(ed. note: This post was accidentally published at 1AM, instead of 1PM, so we're re-publishing it at the correct time.)

I've been thinking about the largely negative response to Wong Kar-wai's My Blueberry Nights (6 screens), a film I quite liked. As of today it's at 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, though it opens wider this weekend (including here in the Bay Area) and more reviews are surely coming in. Most critics I've spoken with around here likewise didn't think much of it. What are the reasons for all this disappointment? The main reason has to do with its weight. It's a lightweight movie, a trifle, flimsy, vapid, thin, etc. Wong is considered one of the world's greatest filmmakers, a maker of "weighty" works of art, and so this "lighter" film is beneath him. It's a letdown, a step backward.

Well, I say that's nonsense. Many great filmmakers dallied in lightweight, lesser trifles during their careers, and it didn't make them any less great. Martin Scorsese has made lots of them. After Hours (1985) and The Color of Money (1986) may not pack the punch of Raging Bull, but they are quite enjoyable, and pure Scorsese. (His current Shine a Light, 277 screens, feels like a trifle.) Fritz Lang came to the United States from a position of great power and unlimited resources in Germany and found himself assigned cheap crime pictures. Yet few critics today would complain about the "lightness" of The Big Heat or Scarlet Street. Max Ophuls also made crime films in Hollywood (Caught and The Reckless Moment), and his reputation remains intact. Some consider John Ford the greatest American director of all time, and even though his goofball Donovan's Reef (1963) isn't counted among his classics, I love it just as much. It has moments of great beauty that reflect its maker's personality. My Blueberry Nights may not stand up to In the Mood for Love, but it's unquestionably a Wong Kar-wai film.

"I don't know how to begin, because the story's been told before," croons Nora Jones on the soundtrack during the opening of My Blueberry Nights, and it seems a similar problem afflicts Hong Kong auteur Wong Kar Wai, who makes his English language debut with this gorgeous if slight saga about aimless Elizabeth's (Jones) search for herself via a cross-country journey. It's not so much that Wong doesn't know how to commence this specific tale but, instead, that he doesn't know how to start anew, as his latest proves a minor stateside revisitation (or, perhaps more accurately, a rehash) of his favorite thematic and aesthetic preoccupations.

Despite being shot by Darius Khondji and not the director's longtime collaborator Christopher Doyle, the film offers up a handy compendium of his favorite visual signatures - the smeary slow-motion, the hyper-vibrant, sharp-and-soft color palette, framing and tracking shots that dreamily highlight the distance between individuals - while his narrative continues a career-long obsession with the intricacies of romance and the imperative role of memory (regarding both love and loss). It's as light, fluffy and attractive as the blueberry pies that Manhattan café owner Jeremy (Jude Law) serves Elizabeth late at night, but ultimately, also, far less satisfying.

After the shock of Heath Ledger's death, there were questions about his latest project, Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. Then came rumors last month from AICN that Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell would ALL step in to replace the actor. Well, the site was right! Reuters reports that the filmmaker has confirmed the involvement of all three actors.

According to a statement from producers: "Since the format of the story allows for the preservation of his entire performance, at no point will Heath's work be modified or altered through the use of digital technology." They follow with: "Each of the parts played by Johnny, Colin, and Jude is representative of the many aspects of the character that Heath was playing."

For once, it seems like Gilliam's notorious bad luck will pay off into something special. In the words of the man himself: "I am delighted that Heath's brilliant performance can be shared with the world. We are looking forward to finishing the movie and, through the film, with a modicum of humility, being able to touch people's hearts and souls as Heath was able to do."

Empire has the exclusive first look at the new poster for Wong Kar Wai's My Blueberry Nights. While the first poster release chose to put Rachel Weisz front and center, the latest one-sheet lets you know right from the get-go that this film is an ensemble in every sense of the word. The story centers on a young woman (played by Norah Jones in her acting debut) who wastes away hours in a local cafe run by a romantically philosophical type named Jeremy (played by Jude Law). The story then follows our broken hearted gal as she rambles about the country, coming into contact with an alcoholic cop and his wife (David Strathairn and Rachel Weisz) and a gambling con-artist as played by Natalie Portman.

My Blueberry Nights marks Wong Kar Wai's first attempt at an English language film, and will also be one of the few films he has shot without the services of his usual cinematographer, Christopher Doyle. Instead, the famed director hired Darius Khondji, who has worked with Woody Allen (Anything Else) and David Fincher (Panic Room). The film premiered in Cannes back in May, and while reviews were mixed (mainly directed at Jones' acting abilities), the overall impression was that the film marked some new territory for the director -- you can read James' review here. Wong Kar Wai is a master at conveying love and longing for another person. So, even though there have been some changes in his usual methods, you know you are still in some pretty capable hands. Plus, if you consider the cast and the skill of people involved in the production, it would be a shock if it didn't all somehow work. My Blueberry Nights is set to open for a limited release on February 13th, 2008.

Keeping things fresh, Liev Schreiber has signed on for another role. He's already working on Defiance, which has him playing one of three Jewish brothers who escape Nazi-occupied Poland and join the Russian resistance. To balance these cinematic good deeds, he's also getting into the body parts business. Variety has reported that the actor has signed on for Repossession Mambo. No, this isn't Repo! The Genetic Opera, but rather the non-musical version that stars Jude Law and Forest Whitaker.

Schreiber will play Law's boss at the futuristic, artificial organ credit union where Law works. That is, until he gets an organ, can't pay, and goes on the lam with his ex-wife (Alice Braga), who also owes money. The back story -- it is twenty years into the future, and Law and Whitaker have fought in a war in Africa, and have returned as "disturbed veterans." They settle down in Toronto, working as repossession agents until the money/implant kerfuffle happens. So, I imagine Whitaker as co-star has to hunt Law down when he doesn't pay. Now, it seems to me that it would be cheaper to just insert some sort of tracking system into these guys, so that running away won't do any good. It'd be cheaper than an army of repossession agents. Anyway, Liev's a good addition, but we're still going to have to wait and see if this turns out to be successful, or just another Jude stinker. Before we dig into people's insides, however, you can see Schreiber in Love in a Time of Cholera.

Dang, there sure are a lot of hitman characters in the movies. And what's the difference between a hitman and an assassin, anyway? Does Jason Bourne count, or is he no longer a hitman/assassin by the time his cinematic story begins? Are Pulp Fiction's Vincent and Jules really hitmen or are they technically bagmen? Yeah, it's a difficult task to make a list of prominent hitmen in film. So, I'll let someone else make a "25 Greatest Hitmen" list; here, I present my seven favorites.

Feel free to mention your own preferences. With so many characters, whether easily falling within definition or not, I'm certainly leaving out a lot of good ones. But, as I said, these are my favorites. The cool, the funny, the interesting, they're the ones I enjoy watching over and over again, despite their lethal nature.


Martin Q. Blank in Grosse Pointe Blank (1997, George Armitage)

There is no better hitman than John Cusack's Martin Blank. He's good at his job, and he's funny, and he's willing to give it all up for love. Of course, he's bored enough by the occupation that he'd probably give it up for any good reason. It doesn't seem to matter to him that it's morally wrong; he's just another normal guy, dissatisfied with his job. And while it does seem to be a gag that's stretched thin, his issues do make him more entertaining than the usual silent-yet-conflicted hitmen. Plus, it's enjoyable to think that this is what really happened to Lloyd Dobbler, or Lane Meyer, or any other Cusack character from the '80s.

Signature line: "I was hired to kill you, but I'm not going to do it. It's either because I'm in love with your daughter or because I have a new found respect for life."

While they might be all sorts of succulent and tasty, poultry gets the crappy end of the slang stick. The chicken is the coward, and instead of a platter signifying all things delectable, turkeys are considered the foolish and often useless. To top that off -- when turkeys hit the celebrity realm, well, they're usually also box office bombs. In honor of our never-ending love of celebrity gossip, train-wrecks, and disaster stories, I present you with seven tasty turkeys in honor of our upcoming turkey day. Many are just a gross waste of potential, and some, I'm sure you'll agree, don't even have half the potential that studios give them credit for. Whatever the reason, they're all riding the stinker train.

Gobble, gobble!


Paris Hilton

She's mocked by many, loved by few, but Paris Hilton seems to be able to outlast even the little train that could. Prison didn't stop her, and neither do crappy movies. Working backwards: Pledge This! was so very bad that it's pretty much off the radar; the same goes for Bottoms Up; House of Wax did alright, but doesn't hold the moviegoer love; and, which Hillz? Yet somehow, somewhere, she got cast in Repo! The Genetic Opera!, which let her loose on the streets of Toronto to gripe over sex tape woes. We keep waiting for her to fall, or go away, but I'm starting to think that this super-skinny turkey is here to stay. She's like one of those inflatable boxing stand-ups that somehow swings its way upright each and every time.

Have you seen Black Book yet? It's on DVD now, and with Ryan and I raving about it and especially its star, Carice Van Houten, all year, I hope you got the hint. It's really worth seeing. And once you do check it out, you'll understand why we are so smitten by Van Houten. And you'll understand why Hollywood can't get enough of her these days, casting her opposite many of the most prestigious actors, such as Tom Cruise, who she's linked up with in Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, and Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, both of whom she's appearing with in Ridley Scott's Body of Lies. Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, the Dutch actress is confirmed to play opposite Jude Law in Repossession Mambo. She will play wifie to Law in the film, which is a sci-fi thriller about a guy who can't afford his most recently installed artificial organ. Directed by Miguel Sapochnik, a former storyboard artist who worked on Trainspotting, the film is said to also star Alice Braga, who actually plays Law's love-interest in the form of an ex-wife he reunites and goes on the lam with.

So then is Van Houten just a minor character who is left behind? That's what it sounds like, and if you look at most of these American roles she's getting they're either labeled simply as wife or love-interest. Considering all that she got to do in Black Book, it seems Hollywood could be missing the boat on why she's worth casting. If Van Houten does end up wasted or underused in these roles, it wouldn't be the first time a young European actress came into flavor and was then miscast. I'm thinking mostly of Audrey Tautou being put in The Da Vinci Code, of course. I have to admit that after falling in love with her in Amelie, I gradually grew out of my crush by watching the rest of her available films, none of which featured her in quite the same way. For Van Houten, I've already gone and looked at one of her earlier films, and was similarly disappointed -- though it could have been the fact the movie, Minoes (aka Undercover Kitty), is only available here in a terribly dubbed version. All I can hope is that I won't ever see her in a worse movie than that, but with Hollywood's track record of late, such hopes are really difficult to hold on to.

Is there a statute of limitations for 'spoiling' a movie? Is there anyone of passing cultural literacy who does not already know that the great man's dying words spoke of his fondest childhood memory, that the astronaut was on Earth all along, that the low-grade crook was making the whole story up off the bulletin board? And is there a certain point where you can't help but spoil a movie if you're going to talk about it honestly? And what if the movie under consideration is a remake?

Kenneth Branagh's new film of Sleuth brings all of those questions to mind. Based on Anthony Shaffer's play, previously filmed in 1972, Sleuth starts simple and stays small: The older Andrew Wyke is visited by the younger Milo Tindle. The older man has position, power, privilege; the younger man has none of those things -- but he is sleeping with the older man's wife. The younger man has come to ask the older man to grant his wife a divorce -- and, maybe, see what the old fool's made of. The older man is not willing to grant the divorce -- but, he might as well see what this young bastard's like. In the original 1972 version of Sleuth, Laurence Olivier was the older man, and Michael Caine the younger; now, Caine plays the cuckolded husband and Jude Law the bright young adulterer.

There was once this remake called Alfie. It was like any other remake -- some liked it, some didn't and some stayed very far away. One would think that Jude Law doing another remake of a Michael Caine movie would be a bit much. Nevertheless, we're getting a remake of the 70's movie Sleuth, which pitted Caine against Laurence Olivier. Who could they ever get to fill the latter's shoes? Caine, of course. It's pure remake brilliance -- Law takes on Milo Tindle, Caine's original character, and he takes on Andrew Wyke, Olivier's character. Last September, Erik Davis first posted about the film, when we had news about the UK shoot. After that came the first image and now we've got a trailer to see what Harold Pinter and Kenneth Branagh have done with the new remake.

The trailer is up over at Moviefone, and it's looking pretty modern and entertaining. Instead of a hairdresser, Tindle is an actor who is having an affair with Wyke's wife. The pair strike an agreement that the young man can have the gal, if he follows Wyke's instructions and steals some jewels. Of course, that isn't the whole story and the old man isn't a total pushover. Law and Caine look like they're having good, chemistry-filled cinema fun together, and while I can do without all the fancy computer effects in the trailer, it looks like it has a good balance of dark humor and mysterious happenings. If you're still not sure about the whole thing, since the Internet is such a lovely and diverse place -- you can check out the original trailer over at YouTube and compare the two! It's definitely no longer a 70's murder mystery, but I think it has promise.