It seems fairly certain that Hancock will do decent business when it hits theaters this week, if only because Will Smith rarely stars in a dud these days -- especially when it's his face selling the movie before all else. Whether or not the film has staying power after opening weekend, however, remains to be seen, but Sony Pictures clearly has a lot of faith in its potential: Last week, the studio revealed its intentions of releasing the film online sometime after its theatrical run and before its DVD release, but only to users with Sony Bravia TV sets. It's a bold maneuver, one that assumes its core base of consumers actually have an interest in Hancock -- but the movie will make a profit either way, so it's a reasonable choice for this intriguing experiment.

Left in the dust by Apple's iPod, Sony continues to struggle in its search for a piece of the digital revolution. Company head Howard Stringer recently told the New York Times that the strategy for releasing Hancock "vanishes the memory of the failures of the Sony Walkman." Well, maybe. While on-demand technology has changed the way audiences consume their media, they don't like paying more money than necessary. Asking your audiences to buy a special device in order to access what, at this point, amounts to one movie -- well, that's asking a lot. But it's still a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

This past Sunday, The New York Times featured a popular City-section story about the first-ever prom held for students of Brooklyn's International High School. In case you don't like to read, you can simply watch the video accompaniment here. And if you don't like to read and you don't like documentary-style videos, and have a lot of patience, you can wait for the feature film, which will apparently be hitting theaters some time in the future. According to New York magazine's Vulture blog, a number of producers are interested in optioning the article, while Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have personally brought it to the attention of Paramount Pictures, where Pitt's Plan B Entertainment has a first-look deal. Supposedly an unnamed non-Paramount studio exec beat us all to the punch by joking that "maybe Maddox and the twins can star in it." Of course, he forgot about Pax and Zahara (and the twins aren't really international).

Actually, the first joke I thought about was the running gag on TV's The Critic about the kid from Easter Island who attends the United Nations School. Then, the second joke I thought of was about Brangelina's adopted children. Then I kept thinking of other things, such as how thanks to Prom Night people might assume this other prom-themed movie is also a horror flick. But that's not so much a joke as it is me trying to think on a studio exec's level (hey, we were synchronous with the Maddox bit) in order to contemplate what they'd call the thing. International Prom? A Prom for All Nations (ala the video's title)? Or will Hollywood appropriately go for one of those song-based titles? Been around the World, perhaps?

Adam Sandler's movies haver never represented the apex of cultural awareness, but they do tend to grapple, if somewhat brashly, with the finer points of human relations. In his latest raunchfest, You Don't Mess with the Zohan, the insolent comic creates "his stupidest character ever" (as an audience member muttered five minutes into last night's New York preview screening), but it's also his most symbolic one: Sporting a hyperbolic flair for disco music and using hummus as toothpaste, hardened Israeli soldier Zohan is a bloated creature of Semitic extremes.

Overall, however, the movie uses metaphors more than stereotypes. When Zohan and a furious Palestinian terrorist (John Turturro) use paddles to bat a live grenade back and forth, the result is a lowbrow editorial cartoon.

Just when it was looking like No Country for Old Men had a monopoly on successful interpretations of Cormac McCarthy's drearily minimalistic prose, production on an adaptation of The Road suggests the possibility of healthy competition. The movie, which recently finished shooting in Pennsylvania and hits theaters in November, remains a wild card until post-production wraps. Nevertheless, if this colorful report from the set in The New York Times offers any indication, The Road appears poised to capture McCarthy's original gloomy lyricism. Reporter Charles McGrath points out the difficulties the filmmakers endured when the weather got too nice and the grass looked too green. In other words, they're working really hard to keep things bleak. The story, about a father and son wandering through desolate landscapes after a cataclysmic event destroys civilization, demands that the dark aura remain intact. However, it wouldn't work without two strong leads, and McGrath implies that with Viggo Mortensen and eleven-year-old Kodi Smit-Mcphee (the next Haley Joel Osment?), that need has been fulfilled.

The best match for The Road, however, is its director, John Hillcoat, whose work on The Proposition proves he's the man for the job. That woefully undervalued western had the intensity of a Sam Peckinpah movie in overdrive, and The Road screams for the same raw, stripped-down approach. It's nice to hear that Hillcoat sees the movie as an antithesis to Mad Max, meaning he wants to eschew cartoony violence in order to create a scarily realistic depiction of post-apocalyptic duress. Bring it on.

[Photo above: Kodi Smit-Mcphee on the set of The Road, courtesy of the New York Times]

Considering how much puffing is usually done to launch those "little movies that could," it's ironic that a documentary about blowing up balloons has made its way into the spotlight without an inflated media campaign. Sounds like the New York Times's Douglas Quenqua has noticed Sara Taksler and Naomi Greenfield's documentary about balloon twisting during its nationwide tour. After debuting at 2007's SXSW (Cinematical's Scott Weinberg notes the opening of Twisted: A Balloonamentary here), the film now has a solid run going at St. Louis's Landmark Tivoli theater.

Deer Park, Texas' Ralph Dewey, who uses balloon twisting as part of his gospel ministry, told the Times he isn't going to see the documentary on the grounds that there's too much uncleanliness in it. Unfortunately, some artistes twist the poor innocent balloon into hard-R and even unrated shapes, as you've probably seen at bachelorette parties and on cruise ships. The conflict between "gospel twisters" and "adult twisters" is unflinchingly depicted here, in accordance with the rule that every successful doc needs heroes, villains and conflicts. ("Michelle" seen above, supposedly paid for her house with the unholy art of adult balloon twisting.) Taksler, now a producer for The Daily Show, raised the money for the film by auctioning off the executive producer credit on eBay. And Jon Stewart himself hosts an animated sequence of the film. Twisted: A Balloonamentary opens in June in NYC.

In these supposedly progressive times, gender equality is one of those touchy issues relegated to the last paragraph of a trend piece nobody reads. When Katherine Heigl suggested to Vanity Fair that Judd Apatow's movies were sexist, the assertion came across like an after-the-fact shrug of acceptance. Ever the galvanizing provocateur, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis confronts the issue head-on with a thorough analysis of the gender bias in this year's summer blockbusters.

With "Iron Man, Batman, Big Angry Green Man" and other massive expressions of virility invading the box office, female roles appear to be relegated to the back of the multiplex. Dargis touches on the rumors that Warner Bros head Jeff Robinov believes no woman has been able to sell a movie since Julia Roberts (a point that Natalie Portman might contest, but not Paris Hilton) before sizing up numerous upcoming studio releases, with particular attention paid to Anna Faris, "who could be the next Judy Holliday but without the right material will, alas, probably end up the next Brittany Murphy." It's the kind of pronouncement that hits you in gut.

The Hollywood Reporter has an interesting piece up on the disappearing space in print publications for reviews of independent films. The loss of print film critics in numerous outlets, coupled with the increasing number of independent films being released each year, is making it more of a challenge for indie films to get reviews of their films in print pubs. Online critics have taken up some of the slack -- we here at Cinematical still review as many indies as we can, in addition to the more mainstream fare, but there's still a perception out there among some that an online review carries less weight than a review printed on paper.

The article has some interesting dueling quotes; THINKfilm's Mark Urman notes, "We're not at a point where Internet writers have the credibility of established media with proven records and editors." Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeff Wells begs to differ, saying in part, "... there are maybe eight or 10 online critics who genuinely matter and are, in the parlance of the trade, 'conversation starters.' Due respect, but insisting that review quotes are still about print critics is generational hubris."

It's articles like this in The New York Times that give me a little hope for Hollywood because at least the studios are finally taking a hard look at their relationships and deals with so-called "top" talent. But first, a story: On a recent trip to New York, actor Russell Crowe, of Gladiator and the upcoming 3:10 to Yuma, was asked by a group of reporters why he had dropped out of a movie he was going to do with director Baz Luhrman for Fox. His answer? Well, let's just say it very succinctly crystallizes one of the major problems Hollywood is facing today -- that if left unchecked, could ultimately ruin something I care a great deal about. That said, what was Crowe's answer? "I do charity work, but I don't do charity work for major studios." How nice. Now don't get me wrong, I believe in getting paid for your work. I also think that actors are in unique position because their performance has the potential to be used and re-used many times. So, I think they should be fairly compensated for their work and for any subsequent use of that work.

But what is fair? Is it fair that an actor like Jim Carrey gets $20 Milion per movie but his recent films like Bruce Almighty and Fun with Dick and Jane were basically flops? Even Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a terrific film with a compelling performance by Carrey, wasn't what you would exactly call a "hit." Someone making decisions at Fox must agree because two of Carrey's recent films, Used Guys and Ripley's Believe it or Not! ended up falling apart over budget (and other) considerations. Or, how about Eddie Murphy? He still gets a huge salary too but is he really worth it? Do his movies like Daddy Day Care and The Haunted Mansion really perform well enough to warrant his salary? I seriously doubt it. And, let's not forget the case of one Mr. Tom Cruise who was recently and unceremoniously let go from his huge contract with Paramount Pictures. I'm sure some of the blame for his deal not being renewed can be attributed to his huge paycheck for films that underperformed like Vanilla Sky and Mission Impossible III -- and the fact that he's probably off his nut (at least according to Sumner Redstone).

Well, it looks like the Hollywood is starting to question the merits of continuing a system that financially rewards talent no matter if their films perform or not, at least according to the Times article. The studio's plan is simple: actors should share in the success or failure of a movie. So, if the movie does well, the actor is compensated well. If the film does poorly, or bombs, the actor shouldn't be paid as much. Plus, studios are also seeking other ways to cut costs -- especially by limiting or ending long-term production deals with stars and their production companies. Obviously, actors and their reps, such as the Screen Actors Guild, are not too happy about these kinds of proposals. So, it remains to be seen if this strategy will pay off for the studios in the long run and at the bottom line. Although, if Russell Crowe's attitude is any indication, the studios have a big struggle ahead of them.

Hilary Duff doesn't care what critics think of her movies, and she especially doesn't care what New York Times critic Stephen Holden has to say. The actress/singer made a statement Elle against Holden's claim that she is "talent-challenged," saying that, "he doesn't really fit the demographic. So I could really care less." She has a point, doesn't she? I personally think it's pretty useless for critics to give a bad review to someone like Duff, since it won't matter to either those who expect little from her anyway or those who are fans of hers. It is different when we give a surprisingly good review to a movie like She's the Man and its star, Amanda Bynes, because that discussion is more notable.

If Duff ever crosses over into a broader range of roles, particularly if she takes on serious roles, then it might be more in Holden's interests to address her contributions at that time. But according to her, a cross-over isn't likely any time soon. She commented on the possibility, saying, "Suppose the next thing I did was this super-edgy independent movie where I was pregnant or shooting up? What would that do to my fan base?" Now, as much as I think that would be amusing to see, I applaud Duff in knowing her place. We don't need another teen star attempting to become a real actress before she's ready. Too many films are ruined because of young starlets without proper talent being cast in serious roles. I'm thinking of Dunst, Lohan, Holmes and maybe Mandy Moore most recently, but it is certainly something that has been going on for years. Anyone remember when Bertolucci had to go and cast Liv Tyler? Yeah, I've been trying to forget it, too.

Some words of praise for Cavite:

"[Cavite] ventures into rarely seen terrain - the slums of greater Manila - even as it pays homage to the Hollywood bomb-on-a-bus blockbuster Speed." -- Dennis Lim,  New York Times

"[A] cross between A Single Girl ... and a great episode of 24 ... this is a great, great example of a true indie film: 2 guys, a camera and a script, traveling halfway across the world to a country considered one of the most dangerous places in the world and shoot a feature film. It makes me want to grab a camera, go to a foreign land like Africa or Colombia and start shooting away. But first I'd have to grow a pair of balls." – Moriarty, Ain't it Cool News

"Cavite tackles such pertinent issues as cultural identity, family and terrorism ... guerilla filmmaking at its finest." -- Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter

"For a guerrilla-style, no-budget Yank indie to even tackle issues of jihad terror and naive Western thinking is noteworthy in itself, but [Ian] Gamazon and [Neill] Dela Llana inflame the issues with a gutsy, athletic filmmaking package that shows what can be done with a minimum of tools." -- Robert Koehler, Variety

Wanna see it yet? If you're in New York, email karina AT cinematical DOT com and we'll put you on the list for the free screening Cinematical is hosting tonight in Manhattan. After the film, I'll be leading a short Q & A with the filmmakers. Check out the distributor's spin on the basics after the jump.

As most of you know, your humble editrix joined six of her film-blog friends last December at an indieWIRE-hosted panel called "Meet the Film Bloggers", at the Apple Store here in New York City. The Independent Film Channel has cut together a segment of footage from the panel, including an unflattering profile shot of yours truly, caught saying foolishly mean things about the New York Times. Check it out here, and tell me what you think I should do with my hair in the comments.

I was too busy on Christmas Day actually watching movies to bother reading or (as you hopefully noticed) writing about them, so today I'm playing a lot of catch up. I guess that led me to read too quickly, because at first glance, I thought the first graph of Nancy Ramsay's piece in yesterday's New York Times ended like this: "[New Orleans] has become perhaps the year's favorite setting as filmmakers race to exploit the implications of the storm."

Ramsay actually wrote that filmmakers are rushing to "explore" the implications of Hurricane Katrina, but when Michael Moore and Spike Lee are setting the standard, is there really that much of a difference? Athough Ramsay makes some small differentiation between the carpetbaggers now jetting into the area from New York and LA, and the local filmmakers who are using the catastrophe to fund or sell films that they couldn't get off the ground pre-Katrina, she doesn't seem particularly interested in exploring (ha ha) that dialectic. You get the idea that the two approaches are about equal – either way, tragedy and despair are feeding into some kind of swindle.

Am i just being cranky, or does the idea of filmmakers gold rushing New Orleans – reported by the New York Times as if mid-yawn – rub anyone else in a very wrong way?

In a shocking show of faith in the intellectual curiosity of movie audiences, Sony Pictures is promoting Capote with an online archive of New York Times articles related to the author. Among the linked articles (Sony paid for the virtual reprints) are reviews of Capote's work and a series of news stories from 1964, detailing the murders that became his most famous novel, In Cold Blood. In addition, there is a sidebar offering biographical information about the major characters in the film, from Harper Lee to long-time New Yorker editor William Shawn.

People, these are not bullet-pointed summaries of the articles - the whole, usually lengthy, articles are here, chock-full of Capote-y goodness for curious readers. I don't know what prompted this outlandish assumption by Sony that movie viewers can read and have adult-sized attention spans (Who, us?), but I'm sure not going to complain.