Well, the day has finally come. No, you can't go see The Dark Knight in theaters yet ... but you can start reading what the critics had to say about it. First one in the batting cage is Peter Travers from Rolling Stone, who opens his review with: "Heads up: a thunderbolt is about to rip into the blanket of bland we call summer movies." Yeah! Where's your exclamation point at the end of that sentence, Travers? Get those troops fired up, dammit! (Bored? Try saying "Peter Travers Travels to Transylvania" ten times fast. Bet ya can't do it ...) Anyway ...

He continues to say nothing but great things about the movie, calling Heath Ledger -- and this is my favorite quote of the year so far -- "mad-crazy-blazing brilliant as the Joker." Of course, if someone is "mad-crazy-blazing brilliant," only one word can follow something like that up: Oscar. Travers says, "If there's a movement to get him the first posthumous Oscar since Peter Finch won for 1976's Network, sign me up." He gave the film itself three and a half stars out of four, and summed it all up by saying, "It's full of surprises you don't see coming. And just try to get it out of your dreams."

All kidding aside, I'm stoked to see a very, very positive review right out of the gate -- and I, for one, seriously hope The Dark Knight goes down as one of the best summer movies ever. But I do try not to hype it up too much, because that's always a bad thing. So forget we ever said anything. Dark Knight? What's that?

Even though a lot of fans of The Coen Brothers haven't been all that happy with the results of their collaborations with George Clooney (I think I was one of the eight people in the world who actually enjoyed Intolerable Cruelty.), I've still got a good feeling about their CIA comedy, Burn After Reading. The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Focus Features will release the dark comedy on September 12th of this year.

Burn has an all-star cast including Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and Tilda Swinton. I would guess that it's been like 'old home week' on set; we all know that Clooney and Pitt are buddies, and Swinton could be an honorary member of the boys club after her Oscar winning performance in Michael Clayton (and judging by her acceptance speech, she seems comfortable with a little verbal rough-housing).

The comedy stars Malkovich as Ozzie Cox, a CIA vet who gets fired for being an alcoholic, and writes out his revenge in a memoir. His soon-to-be ex-wife (Swinton) accidentally leaves the memoir at a gym, where it falls into the hands of a trainer, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), and the gym's owner Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who want to exploit the discovery. It sounds like a pretty 'fluffy' flick, but I think we could all use a break from the Coens' more "intense" point of view, wouldn't you agree, friendo?

Call me an optimist, but I'm always hoping for Oscar reform. I've been rather excited about recent rumblings that the Academy is finally, finally considering changing its rules regarding foreign film consideration. I saw one of the new nominees last week, The Counterfeiters, and I have to say that there were at least 20 or 30 other, better foreign language films last year. In fact, I'd have to say that The Counterfeiters is a contender for my worst list of 2008; it takes on an interesting story, but cinematically it's sheer amateur hour. The only reason it got nominated is because it takes place in a concentration camp. I also need to mention that the director, Stefan Ruzowitzky, made one of the worst films I have ever seen, All the Queen's Men (2002), starring Matt LeBlanc and Eddie Izzard as soldiers who go undercover as drag queens in WWII.

Did anyone notice that though La vie en rose earned three nominations (Best Actress, Costume, Makeup) it didn't get nominated for Foreign Language Film? Likewise, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (205 screens) -- filmed almost entirely in French -- was nominated for four awards (Best Director, Editing, Screenplay, Cinematography), but not Best Foreign Film. Why? Diving Bell doesn't count as foreign because it has an American director. Not to mention that each country is only allowed to submit one film, and France's choice, Persepolis (100 screens) was not nominated either. Instead, it was nominated for Best Animated Film! This type of thing happens all the time. In 2002, the foreign film committee rejected the Brazilian film City of God. It was released in 2003 to great critical acclaim and success, and was nominated the following year for four Oscars in other categories. In 2000, Taiwan chose to submit the hit Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, rather than arguably the greatest film of the past decade, Edward Yang's Yi Yi. Why couldn't both be nominated?

The Toronto International Film Festival is over, we have a couple months respite before Sundance, so naturally thoughts turn to the Oscar race. While I'm as curious as anyone else which films will end up garnering the big nod (and I will be really surprised if Juno doesn't get a few noms, especially for screenwriting), as an indie girl I'm most interested in the docs and foreigns. I'm a documentary dork, and one of the things I most look forward to covering at any given film fest is the doc slate -- which, as both David Poland and Anne Thompson have noted in post-Toronto columns, have been weak this year relative to the past couple years. No one really seems to be sure why this is, exactly, although the surprising success of March of the Penguins in 2005 fueled an interest in documentaries that led, perhaps, to a bit of a glut.

The trouble with documentaries is that, penguin love aside, docs are not something your average person is going to go out of their way to shell out ten bucks to see at a theater. Rent from the video store or add to your Netflix queue, perhaps, but when you're looking for a film to see on date night, the depressing topics that tend to make up much of the available documentary fare are not really the first thing that comes to mind. When's the last time you said, "Hey, honey, I know what to do tonight -- let's get dinner at that place over in Little Italy we like, and then let's go see that new Iraq war doc!" Given a choice between a bummer doc and, say, Superbad, most folks are going to opt for the laughs over the conscience-pricking dose of reality.

The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Jamie Foxx is returning to the genre that brought him loads of acclaim and an Academy Award -- he has signed on for another musical biopic. Foxx will be portraying Nathaniel Anthony Ayers in The Soloist, the true story of "a homeless musician with schizophrenia who dreams of playing at Walt Disney Concert Hall." Wow. A 1) Homeless 2) Musician with 3) Mental Problems and 4) A Dream? Foxx is pretty much demanding the award here, isn't he? Can't we just give him the Oscar before production begins? They're probably polishing it up for him right now.

So how does this movie differ from all the other schmaltzy musical biopics? Producer Gary Foster tells the Los Angeles Times: "Midnight Cowboy is a perfect example of what we want this movie to feel like. It won't be slick and glossy. It's going to be emotional and real." He says that now, but I'll bet you $100 the movie ends with a teary-eyed audience jumping to its feet and bursting into applause. Joe Wright (director of the surprisingly non-boring Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice as well as the upcoming Knightley film Atonement) will direct the film. Susannah Grant (writer of a very solid run of chick flicks that includes 28 Days and Erin Brockovich) wrote the script, which is based on a 12-part series of articles by Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez. The film will focus on the relationship between Ayers and Lopez. Lopez has yet to be cast, and his photo doesn't have any casting choices leaping out at me. Any ideas?

It's always tricky for an Oscar winner to pick their next projects. You can either follow in the footsteps of Tom Hanks and win yourself two in a row, or you can end up in Catwoman and only have a Razzie to show for it. Variety has reported that Forest Whitaker, fresh off his win for the role of dictator Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland, is in talks to star in The Night Watchman with Keanu Reeves. Directed by David Ayer (Training Day) and written by novelist James Ellroy (LA Confidential) the story follows a LAPD officer in the midst of a crisis of conscience about what he has done in the name of "law and order". Whitaker will be joining the cast as the chief of the elite squad that Reeves is a part of -- although I can't say I am exactly sold on the idea of Reeves as a battle hardened cop.

It seems that Whitaker is steering clear of any other big-budget productions though, as his next two projects are independent features. He will be starring with Kate Beckinsale and fellow Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley in the upcoming Winged Creatures, and has also signed for the Tim Bui drama Powder Blue. Production on The Night Watchman is set to begin this May.

After appearing in a string of thrillers and superhero flicks, it looks like Halle Berry is itching to get back to where she was after winning a best actress Oscar for her role in Monster's Ball. Though it's been sitting in a vault for some time now, Lionsgate is finally ready to move forward on Tulia with Berry attached to star. Essentially a courtroom drama, Tulia is based on real-life events surrounding the arrests of 46 black men during a Texas drug bust -- a sting operation where, in the end, no money, drugs or illegal weapons were found. However, the men were convicted solely on the testimony of one crooked cop.

Berry will play the lead attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense; a group that immediately got involved and helped to ultimately free the wrongly accused. Based on the Nate Blakeslee's book Tulia: Race, Cocaine, and Corruption in a Small Texas Town, Carl Franklin (Out of Time) is in talks to direct while Karen Croner penned the script. Tulia isn't the only straight-up drama Berry is working on; in fact, two of her next three films are potential awards contenders. In Things We Lost in the Fire, Berry plays a widow who invites her troubled best friend to come live with her and her children; Class Act find Berry portraying another real-life figure -- this time, it's a Nevada school teacher who uses her sixth-grade students to help boost her congressional campaign. While it's a bit premature for us to say Berry is officially back, it's nice to see she's adding a bit more meat to her roles instead of settling for the big paycheck and a Catwoman franchise.

Who or what gets nominated for an Oscar and eventually ends up winning has always been something of a mystery to me. I have my theories, of course. Sometimes I think Oscar voters find a film and decide its going to be the "one" for the year. There's also the possibility that those big "For Your Consideration" publicity campaigns work and academy members vote for the films and performances they hear about the most. If I was going to try to be more optimistic though, I would say that academy voters give serious consideration to all the choices they make, with the worthiest films and performances always making the cut. Unfortunately, I just don't think it happens -- at least not very often.

And like many other film fans and commentators, after the nominations are announced and the awards given, I almost always feel some worthy flicks or performances have gone unnoticed. Maybe it's because I'm still bitter about the whole Annie Hall winning best picture over Star Wars thing? I don't know. Whatever the reason, it seems I'm not alone in feeling this way because Yahoo News has posted an article which details some acting performances they're afraid will be overlooked when the Oscar nominations are announced next week. Some of the worthy contenders they feel will not get the accolades they deserve include Jack Black in Nacho Libre, (we didn't make that one up) Mark Wahlberg in The Departed, Kevin Kline in A Prairie Home Companion and Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.

I really like Eddie Murphy. Always have, since the very first time I saw him do a Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood sketch on Saturday Night Live. Even as a kid, I knew Murphy had the timing, the wit, the smarts, the silliness and the attitude to be a big-time comedian. And boy was I right. From his debut in Walter Hill's 48 Hrs. ($78.8 million in domestic box office) to his monumentally brilliant Delirious concert and his ... really wretched album ("My girl wants to party all the time / party all the time / party all the tiiiiiime!"), I was a fan through thick and thin.

Along with all the other Murphy supporters I walked a long and winding road through films great and wretched, from the hilarious Trading Places ($90.4m) to the unwatchable Best Defense ($19.2m) to the big one: Beverly Hills Cop ($234.7m!). And just like that, superstar comedy icon Eddie Murphy was truly born. The guy's movie career reads like a road map: He finished the '80s with The Golden Child ($79.8m), Beverly Hills Cop 2 ($153.6m), the concert flick Raw ($50.5m), Coming to America ($128.1m) and Harlem Nights ($60.8m), and ran through the '90s without taking a breath: Another 48 Hrs. ($80.8m), Boomerang ($70m), The Distinguished Gentleman ($46.6m), Beverly Hills Cop 3 ($42.6m), Vampire in Brooklyn ($19.7m), The Nutty Professor ($128.8m), Metro ($32m), Mulan ($120.6m), Dr. Dolittle ($144.1m) Holy Man ($12m), Life ($63.8m) and Bowfinger ($66.3m).

Interesting list so far. We see that the 48 Hrs. sequel outgrossed the Beverly Hills Cop sequel by a healthy margin, which seems a little weird when you think about it. We also see that Eddie doing family comedy and/or animated fare seems to work pretty well, whereas his attempts to play towards the parents turned out to be a much more inconsistent approach. But I give the guy credit for trying to pull off strange things in between the sure bets. I mean, Holy Man has a few good laughs in it! Bowfinger is really underrated!

But then we hit 2000 ...

Since there isn't much to do until February except speculate about the Oscars, buzz around who is going to receive a nomination is already starting to build. The New York Times has an article on the support behind Eddie Murphy's performance in the film adaptation of the stage hit musical Dreamgirls.

Plenty has been written about the career of Eddie Murphy, from his rise on Saturday Night Live to his seemingly permanent residency in family-oriented comedies. Dreamgirls hasn't even been released yet, but already heavyweight Jeffrey Katzenberg is throwing his support behind Murphy for a best supporting actor nomination: "Eddie can walk on water, it's just instinct. I know he can do it." The producer John Davis was willing to declare that "Eddie will definitely win the Oscar" for the film, allegedly after seeing only the first five minutes of Murphy's performance. The film has even stirred talk of a revival of the show on Broadway.

It's probably pretty unlikely that Murphy will win an Oscar, however the Academy loves those crazy "wild card" picks and if Murphy gets the nod, I have a feeling he would be filling that requirement. Dreamgirls opens this Christmas so we'll all get the chance to see if Murphy is going to be a serious Oscar contender among other suggested heavies like Jack Nicholson (The Departed), Michael Caine (The Prestige), and Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine). The question will be with competition like that does Murphy even stand a chance?

Well, it looks like no matter how hard we try, we just can't escape Factory Girl. My personal interest in this movie has been waning for a while now, and the trailer didn't exactly inspire confidence. There has been word of re-shoots, and now entirely new scenes are being added. None of which is a particularly good sign, but Harvey Weinstein refuses to say die when it comes to this Warhol-era biopic.

A report from Radar, has Weinstein making the rounds to make sure that the Academy doesn't forget about Factory Girl when it comes time to hand out the nominations. Weinstein has taken out "For Your Consideration" ads in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. It seems a little premature considering that the film hasn't even finished shooting in New York, and the deadline for Oscar consideration is fast approaching. A spokesperson for Weinstein defended the move, saying that critics had "seen an early cut of the movie and given it high praise, especially Sienna Miller and Guy Pearce's performances. We don't think it's premature to start promoting the film for awards consideration." Which I can't help but think translates into sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la I can't hear you". I guess we will see who gets the last laugh when the film opens this December. ...


[ via Hollywood Elsewhere ]

If you comb through the Oscar nominees from the past 79 years, it might look like a pretty decent list of quality films. But if you start to consider the titles that weren't nominated, you can get a more complete picture of just how badly they have failed to represent the broad spectrum. It's easy to find neglected Best Picture contenders that weren't nominated (Touch of Evil, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Do the Right Thing, Mulholland Drive, etc.), but a bit harder to sift through some of the other categories.

A recent report in Variety looks at the most dubious and most annoying category, Best Song. Music expert Jon Burlingame goes through ten years and finds ten glaring examples of songs not nominated, including "Someday My Prince Will Come" from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" from Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), "A Hard Day's Night" from A Hard Day's Night (1964) and anything from Saturday Night Fever (1977). The winner in 1977 was "You Light Up My Life" by Debby Boone from a movie called You Light Up My Life that has apparently been almost entirely forgotten.

Back in 1981, Warren Beatty was still known as an unrepentant ladies man and party boy. Having made his name in films like Splendor in the Grass and Shampoo, Beatty was still the go-to guy when a romantic lead was required. Everyone was happy with the arrangement -- except Warren Beatty. Tired of being a sex symbol, he wanted to make films with substance and a point of view, and Reds was the perfect opportunity. After the success of Heaven Can Wait, he could pretty much call the shots on his next project and of course, what he really wanted to do was direct.

Written and directed by Beatty, Reds was considered the ultimate vanity project; at over 200 minutes long, the film is the story of American journalist John Reed and his coverage of the Russian Revolution. Critics thought that Beatty was in way over his head, but they were wrong; the film became a hit and garnered 21 Oscar nominations, including three wins; Beatty (as director), Maureen Stapleton, and Vittorio Storaro (cinematography). The film also starred some of Reed's famous friends; Diane Keaton (Louise Bryant), Jack Nicholson (Eugene O'Neil), and Paul Sorvino (Louis Fraina).

Check out this great video with Warren as he discusses Reds and why its subject matter is still important 25 years later.

[via Yahoo! Movies-DVD]

Norway announced yesterday that it would be submitting Reprise as their country's entry for the best foreign language film Oscar. The movie is about "life's realities intruding on youthful assumptions." It joins Sweden's entry Falkenberg Farewell and Denmark's After the Wedding, which were announced earlier in the week.

The foreign language film category in the Oscars often feels tacked on haphazardly, and is frequently paid little attention. Which is exactly how I treated foreign films until I took a cinema history course in college. That was probably the first time I watched a film with subtitles (I think it was Raise the Red Lantern), and opened my eyes to world cinema. Frequently, American cinema seems to be all Boobs and/or Explosions IV at the box office, while films with real stories and characters go unnoticed.

Foreign films are almost always lower in budget than our mid-range films, yet they have more heart and story than our films do. Why is that? U.S. big-budget blockbusters usually perform very well overseas, so if they like those types of films, why aren't they producing them? Is it a problem of budget, or of storytelling? Heck, even Shaun of the Dead was much better than the non-stop stream of bad horror movies on this side of the pond.

Anyhow, while I think about what makes foreign films so good, I'm off to go see The Guardian to put it all in perspective.

Over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeffrey Wells (and, it must be said, at least one other critic, whom he quotes) is finding himself very impressed by George Hickenlooper's Factory Girl, the Edie Sedgwick biopic that may or may not be coming out at the end of the year. More specifically, Wells is blown away by the performance of Sienna Miller in the lead role and, assuming the Weinsteins get it on some screens in time to qualify, he's expecting her to get an Oscar nod, alongside such grand dames as Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada) and Helen Mirren (The Queen). According to Wells' post, Miller "gets [Sedwick's] fluttery debutante laugh, that mixture of Warholian cool and little-girl terror, the giddy euphoria, the cracked voice. It's more than convincing -- it's a kind of rebirthing."

Um, wow. And hooray! I know essentially nothing about Sedgwick, but I've adored Miller since she lit up the small screen in the under-seen (and under-rated) Keen Eddie, and would love to see her get some credibility -- particularly given the fact that she been turned into something of a joke by the tabloids (as well as evil bloggers like ourselves).