Oh look, a Clint Eastwood movie with an Oscar-friendly release date. That's new. Actually, it is relatively new, if you look over the man's directorial career. Sure, he's had a number of films come out in the fall time, but not with the same consistency we've seen since 2003, when Mystic River arrived in a few theaters on October 8 then went on to receive six Academy Award nominations the following winter.

Then in 2004, his Million Dollar Baby opened in limited release December 15 and went on to win four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Finally, in 2006, two of his films were released in the fall, Flags of Our Fathers in October and Letters from Iwo Jima in December. Both went on to receive Oscar recognition, the latter garnering major noms, such as Best Picture and Best Director.

First, let's recap: On May 21, Eugene posted about Spike Lee's continued criticism of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima for not including African Americans. Lee was asked why Eastwood did it as he did, and I have to say, I don't blame him for responding: "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine..." Today, we got word that Eastwood has responded, with the eloquent "A guy like him should shut his face." He then went on to talk about revisionism.

So, MTV went back to Lee, who is taking, and I quote: "the Obama high road." (New political slang alert! What's next?) He continued: "I've said my statement. I have no ill will towards Mr. Eastwood. What I said to him was not a personal attack, it was an observation. So that's really the end of it."

Think what you will of Lee, but this whole thing is a little ridiculous. If you head back to Erik's 2007 post about Miracle at St. Anna, Lee discussed how he'd met a black veteran who fought at Iwo Jima and was disappointed in Eastwood's portrayal, and how this inspired him to make the film and pay tribute to African American soldiers. Now he's getting crap thrown at him about revisionist history, and all of this is stemming from people asking him to talk about it, and him saying he couldn't answer for Eastwood. Lee might say some controversial things sometimes, but he was really backed into a corner this time around.

A little bit ago I posted regarding Spike Lee's comments at Cannes, accusing Clint Eastwood of tacit racism because no black actors appeared on screen in Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima. "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why," he told reporters. "There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

That post touched a nerve and elicited a barrage of comments from you folks, some of them nasty, but many interesting and thoughtful. So I figured I'd be remiss not to report Eastwood's recent response in a Guardian article to Lee's remarks.

At a Cannes press conference for his WWII drama The Miracle at St. Anna, controversy hog Spike Lee took some swipes at Hollywood darlings Clint Eastwood and the Coen Brothers. Talking about the way he treated death in his first war film, Lee said: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't... Look, I love the Coen brothers; we all studied at NYU. But they treat life like a joke. Ha ha ha. A joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that." And he targeted Eastwood for failing to put any black soldiers on screen in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima: "If you reporters had any balls you'd ask him why. There's no way I know why he did that -- that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It's not like he didn't know."

Whoulda thunk it? Movies can cause change -- it's a nice thought in all of our cynicism, and even better with all the movie schlock out there. As you all know, Clint Eastwood released two Oscar nomination-grabbing movies about Iwo Jima and World War II -- Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers. The former dealt with the Japanese perspective on the battle and the latter, the men who raised the flag, signaling the turning point in the war. It seems that these two films sparked a letter writing campaign to change the name of the island, headed by the former residents, who now live across Japan. Apparently, all those years ago, the island was named Iwo To. However, when the island was evacuated and Japanese officers came to fortify it against the US, they mixed up the name.

"Iwo To" and "Iwo Jima" looks the same when written, and both mean "Sulphur Island" yet, they sound different. (I don't quite get how they're different then, so chime in if you're knowledgeable in Japanese words and script.) So, this letter writing campaign was successful, and earlier this week, the Japanese Geographical Survey Institute officially changed the name back to Iwo To -- a small victory for the island's old residents. As Mitsugu Aizawa of the institute says: "These people are now scattered nationwide and are not able to go back to Iwo To. These people said that the place was originally called Iwo To and their claim left to this revision." (The island is currently inhabited by 400 Japanese soldiers.) Unfortunately, both films have already been released on DVD, so I think it'll be a while before the name change catches on.

Back when Clint Eastwood debuted his two Iwo Jima-set films (Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima), there was some controversy surrounding the fact that no African American soldiers were featured, even though plenty were there fighting alongside their fellow countrymen. It now appears this was part of the reason why Spike Lee has decided to direct his own World War II drama which, according to Variety, will be based on Walter McBride's novel Miracle at St. Anna. Lee, who announced the project while in Italy, informed a newspaper there that he had "met a black veteran who fought at Iwo Jima, and he told me how disappointed he was that there was not even one Afro-American (soldier) in Clint Eastwood's two films."

Thus, as part of a joint project with Italian producers Luigi Musini and Roberto Cicutto, Lee will bring the true story of the U.S. army's 92nd division of all-black soldiers to the big screen; a film that will certainly prove to be his most ambitious to date. McBride, who will also write the screenplay, details how in 1944 the division became trapped in a Tuscan village and were forced to not only deal with their idiotic racist commanders, but also a whole slew of Nazis out for blood. Currently, no actors have signed on to star, but Musini told Variety that the "big-budget project will feature a mostly American cast." No word yet on when the film will go into production; aside from this flick, Lee has a number of other gigs lined up -- including a sequel to Inside Man, a James Brown biopic and a film about the L.A. riots.

If you don't already have plans for Saturday, February 24, I have the best option for what to do -- provided you live near a participating AMC theater, that is. The cinema chain is offering an amazing deal to moviegoers on the eve of the Oscars: for the price of $30, you can see all five films nominated for best picture. Of course, you have to watch them in a row, from 11am to 11:30pm (or whatever time the 9:45 showing of Little Miss Sunshine lets out). In addition to the movies, though, you also get a large popcorn, a large drink -- with unlimited refills all day long -- and a "collectible pass."

Now, I can see if this is a little too much movie for most people to handle, but I can't express enough how good a deal it is. Plus, you could always leave before Sunshine (I would; I hate it), if you fear a numb butt (try to imagine 24 hours!). Considering I still need to see two of the nominees, it would be worth it for me to attend the whole marathon since at the participating megaplex in Manhattan two movies and concessions would run me about $30 anyway (unless I theater-hopped).

The New York Times went and spent 1,543 words on an article which attempted to uncover the real reason(s) behind Dreamgirls' snubbing in Oscar's best picture category, only to come up with a bunch of "yeah, maybe that's what happened" excuses. Perhaps not enough academy members caught a screening, or maybe Clint Eastwood's Letters of Iwo Jima sliding in there at the last minute, moving up its release date so that it would qualify, ultimately knocked Dreamgirls out of the running. Then you have my personal favorite: Could it be that no one actually liked it? In the end, though, do you really care?

Well, you probably don't, but a lot of people do -- hence the article and the fact that this topic won't be hittin' the road anytime soon. See, Dreamgirls was the front-runner early on -- all the big online pundits picked it as a shoe-in for best picture -- and Paramount went crazy promoting it, setting up $25 pre-screenings of the film as a way to initiate the big buzz. And early on, the buzz was there, yet it was competing against some very strong films. Yes, say all you want about the state of movies, 2006 was a good year. A very good year. Still, there's a reason why -- with all of its other nominations -- Dreamgirls did not walk away with a nod for best picture.

So, I ask you: What is that reason?

Hey all. Tommy here, pinch-hitting for regular box-office soothsayer Patricia, who is off battling near-sub-zero temperatures in Park City, Utah, to attend the Sundance Film Festival this week.

So here's what's happening this weekend at the box office. In the wake of the Golden Globes and in anticipation of this coming Tuesday's Academy Award nominations, a slew of Oscar contenders (most of which were released in 2006) are expanding to more theaters. These include Golden Globe Best Picture winner 'Babel,' the critically acclaimed 'The Queen,' the enthralling adult fairy tale 'Pan's Labyrinth,' Clint Eastwood's other World War II flick 'Letters From Iwo Jima,' the powerful indie 'The Last King of Scotland' and the Edward Norton period drama 'The Painted Veil.' Alas, despite their lofty aspirations and high caliber, these almost-sure-to-be-nominated flicks will get crushed -- and I mean crushed with AUTHORITY -- by this week's only new wide release 'The Hitcher.'

Despite its R-rating, 'The Hitcher' appeals to that primal desire in a large group of moviegoers to watch a beauitful scantily clad woman (in this case Sophia Bush) flee from an eerie-looking -- and clearly deranged -- dude (in this case Sean Bean) who likes to thumb rides in the rain and then end the lives of his car-pool "buddies." Prediction: 'The Hitcher' will be riding solo atop the box office come Sunday.

Prediction deadline: Saturday at noon

1. The Hitcher
2. Stomp the Yard
3. Night at the Museum
4. Dreamgirls
5. Pursuit of Happyness

POST: What's your weekend top five prediction?

POST: What do you think of these movies?

With only a week away from announcing the Oscar nominations, and with no apparent need to do so, the Academy has pared down its list of eligible foreign-language films from 61 to nine. This is the first time the Academy has shortlisted the category, but the decision to do so falls in line with a number of other changes pertaining to the category.

Those changes, which I told you about last summer, are a good thing for at least two of the nine films. Water and Black Book each would have been disqualified in previous years, but now their language issues are in full compliance with the rules. Of course, had they not made the cut, there might have been some happier countries in Asia or Australia, the two continents not represented (Antarctica may get some love from Happy Feet's animation nomination). It is too bad that Japan couldn't claim Golden Globe winner Letters From Iwo Jima and also too bad for Oz that Ten Canoes wasn't chosen.