever to impersonate Bush Senior. He doesn’t need to do Bush because in Stone’s depiction, Bush is the archetypal patriarch-that-cannot-be-pleased so Cromwell just does that. Ironically, this approach makes for one of the strongest performances in the film.

Josh Brolin is a revelation as W., or at least he would be if he hadn’t already proven himself just last year with stellar turns in American Gangster and No Country for Old Men. But here he gets to play sensitive. Brolin portrays the hurt Bush experiences early on that spawns a lot of what will make him so controversial later. A very telling moment comes at the end of a failed congressional campaign where his opponent defeats him by painting him as an elitist who isn’t a good Christian. Bush vows never to lose on those grounds again, and Brolin sells that pain.

Though Stone’s work here is strong, he just seemed to go crazier with Nixon. Visually he was much more free and thematically he reached into much darker places. You got a real sense of dread from the forces that Nixon was playing with and, more unnervingly, were playing him. Here there’s just as much reason to dread, but the film feels aesthetically and thematically lighter, as if there’s just less to say.

And that, fundamentally, may be the problem. Nixon, the film, is more interesting than W., the film, because Nixon, the man, is more interesting than W., the man. That’s more a comment on Nixon’s complexity than Bush’s simplicity because Bush isn’t dull, he’s just not nearly as twisted. At least, Stone’s take on him isn’t.