Can you make a summertime movie that gives audiences excitement, adventure and real drama -- and still have it flop? Are Hancock's reviews missing the big picture? And does the success of Sex and the City mean that the niches of movie marketing are going to get even more narrow? Joining us this week to talk about all these topics and more is David Poland, editor-in-chief of Movie City News and author of The Hot Blog. Cinematical's podcast is now available through iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

A number of people who've seen There Will Be Blood have commented on the fact that women don't seem to figure into lead character Daniel Plainview's life at all. As one commenter on David Poland's blog recently put it, "There's never a single woman in sight of him. Not when he becomes successful. Not even when he's older. Not even whores. There's no explicit point of this made, so much as it's just de facto." This is part of the commenter's argument that Plainview is a repressed homosexual. Another commenter pegs Plainview as simply a-sexual, noting that "his only love and appetite was for more money as a means to an end." But is that really what's going on? I recently sat down and read the script for There Will Be Blood and noticed something that I don't remember being included at all in the film. Since it's only one line I could have just missed it, but I don't think I did, and if I'm right it might go a long way towards explaining things.

On page 80 of the script, Daniel and Henry (a drifter who may be his brother) are sitting in a mess hall drinking and talking and Daniel tells Henry that H.W., who he's been passing off as his son, is "not even my son." "What do you mean?" Henry asks. At this point, the script says that 'Daniel begins to break down, holds his crotch' and then says to Henry "He's not my son. My c**k doesn't even work. How am I gonna make a kid? Does yours work Henry?" So that kind of sheds a new light on things, doesn't it? His half-hearted attempts at finding male companions -- his adopted son and Henry, in addition to his manservant -- are his only option, really.

I haven't been following the strike issue nearly as close as I'd like, but I'm starting to get increasingly interested as it looks like there's less and less chance of a deal being cut to spare the Golden Globes and Academy Awards from the wrath of the writers. David Poland's blog is the place for some entertaining commentary on this issue. Like everyone else, he doesn't care about whether or not the Globes goes on, but he's absolutely enraged at the thought of Oscar being put in the crosshairs next. "There is a world of difference between f*cking with 100 'foreigners' with the collective journalistic weight of a sitcom sidekick's blog and taking on 6,000 of the town's most powerful people," he writes. He goes on to explain how the Oscar ceremony is a critical income generator for the AMPAS and attempting to derail it is tantamount to a declaration of war. "If the union tries to shut down Oscar, they will be messing with something more than money. WGA would really be tapping into the mass ego of the industry," he writes, before blasting off into an extended hyperbole that ends with -- I'm not kidding -- a picture of Moe Green about to get shot in the eye.

And what does Nikki Finke think about this line of argument? Not much. Her position is that the WGA simply has them over a barrel, and it's their own fault, although she does confine most of her argument to the Globes issue -- she hasn't said very much about Oscar specifically yet, but you can see where she's headed. "For the AMPTP to expect a groundswell of Internet anger aimed at the WGA for threatening the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards is naive not to mention downright laughable. The ratings for these shows keep going down almost every year so the public doesn't much care."

Just how strange are the Golden Globes? Is Atonement a sure-fire, dead-lock Best Picture winner, or has it stumbled with the Academy before the race was even begun? Did Francis Ford Coppola "cut his own throat" with the release strategy for Youth Without Youth? And, speaking of cutting throats, will Sweeney Todd seduce the Academy, or have its hopes been washed away with the arterial spray? Joining James this week is David Poland, the critic, blogger and raconteur behind Movie City News as well as the wildly contentious, always insightful The Hot Blog. Listen in this week as James and David talk about the BFCA nominations from the inside, discuss the tarnished-yet-telegenic schizophrenia of the Golden Globes, and much more! And finally -- new this week on for The Rocchi Review -- you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

Several people who have attended the first critic's screenings of Sweeney Todd -- a.k.a., not me -- are declaring themselves totally wowed, although they're all bending over backwards to respect an embargo. Jeff Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere was so impressed by the film that he declared Tim Burton's decade-long decline to be now officially reversed. He also speculated that Sweeney Todd may be Burton's best film since 1988's Beetlejuice -- high praise, indeed. Wells even goes a little overboard, stating that "at times it melted me like a candle. I was lifted, moved. I was never not aroused." Okay, we get it Jeff -- the movie better live up to that embarrassing hyperbole.

Tom O'Neil at The Envelope starts his review thusly -- "'Sweeney Todd' is the best pic of 2007" -- pretty straightforward, no? "Everybody whose opinion I pooled after the screening tonight said they thought the movie and Johnny Depp were brilliant," he goes on to say. But like Wells, he thinks the film may see its Best Picture hopes held up by a childishly heavy focus on gore. There are apparently rivers of blood in this film, to the point that even some who enjoyed the film tremendously claimed to be turned off by that aspect.

David Poland joins the chorus of cheers, predicting that Depp will win the Best Actor award for his performance as the demon barber and saying that the film demands multiple viewings just to take it all in. Okay, you've twisted my arm -- I'll go see it.

It's a hot and steamy weekend here, and I'm feeling way to lazy to go outside for a power walk, so instead I thought I'd do a weekend check-in on some of my fave film sites around the web. As always, if you have a film blog (or even a film blog that you read and like, that you haven't seen me point to in a Group Hug), send me a link at kim(at)cinematical(dot)com. I'm always on the lookout for film sites to add to my already-lengthy list of daily reads ... hey, a girl just can't get too much film talk, right? Besides, the more film sites I'm forced to read, the longer I can put off that power walk ...

This one isn't particularly "indie," but it's one of the most fascinating pieces I've read all week, so I just had to include it. Over at the LA Weekly, Scott Foundas has a really interesting (and LONG -- seven pages, so read it with a fresh cup of coffee) feature piece up on Brett Ratner. What makes it such a fun read is that Foundas, whose writing I like and respect, goes way against the expected grain here, asserting of Popcorn King Ratner: "Which brings me to the other reason I've wanted to write about Ratner. It is an idea that may initially strike you as radical or preposterous, and which could jeopardize my standing in the film-criticism community. And yet, here goes: Brett Ratner is a talented filmmaker who deserves to be taken seriously."

Wow. No doubt Foundas has taken a lot of ribbing for this piece, but it's very well-written -- I can think of a few folks who write up set visits who could take a lesson from how Foundas puts you inside Ratner's set with his writing here -- and, moreover, by the end of it, I actually had kind of a newfound respect for Ratner -- at least for the work he puts into his films, if not the films themselves.

Just over a year ago, Jim Emerson started this very cool Opening Shots Project, wherein he kicked things off by writing about some of his favorite opening shots in a film, and then invited others to write about theirs. Emerson asserts that the opening shot is the most important moment in a film, that it sets the tone of the film and tells you what it's going to be about; after I started reading the Opening Shots pieces, I became even more aware of the importance of opening shots and started paying closer attention to them with every film I watch. So I was pleased to see [via a link on Daily Green Cine, who always have lots of good stuff] that there's a new Opening Shots entry up: Andy Horbal analyzes the opening shot of Army of Shadows. Check it out.

In the aftermath of the same-day deaths of directing greats Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni, Movie City Indie's Ray Pride ponders, "Who are the oldest living film directors?" with a comprehensive listing of directors that starts with the current oldest, Manoel de Oliveira (born in 1908), and works its way down to Stuart Gordon (born in 1947). Great minds thinking alike, David Poland, on The Hot Blog, points over to a post on Joe Leydon's MovingPictureBlog that asks: Who are the heirs to Bergman and Antonioni? Pop on over to both sites, read what they have to say, and chime in with your own thoughts.

If you're a geek for technical details, you'll dig this post Josh Oakhurst has up answering questions from readers about just how he shot a couple of stop-mo spots, in which he explains in detail, among other things, why he didn't shoot in RAW. If you're interested in shooting stop-mo yourself -- or even if, like me, your just a sucker for all things film-geeky, you'll want to delve into this post.

Remember that game "telephone" we used to play at Girl Scouts (yeah, I was a Girl Scout -- hah!) and summer camp? You'd sit in a big circle, the first person would whisper a message to the second person, and they would pass it on, and so on, and at the end everyone would get a big laugh over how the message had changed, and you were supposed to learn an Important Lesson about the power of communication or world peace or something. Whatever. Over at Burbanked, Alan has a much more fun idea: Blogophone! It's pretty simple: he starts with a movie-related post, then tosses it to the next person in the game, who creatively changes it and tosses it to the next person, etc. The first one got pretty amusing, so he's started a second round. He tossed it to Ray over at The Rec Show, but don't let that stop you from nosing in on the fun ...

Who's a critic? Who's a journalist? Do people really use multimedia content? How much does gossip matter? In this second edition of Cinematical's new podcast, The Rocchi Review, our bi-weekly look at the online film community, our guest is Movie City News editor and columnist David Poland. Poland's a veteran of online film journalism -- and the driving force being a terrific News site, a column and his own off-the cuff blog. David and I talk about all the topics above -- and much more. You can download the entire podcast right here -- and we hope you enjoy.

On Wednesday of this week, entertainment blogger David Poland threw up a rather perfunctory account of the Publicist's Guild luncheon: "I kinda like this particular high-school event. There is no pressure on me to report. I am comfortable knowing that this is a group that will never nominate me for their journalistic award." But pressure or no, he did report one item of interest, two days late. Yesterday afternoon, Poland tossed in an update on the lunch that he forgot to dole out originally: "George Lucas, giving the award to Sid Ganis, who was the in-house publicist on Star Wars: Episode Five - The Empire Strikes Back, said, 'Sid is the reason why The Empire Strikes Back is always written about as the best of the films, when it actually was the worst one.'"

Wow. Is there anyone besides Lucas who actually believes this? I think that even if you have a personal animosity against the Yoda character or you think the original film should have spun its sequels in a completely different direction, you have to accept that Empire has superior writing and plotting, not only in comparison to those damn prequels, but probably in comparison to New Hope and Jedi too.

As happens so often, David Poland says it best: "I have to say, after feeling like it was a very soft year in Toronto, looking through the book makes me hungry for another week of screenings from the festival." And that's the thing -- I'm stressing with an inner voice that looks and sounds like Don Knotts gulping how my Toronto reviews are late, late, late -- and in many cases, these are for movies that won't be opening up in the world for months. Why is it that living in the future -- in the small way that film festivals let you -- isn't seen as a gift, but as a crisis? Natural pessimist, I guess. Or just feeling old.

I got a great, dumb piece of promo this week -- not the Thank You For Smoking smoking baby doll or the Nightmare on Elm Street 'stay awake' kit, nice as they are. I mean, I get this stuff rarely, and I can't imagine what I'd do if I got more -- there must be a dumpster out back of Entertainment Weekly like the Vatican of some t-shirt and frisbee cargo cult -- but a lot of the time, it's stupid: A cat carrier and stuffed ferret for a lame rom-com? (See, I didn't even mention it! Take that, backers of Along Came Polly ... oops.) But this week, I get ... a belt. Whose big-ass buckle is the stylized 'X' of the X-Men films, to promote the upcoming DVD release of X-Men: The Last Stand. (I guess graphic design is one thing even Brett Ratner can't screw up.) It has the mutant power to hold up my pants. I'm wearing it right freaking now. I may be old, but I was 14 once, too, you know.

J.

Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeff Wells opened up a politely-worded can of whup-ass the other day all over MCN's David Poland for what he called Poland's slamming of the Al Gore-global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, as a film "no one really wants to see" (note: I tried to find the actual piece where Poland wrote this and couldn't, so perhaps Poland said this in a private conversation). At any rate, as Mark noted the other day, Gore has been everywhere promoting his film, which he calls the "ultimate action flick", but Poland's not the only one questioning whether people really care enough about the issue of global warming to shell out their cash to see the flick, much less make major lifestyle changes as a result.

The Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson wrote a piece the other day on the filmmakers' tireless promotion of the doc, which will be showing at Cannes in spite of having already opened at other fests, and how Paramount Classics is taking a risk opening a documentary about global warming against X-3 on Memorial Day weekend.