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."

There's an interesting post over on Green Cine Daily from yesterday that's worth pondering: How much is it okay for a film critic to reveal spoilers when writing a review? The post was inspired by a piece in the New York Times by Village Voice film critic Nathan Lee called "Giving it All Away," in which he pretty much revels in being a critic who spoils key points in a film for the people who read his stuff. This is an important topic for me -- when I review a film, I try to respect that people usually don't want to have it spoiled for them before they see it, and so I try to balance analyzing what I like and don't like about a film with not revealing too much.

This issue of spoilers has reached a fever-pitch with the release of the seventh and final Harry Potter book; I've had to scrupulously avoid any and all websites that might give anything away, and even in our house, where four of us are simultaneously reading the book, we're careful not to give away anything about the storyline so as not to ruin the fun of each of us discovering what happens for ourselves as the story unfolds. So I mostly disagree with Lee's perspective, just as I disagreed with the idiots who drove around my town with one of the key plot elements of the sixth Harry Potter book shoe-polished on their rear window right after it came out -- I suppose there's a bit of power and glee in spoiling things for those who haven't yet seen or read something yet, but why would you want to do that?

I guess it's also bit of a philosophical thing -- is the role of a critic to reveal the plot and analyze it in minute detail, as though writing a thesis paper for a grad school film class? Or is it to tell potential viewers what you like and don't like about a film, while carefully treading that line between explaining your point of view without giving too much away? I fall in the latter camp, but I know that Lee isn't the only one who doesn't care about revealing spoilers. If I'm reviewing a film, I never read other reviews until I'm done writing my own, because I don't want my perspective to be inadvertently shifted by reading another point of view; if I'm just deciding whether to see a film for pleasure, though, I have a few critics whose opinions I trust who I tend to gravitate toward, because I like to hear their perspectives going in; then afterwards I roll over their points in my mind and compare them to my own take on the film.

I guess it's a good thing Lee wrote this piece, though -- at least his readers will know once and for all that anything they read by him is likely to have spoilers, so those who don't want to have a film's plot spoiled for them can just avoid reading him altogether. What do you think, though? Is there a difference between how an arthouse film should be reviewed or critiqued, versus a mainstream flick? Do you care if a critic spoils a film for you by revealing key elements of the plot in a review? And if you know that a critic has a habit of doing so, do you avoid reading their reviews to begin with?

I like reading blogs from filmmakers, whether they're periodic reports on how a specific film is going, discussions about movies the filmmaker has been watching, or essays about anything that catches the blogger/filmmaker's attention. So you can imagine how pleased I was to learn that documentary filmmaker Errol Morris (The Fog of War, The Thin Blue Line) has just started a new blog over at the online version of The New York Times. Morris's blog is called Zoom: A Filmmaker Uncovers the Hidden Truths of Photos -- the tagline tells me that this isn't going to be a "Today we edited that scene with the banana" type of filmmaker blog.

Morris has only posted one entry thus far, but it's thought-provoking and is spurring discussions around the film-blogging universe. (I am not using the word "blogosphere.") In fact, it's already received more than 140 comments. He brings up the topic of whether a photo is "true" or "false" and demonstrates why he feels that is a ridiculous label to attach to any image. It is an interesting debate for anyone who watches documentary films, especially in light of the criticism heaped upon Michael Moore for showing footage in films like Sicko that is sometimes considered to be taken out of context or otherwise labeled as "false." Anthony Kaufman (on whose site I found the link to Morris's blog) wonders if the entry was inspired by the Abu Ghraib photos. Morris's upcoming documentary, S.O.P.: Standard Operating Procedure, is about the Abu Ghraib scandal. I hope Morris will post more blog entries along the same lines, although I also wouldn't mind hearing about the film he's working on, as well.

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.

In today's world, where the internet is all over a film (reporting on its cast, it's production schedule, its plot, its script changes and, in some cases, leaking photos and footage before the pic is even finished shooting), it's become increasingly harder for a movie to arrive out of the blue and transform into a surprise hit (or sleeper hit). As Bob Berney (President of Picturehouse) noted, "Everyone is talking about a film before they see it. That is a new phenomenon."

In a recent New York Times article, Stephen Farber analyzed a disappearing trend, the sleeper hit. According to Farber, "A real sleeper seems to come from nowhere: the audience shows up before the experts and insiders have figured it out." Perhaps the last true sleeper hit came with My Big Fat Greek Wedding, a film that thrived off old school word-of-mouth buzz racking up more than $241 million at the box office. I guess an argument could be made for this summer's Little Miss Sunshine, though movie websites (like Cinematical) were all over this one following its Sundance festival screening, that by the time Sunshine finally slipped into theaters, it was already wrapped up in a good amount of buzz. These days, is it even possible for a film to slide past us and go on to to gradually dominate the box office?

So, I ask you: In your opinion, is the sleeper hit dead? Or is its definition just changing?

Yes, it's official: For the remainder of the year, Hollywood will announce a new football-related film every other day ... unless a group of us band together, head to every major studio and orchestrate a surprise blitz on whoever is in charge. The latest major player to grace the big-screen field is Universal Pictures who have just picked up the movie rights to a New York Times article, with Jack Black coming on to produce through his brand spanking new shingle Electric Dynamite.

The article (titled In College Football, Big Paydays for Humiliation) centers around a practice in college football where teams pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have other weaker teams play against them for easy wins. (Occasionally, I'll do the same thing with video games, only my five year-old cousin will happily take a cupcake over paper money.) Of course, this will be a comedy, and Black is set to take a role in the film, but not star. No screenwriter or director is attached. I swear, if the film's plot description turns out to have the words 'rag-tag team of misfits' anywhere in it, I will personally sack the idea before it hits theaters. Although Jack Black attempting to play football definitely conjures up a humorous image.

Just in case this piece looks a little familiar, parts of it ran here yesterday before I learned my source info wasn't 100% correct.

Well, we were told it was coming. As I reported not too long ago, the government of Kazakhstan is taking issue with the film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Sacha Boren Cohen's new mockumentary featuring his politically incorrect (and that's being nice) character Borat from HBO's Da Ali G Show. The Kazakhstani government announced a media blitz to defend their country's good name, and Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev has gone as far as to say he will personally discuss the film with President Bush. Is it just me, or does that seem like tattling?

As promised, the government of Kazakhstan took out a four-page advertising section in Wednesday's New York Times and International Herald Tribune (as reported by Editor and Publisher). While not specifically siting the Borat movie, the ad addresses some topics that might seem pertinent to Cohen's character. "Religous tolerance," it opens, "is another one of the hallmarks of the nation ... Kazakhstan is home to over 40 religions." It quotes its president: "In the last 15 years, there has not been a single case of a newspaper or television station harassing the followers of any particular faith ... there is an overall atmosphere of tolerance and understanding of all faiths in our society." We can also expect ads produced by the Kazakhstani government to start showing up on U.S. television.

As I said in my previous post, this will be great publicity. At the time I was speaking of Borat, but now I'm wondering if the Kazakhstani government might be stirring all this up for the sake of getting themselves a little PR which might somehow stimulate the country's economy. This is pure speculation, of course, but regardless of how successful Borat is, it will be gone from theaters in a few months. If it were really so offensive to Kazakhstan, wouldn't an "ignore it until it goes away" policy be more prudent, rather than giving the film all this free publicity? I've only seen the trailer for Cohen's film, but based on that it's hard to believe anyone could take it seriously --which, since its a comedy, they shouldn't.

The New York Times tells us what happens when bad word of mouth hits before the movie does. It kills it pretty much dead. Sony Pictures ran into this with their latest dead-in-the-water film, All The King's Men. The film opened this past weekend at seventh place with only $3.8 million in ticket sales, and a cast that most studios would kill for: Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo, and James Gandolfini. That has to smart; you'd expect to get at least four or five good movies out of those cast members, and instead Sony is left holding the bag on a real clunker.

The problem, as the article states, is that once a studio announces that a film is being pushed back, it is basically announcing that "this sucker ain't done yet, we're putting it back in the oven and hoping for the best!" That kills any sort of forward momentum the film has, makes people scratch their heads and wonder what the heck the problem is, and almost always gives rise to a rumor somewhere that something has gone terribly wrong. It's bad enough when a studio doesn't hold any press screenings, like the recent Snakes on a Plane, but even worse when they reschedule anything for a year later. Just look at what happened to Mike Judge's Idiocracy. Shelving it made the movie even dumber.

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.