We thought it would arrive as part of After Dark's 2007 event, but since unrated flicks cannot screen as part of AD Horrorfest, at least there was a good reason for the delay. And now with the U.S. release of Xavier Gans' Frontier(s) only a few weeks away, it only stands to reason that we'd be treated to a new poster, trailer, and website for the freaky French fright flick.

May 9 is when the stylish horror salad bar will hit the cinemas, but if you're not presently a part of the release pattern, fear not: You can pick up the DVD only a few days later. Click here to delve into the nutty, nasty world of Frontier(s), which is full of dangerous downloads, powerful pictures, and some decidedly violent videos. And then, since you're already hanging out at Cinematical anyway, feel free check out my review of the flick right here. Word is that the DVD will contain some extra goodies for the horror freaks; I shall update this post as soon as I receive an official note from After Dark.

Bonneville, opening today in limited release after mostly sitting and stewing in its own juices since it premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival way back in 2006, is another of those "do this before you die" flicks, melded with a road trip movie for spunky older chicks. Take the "great older actor" Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson roles in The Bucket List, replace them with a trio of "great older actresses" in the form of Kathy Bates, Joan Allen and Jessica Lange, throw them in an old Bonneville convertible for a road trip, and toss in the ruggedly handsome and ever-reliable Tom Skerritt as a love interest, and you've got all the makings of a flick that practically telegraphs being aimed at the older demographic.

Things get started with the death of Joe, husband of Arvilla (Lange). Arvilla and Joe had been together for 20-something wonderful years filled with travel and adventure; now Joe's daughter, Francine (Christine Baranski, who's not given much to do beyond being shrewish and shrill), wants her father's ashes back so she can bury them next to her mother. Arvilla wants to keep Joe's remains for herself, but Francine gives her an ultimatum: return my father's ashes, or I'll take away the house you lived with him in for all your life together.

Diary of the Dead, George A. Romero's first independent zombie film in over 20 years, follows a group of student filmmakers who, making a low-grade horror film in the woods, drive back to civilization ... only to find it isn't there anymore. We watch the film unfold as footage they shoot travelling through desolate and deadly buildings, neighborhoods, towns, cities -- coming to grips with the fact that the dead are walking and hungry and everything they knew is over. Shot outside of Toronto, where Romero now lives (but, as tradition demands, set near Pittsburgh), Diary of the Dead played both the Toronto and Sundance Film Festivals; Scott Weinberg's review from Toronto can be found here, while Jette Kernion's review is here.

Writer-director George A. Romero spoke with Cinematical about his zombie film legacy that stretches back to 1968's Night of the Living Dead, his concerns about the possibilities and perils of user-generated media, which Presidential candidate he thinks would have the best handle on attacking armies of the dead, and the undying popularity of the undead he created. " (If) I created anything ... it was the "neighborhood zombie" ... the guy with Nikes and a sweatshirt. ... Neighbors are scary, and when they're dead they're a bit scarier. But once you have that, it's idiomatic ... I half expect the zombies to show up on Sesame Street hanging out with The Count. ..."

Cinematical: I've read several notes and quotes from you saying that Diary of the Dead essentially felt like a new beginning.

George A. Romero: For me, it was a new beginning; I made four zombie films before this, and they sort of tracked, they were along a single storyline, even though they were 10 years or more apart, each of them. And they were just getting too big. The last one (George A. Romero's Land of the Dead) was a studio-supported film, which, you know, I turned around and looked at it: They let me make the film I wanted to make, I loved working with Dennis Hopper and Leguizamo and people like that, but I felt the film and I had sort of lost connection with the origin of the series, which was a little guerrilla movie that a bunch of amateurs made in Pittsburgh all those years ago. And I wanted to go back to ... I wanted to see if I had the chops and the stamina to make a little guerilla movie. I happened to have an idea that I wanted to do something ... all of my zombie films have had this kind of socio-political satire underneath them, and I've always used them as snapshots of the time in which they were made.

I got an idea that I wanted to do something about emerging media, with the mainstream losing its power and Joe Blow from Oshkosh taking over on the blogosphere. And it all sort of fell into place. And I thought 'Well, I can make a little film, do it pretty inexpensively, about students who are out shooting a student film when the sh*t hits the fan, when zombies sit up and start walking around.' I said 'We can go back to the very first night, and we can try to pretend ' -- even though that was 1968 and this is now --- 'that this is the same first night, when this phenomenon first begins to happen.'

A few months back I knocked the After Dark Horrorfest guys for not booking Frontiere(s) as part of their second annual sorta-festival. I quickly received a very cordial response from an AD representative who told me basically precisely this: "I'm emailing in regards to your article about "Frontiere(s)" and Horrorfest. Basically, I just wanted to let you know we absolutely are not going to cut this film up in any way. We have not accepted any rating for it so far and at this point we do not know if it's going to be released NC-17 or unrated. We haven't decided. But I promise you it will get released theatrically and in its originally intended form."

He also explained how an unrated / NC-17 film could not play as part of Horrorfest, given the existing contracts between the event and its venues. OK, fair enough. But the horror geeks are getting royally gore-teased by the Weinsteins on Inside, so when can we get a peek at this freaky Frontiere(s) flick already?

May 9, according to ShocktyDrop.com, is when Lionsgate will be releasing Xavier Gens' whacked-out horror stew in theaters. It will no doubt be a contractually-mandated very limited release pattern, but here's some strange-yet-good news: It seems that the DVD will arrive only four days later. Gee, now there's some incentive to get out to the theaters, eh?

(Since Juno is now screening in limited release, we're re-publishing Kim's review of the film from Telluride. We'll also publish a new review of the film when it goes wider later this month.)

I've been waiting to see Juno for a long, long time now. I first heard that Jason Reitman was going to be working with Ellen Page on this film shortly before Sundance this year, and I talked briefly to the young actress about Juno at Sundance. At the time, Page was promoting An American Crime; that film, in which she played Sylvia Likens, a young girl brutally murdered while under the care of a foster family, was emotionally wrenching for Page, and she told me then she was looking forward to taking on some lighter fare with Juno, and especially to working with Reitman, who was still riding the waves of success from his feature debut, Thank You for Smoking.

I was lucky enough to get to see Juno at a jam-packed sneak preview here at Telluride today; it was utterly charming in every possible way, and is getting the most positive buzz I've heard about any film so far at the fest. Page stars as Juno, a smart, quirky, 16-year-old girl who, after a sexual encounter with her best friend, Bleeker (Michael Cera), finds herself pregnant. Right from the start, we know this isn't going to be your average "after-school-special" film about a teenager getting knocked up and facing Big Decisions. Scribe Diablo Cody (aka Brooke Busey-Hunt) sets the tone from the opening scene, with tiny Page chugging a gallon of Sunny Delight while she looks at an abandoned easy chair and tells us, "it all started with a chair." Three pregnancy tests later, Juno accepts that she is, in fact, pregnant, and from there has to decide how to handle it.

After a series of impressive smaller roles in projects like HBO's Band of Brothers and The Chronicles of Narnia, Glasgow-born actor James McAvoy first demonstrated his leading-man potential on a broader canvas in The Last King of Scotland -- and while co-star Forrest Whitaker's turn as Idi Amin garnered raves, McAvoy's centered performance earned him quiet but sincere praise. Now, in Atonement, McAvoy's at the heart of one of the year's most buzzed-about films -- and bracing himself for a different kind of attention when the megabudget, big-action comic-book adaptation Wanted hits screens in summer 2008, where he'll be playing opposite Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie. McAvoy spoke with a roundtable of journalists in San Francisco (McAvoy on arriving in San Francisco: "It's nice; you don't have that immediate foreboding of work, like you do when you land in L.A. Whenever I land in L.A., I don't feel like I've come to America; I feel like I'm just coming to work. But I come into San Francisco, and I'm like "Hey, man! Alright!") about Atonement, the acting challenges in one of the year's most intricate films, Britain's obsession with class and how Wanted might change his 'working-class' life; Cinematical's questions are indicated.

Cinematical: After seeing Last King of Scotland and Becoming Jane -- and even, to a certain extent, The Chronicles of Narnia -- for a while, you seemed to have this sideline in playing who knew exactly how bad they were; who were conspicuously aware of their own failings. Was it a relief, with Atonement, to jump into something a bit more straight-forward?

James McAvoy: The exact opposite; it wasn't a relief in any way. I find great comfort and I find myself in very comfortable artistic territory when I play people with internal conflict; when I play people who are arseholes, or pricks and kind of know it, or they know they're doing something bad. And in this role (in Atonement), I wasn't able to do any of that. Basically, every character I've ever played, I've based entirely on internal conflict. And I love doing that, because I think it's very human. And I found this character (Robbie) ... he wasn't particularly representative of the human race, because he's so good, and he has so little conflict in him. And I didn't really recognize him as a member of the human race to begin with. And I think that that's fair to say, because he is a slightly idealized human figure; and that's necessary, because the story's a tragedy. And there are so many flawed characters in it, and I think that to make a tragedy work, you have to have bad things happen to good people. And if all the protagonists are so flawed, you've got to have one that is particularly unflawed to make it a tragedy. He becomes flawed; he becomes someone much more suicidal, and I think therefore much more representative of the human race. But for the first half of the film, it wasn't a relief; it was a worry of mine that I wasn't going to be able to portray him in an interesting fashion.

The ever-astute Anne Thompson, over on her Thompson on Hollywood blog at Variety, has an analysis up of the Oscar buzz around Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. I've not yet seen the entire film though I did see a 20-minute sneak-peek at Telluride that was more than enough to whet my appetite for the film (Cinematical's Scott Weinberg saw it at Fantastic Fest, much to the jealousy of the rest of our reviewing team) Thompson has seen the film twice now and recommends highly that people see it twice in order to fully digest it.

Thompson recently went to a WGA screening of the film, where the audience gave a standing ovation to director Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis afterward. Day-Lewis is looking like a cinch for an Oscar nom for Best Actor, and I'd be pretty surprised not to see the film get a Best Picture nod as well. What I'm really more interested in is whether Paul Dano gets a nod for his dual role as twins Eli and Paul Sunday. Dano was one of the best parts of Little Miss Sunshine, and in the part of his performance in There Will Be Blood that I caught at Sundance, he more than held his own playing opposite Day-Lewis -- and that's saying something.

There Will Be Blood continues to stand firmly in fifth place on the Oscar watch list for Best Picture over at Movie City News' Gurus o' Gold, with Atonement still pretty firmly in the top slot. Beneath Atonement, the Gurus have No Country for Old Men, American Gangster, and Charlie Wilson's War. Gurus 2.0, in which our own James Rocchi is participating, has four of the five same top films, but has There Will Be Blood up in second place right behind Atonement, followed by No Country for Old Men, American Gangster and Into the Wild.

For some reason (well, partly because I skipped out on going to Toronto this year) I've not seen any of these films save Into the Wild yet, but I'll be catching them all over the next couple weeks as the For Your Consideration screeners flood the mailbox ( I think my DHL guy is convinced I'm into something illegal here -- every day when he brings me yet another package he gives me a weird look -- he just ought to be glad no one is delivering me packages of sexy panties and pigs-head masks like some people).

Cinematical Reviews of Oscar Watch films:

Atonement
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
American Gangster
Into the Wild -- Kim Voynar's Telluride Review
Into the Wild -- James Rocchi's TIFF Review

It wasn't surprising that Neil Ortenberg and Daniel O'Connor's Obscene had difficulty securing a distributor. After all, it's a documentary that deals with obscenity. Still, as hard a sell as that sounds, it also sounds like an easy sell to the right markets. Also, the film is nearly as entertaining as similar-themed docs like Inside Deep Throat and This Film is Not Yet Rated. Of course, even with Universal distributing, Inside Deep Throat was not very profitable. And neither will be Obscene, which is sure to likewise receive an NC-17 rating. The funny thing is, that rating would be completely for archive footage, stuff that should be long since deemed tame by today's standards. It does feature John Waters, though, and I think the MPAA has a stipulation that if he's involved in any way, shape or form, the movie gets an automatic NC-17.

Anyway, it's a shame the film couldn't sell to a more familiar distributor when it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival a couple months back. Instead, according to The Hollywood Reporter, worldwide rights for Obscene have finally gone to Arthouse Films, a company that has released a number of small films you've likely never seen, or even heard of. I can't imagine that Arthouse could afford the music rights for all the tunes in Obscene, so hopefully they're already paid for.

For those of you who don't know, which is probably for the best since you may not get to ever see the film anyway, Obscene is a biographical documentary about Barney Rosset, a publisher and film distributor who fought many a legal battle regarding his alleged distribution of obscene literature and cinema. By no means did I love Obscene, but I enjoyed much of it and thought only bits and pieces really didn't work. As a whole, I guess I'd recommend it if it makes it way to you, because it's an interesting look into what defines a person's life, which is noteworthy for a biodoc these days. In my review, I said the film, "reminds us that most often is the case that the product -- in this case the thousands of titles released by Grove and Rosset's other enterprises -- is about the person, without whom none of it would have existed in quite the same way."

How many times has this happened to you? You spend the evening drinking and doing drugs, and as you precariously drive home, you hit a pedestrian, leaving him embedded in your windshield. You figure he's dead, so you leave him where he is, park the car in the garage, and hope nobody finds out.

I think we've all been there. Iconic horror filmmaker Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator) made a movie based on the idea, Stuck, which premiered at the Toronto Film Festival and has now been acquired by Image Entertainment for U.S. release. Sister company ThinkFilm will release it theatrically next spring, and then Image will handle the DVD sales.

The film stars Mena Suvari as the driver and Stephen Rea as the victim. The story has him not quite dead after all, and understandably P.O.'ed when he realizes she's left him out in the garage, stuck to her windshield, to die. Cinematical's Scott Weinberg, who knows horror like Rosie O'Donnell knows pizza, reviewed Stuck at Toronto and said: "Backed by a pair of very fine lead performances, several colorful background players, a quick pace, and a handful of truly memorable scenes, Stuck might just be Stuart Gordon's best flick since Dagon -- or even From Beyond."

Furthermore, it's "a surprisingly smart flick that starts out slowly and gradually explodes into a darkly satisfying finale."

It's based on a true story, apparently this one, which happened in Fort Worth. But Snopes, the indispensable urban-legend-cataloging site, shows that the Fort Worth incident is by no means unique. This confirms what I've always suspected: there are a lot of really scary drivers out there.

One of my favorite films of the entire year (so far), Juno, just got a bumped up release date of December 5 the other day, and now it has a spandy-new poster, too (click on the image above for an even bigger view of what tiny Ellen Page would look like with a big old pregnant belly. The poster nicely captures the quirky feel of the film (I just LOVE those dorky yellow gym shorts on Michael Cera, don't you?), especially the character of Juno, who's very much a kid in spite of the baby growing inside her.

We've talked a lot about Juno here on Cinematical, and when we pimp a film this much, it's because we think it's something special. If you don't live in NYC or LA, where Juno opens in limited release on December 5, keep an eye out for its arrival in a theater near you. If I could only recommend one film this whole fall season, it would be definitely be Juno. I'm looking for the film to score some Oscar noms -- if I don't see screenwriter Diablo Cody, director Jason Reitman, and Page with noms for this film (and while we're at it, how about a supporting nod for Jennifer Garner?), I'm gonna be seriously annoyed with the Academy come Oscar day,

While you're anxiously pacing the waiting room, kill some time watching the Juno trailer again, or read our Telluride interviews with Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody.

When we commit acts of terror in the name of fighting terrorism, have we in fact become as bad as the bad guys we're supposed to be fighting? That's the question director Gavin Hood addresses in Rendition, which tackles the controversial practice of "extraordinary rendition," whereby suspected terrorists can be whisked off to other countries where "enhanced interrogation techniques" (electrocution, beating, and the ever-popular simulated drowning) are considered acceptable, so as to glean information from the suspected terrorist that might end up thwarting plots and saving countless lives.

The basic premise of Rendition: Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is an Egyptian citizen with a green card who's been living and working in the United States since he was 14 years old. He has a lovely American wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), a cute little six-year-old kid, and a baby on the way. He coaches his son's soccer team. He's a chemical engineer with a $200K salary and a nice house in the suburbs of Chicago. He could be you or me or someone we know. And one day, on his way home from a business trip to South Africa, Anwar is taken aside by security at the airport and secreted away for questioning about his alleged involvement with a terrorist whose cell phone number has been traced making phone calls to Anwar's cell phone. How does Anwar explain this? Unfortunately for him, he can't.

Over on The Hot Blog, David Poland has the weekend box office numbers up, and the one thing that popped out at me, probably because I just saw and reviewed the film last week, is that Lake of Fire, which opened at Film Forum in NYC this weekend, did not do nearly as well as might have been expected. There's some discussion in the comments on Poland's post speculating on the whys and wherefores of the film's less-than-stellar opening, the main gist of which is that either the film did not appeal to people because no one wants to see the abortion process on a big screen while they're munching their popcorn, or because the film doesn't take a side on the abortion issue, and people who are passionate about it on one side or the other do not want to see the other side treated fairly.

I pondered this for a while this morning as I lingered over my Monday morning coffee. As I noted in my review of the film, Lake of Fire does give both sides of the debate equal weight, but I also think that the way each side will be perceived is in the eye of the beholder. I could see the film playing well in red states, because the film doesn't portray right-to-lifers (on the whole) as a bunch of nutcases. Sure, there are some some interesting folks in there, but there are also attractive women in there talking about why they are pro-life. And even the folks that a liberal might view as off-their-rocker (such as Assembly of God preacher John Burt and Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry) would probably be viewed by a lot of fundamentalist Christians as good, God-fearing guys who are simply passionate about their beliefs on the subject.

A key moment in Tony Kaye's black-and-white abortion documentary, Lake of Fire, sums up the film's philosophical stance on the issue quite succinctly: Alan Dershowitz, says simply, "Everybody is right when it comes to the issue of abortion." And although the film includes what could be considered "shock footage" -- things like a doctor casually washing off and examining the dismembered parts of a 20-week-old fetus in a colander to make sure he got it all out -- the film carefully avoids taking a clear stance on one side or the other of the abortion debate.

In that sense, Lake of Fire rather reminded me of last year's Jesus Camp, directed by Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing, which also examined religion and politics with an eye toward objectivity. In both cases, your take on the message of the film will depend largely on your philosophical point of view. To a lot of people watching Jesus Camp, the evangelical Christians teaching children to be "soldiers for Christ" were downright scary; if you're an evangelical Christian, though, the film views almost like an infomercial or recruitment video for your cause -- of course it makes sense to convert souls for Jesus from the cradle up, and to raise children to be wiling to fight and die for their God. The same can be said of Lake of Fire, though if you lean strongly toward one side or the other of the abortion debate, Kaye's objective eye may be harder to discern.

Well, it's about time. I caught Out of the Blue at Toronto in 2006, and then only because a wonderfully persistent PR guy encouraged me repeatedly to check it out. It wasn't that I didn't want to see it -- Toronto is just a huge fest, and with so many films to choose from, it wasn't on my radar. I was glad I worked it in, though -- the film, about the infamous 1990 Aramoana massacre in the tiny town of Aramoana, New Zealand, had me on the edge of my seat.

The basic gist of the story: One day, seemingly out of nowhere, David Gray, who was born and raised in Aramoana and had known the people living there his entire life, snapped, going on a shooting spree that ended the lives of 13 people, four of them children, before he was shot and killed by police. In retrospect, there were signs that Gray was coming unhinged, but no one who knew him ever thought something like this would happen in their peaceful town.

The film is getting a one-week exclusive engagement at the IFC Center in New York City starting October 17. The film, directed by Robert Sarkies, who grew up in a town near Aramoana and was there at the time of the massacre, was directed with great care to be respectful to the victims and the surviving residents of Aramoana; at the same time it's tense and engaging, and well worth catching in a theater. Catch it while you can.

As I reported over the weekend, Israel's submission for next year's foreign-language category at the Oscars is The Band's Visit, a well-received comedy about an Egyptian police band that gets lost in Israel. It swept the Ophirs (Israel's Oscar equivalent), winning eight awards including best picture and best director. It won awards at Sarajevo and Cannes. And Sony Pictures Classics reportedly paid more for it than anyone has ever paid for an Israeli film.

So what's the problem, Oscar-wise? It might have too much English in it.

L.A. Weekly's Nikki Finke reported on Sunday that the film's "rivals" -- people involved with movies that weren't selected, one assumes -- are claiming that more than 50 percent of The Band's Visit's dialogue is in English. The Academy rules for this category (which you can read in their entirety here) simply say that to be eligible, a film must be "predominantly" in a language other than English. The rules don't give specifics about percentages.

Cinematical's James Rocchi saw the film at Toronto (and liked it). His recollection is that it was mostly in Hebrew and Arabic without too much English. He told me: "The use of English to me seemed like either a) people talking about song lyrics or other concerns in the language they were written in or b) a natural sort of meeting place -- 'I speak Arabic; you speak Hebrew; we both speak bad English....'"

The Academy won't get into it until after the Oct. 1 submission deadline. If they decide the film is not "predominantly" in a foreign tongue, they'll disqualify it -- and it won't be the first time. Just two years ago, Singapore's entry, Be with Me, was bounced for this very reason. We'll keep you posted on the fate of Israel's film.