Is The Guardian upset that a Canadian is directing a film about Queen Victoria? I don't know, but I find it strange that Jean-Marc Vallée is not mentioned anywhere in Guardian Unlimited's new piece on The Young Victoria, the biopic of the 19th century Monarch being co-produced by Martin Scorsese (he's not British either, but he is named in the article). Anyway, I'm sure he was simply forgotten by accident, but it is important to realize how significant Victoria is to the Canadians (ever hear of Victoria Day?). The piece mostly spotlights screenwriter Julian Fellowes and titular star Emily Blunt. It also lists a cast member we haven't yet heard about: Miranda Richardson, who joins Blunt, Mark Strong and Rupert Friend, who we just recently learned is playing Prince Albert. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Richardson will be playing Victoria's mother, Princess Victoria.

From Fellowes we learn about the focus of the film, which begins shooting next month. And from the description, I'm imagining the mostly brilliant Marie Antoinette with less hair and more tea. Actually, The Young Victoria will begin with the future Queen's repressed childhood, as she is forbidden to do anything or spend time with anyone out of her mother's fears that Victoria might die before taking the crown. Once Victoria does become Queen, though, she kind of breaks loose. Certainly not Marie Antoinette loose, but definitely more free spirited than we typically think of Victoria to have been. Taking place from 1836 to 1840, the film likely climaxes with her marriage to her first cousin, Prince Albert. The article stresses that this wedding was not simply an arranged affair -- so expect plenty of romantic scenes. Just don't get carried away too much by the romance; I wouldn't want you to think about committing incest, too.

Anyone who reads Cinematical regularly knows that Oscar and I went through an amicable divorce a long while back. The Academy hasn't picked the best film of the year as the Oscar winner in at least ten years, in my opinion, nor are they above handing the big prize to a film that's not only unworthy, but legitimately bad. Crash? A Beautiful Mind? I'm not going to throw Chicago into that category, but it certainly didn't even deserve to be on the top ten list of any respectable critic, let alone walk away with the Best Picture statuette. Chalk up another major blunder this year. No matter which film walks away with Oscar -- whether it's Babel, The Departed, The Queen, Letters From Iwo Jima, or Little Miss Sunshine -- a really splendid work of art, Marie Antoinette, will go unrewarded. Normally, this is the part of the piece where I would launch into how all the critics were wrong and I was right, but the odd thing about the oversight of Marie is that the major critics seemingly agree with me.

Released back in October, before the calculated late-December releases begin muscling their way into the voters' memories, Marie was greeted by an ebullient four-star review by Roger Ebert. The Los Angeles Times' Carina Chocano seconded, calling the film "startlingly original," which it is. The Times A.O. Scott remarked -- "What to do for pleasure? Go see this movie, for starters." The Washington Post, Salon.com, The Hollywood Reporter, The Philadelphia Enquirer, Entertainment Weekly, and smaller outlets like Slant.com all heaped praise on the film, and declared it to be among the best of the year. Add in the pedigree of the director -- an important young filmmaker and prior Oscar winner, Sofia Coppola -- and it seems like the film would have been swept along by the tide until finally walking away the big winner tonight. Instead, the film will have only one opportunity to win an Oscar, in the throwaway category of Best Achievement in Costume Design. Yes, the costume work is good, but let's not kid ourselves -- it's a booby prize for a serious film, if it's won at all.

I stood where James Dean stood before he got "stuck" in Rebel Without a Cause. I know that it's been many years since his feet were there but just the idea is still exciting. I also turned into a huge geek after seeing Casino Royale at the famous Grumman's Chinese Theatre when I stuck my hands in Sid Caesar's. That's the fun part of living in Los Angeles; nearly everywhere has been used as a location for a film. It makes the city potent with history and lore and I simply love it. But more and more filming is done outside of California (Vancouver may be the new Hollywood) and this past year outside the United States.

This year filming in Europe and Africa was bountiful. Marie Antoinette and The Da Vinci Code were two that rolled camera in France and Catch a Fire and Blood Diamond are two out of many that were filmed in Africa. The Hollywood Reporter attributes it to filmmakers' rising interest in creating more complex films about the difficulties existing in our world (globalization for one) as well as tax incentives that are stealing filming from California.

It also is incredibly fun for everyone involved in the production to travel to new places. I wouldn't mind going to France, Africa or Vancouver -- especially if it were to make a film. But I wonder if all this traveling to the real Champs Élysées is making the sound stages at the Universal Studios back lots really dusty. ...

Do you prefer fact to fiction or fiction to fact? I think it's inevitable after watching any film based on real life individuals or happenings that you may find yourself fact checking choices made by the filmmakers. Did Johnny Cash really ask June Carter to marry him on stage like in Walk the Line? Yes, he did. But what if he didn't? Would you be annoyed or angry by the writer, director, and actor's choice to make the story more whimsical?

Variety did a little fact checking of their own on this year's films with notable historical references. The article rated films such as Catch a Fire, Pursuit of Happyness and The Last King of Scotland according to their historical relevance and gave a little synopsis of the filmmaker's "spin" on the story.

Almost all the films had a high rating according to factual validity although none scored a perfect ten. Why all the twisting of the truth to make an already good story better? Well first of all, most stories do not come with that tried and true "Hollywood Ending" that viewers love so much. A story, no matter how difficult it is throughout (Hotel Rwanda anybody?) ultimately needs to have an awe-inspiring ending -- leaving the audience member uplifted and with a sense of hope.

So which movies ranked the highest and the lowest? World Trade Center received a nine on the fact meter. The story is about two NYPD officers who survived after their extraordinary heroism following the attacks on 9/11. Writer Andrea Berloff had the upper hand though as she had direct accounts from the real life survivors; whereas Sofia Coppola couldn't have a word with Marie Antoinette. If she had a dialogue with the late queen she may have found out that Manolo Blahniks were not yet available at street markets and New Order wouldn't be arriving on the scene for a couple hundred more years -- but that doesn't mean the film is any less fun.

I say, write it well, direct it well, perform it well and then maybe I won't even care if it's fact or fiction.

On October 20 of this year, Roger Ebert published a glowing, four-star review of Sofia Coppola's third film, Marie Antoinette. It was matched by unvarnished praise from The Times' A.O. Scott -- "What to do for pleasure? Go see this movie, for starters" -- and The Los Angeles Times' Carina Chocano, who declared it "startlingly original." The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday went further, attacking the film's critics for having "missed the point." Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, The Hollywood Reporter, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Rolling Stone and others raved. My own review on Cinematical was one of the only times this year that I actually lavished praise on a film, and rightfully so. Now, both main critics for Slant Magazine have stepped up, each declaring the film to be among the best of the year. So, the question asks itself -- what gives? Why is the film absent from nearly every recently released end-of-year list from the gilded halls of cinematic officialdom?

Obviously there were some substantive critics who simply disagreed with those I noted above, but a quick look at Rotten Tomatoes also reveals a lot of shin-kicks from websites I've never heard of and lazy quotes from other non-opinion makers like Richard Roeper, who dully declares the film to be "dreadfully dull." Did they poison the well? If you are a critic or a serious film fan who disliked the film, please humor me by summarizing one or two points in the comments section below. Do you really think a film like Marie Antoinette should be shut out while dreck like Bobby receives the highest praise from the Golden Globes? Also, if Marie supporters want to turn this post into an ad hoc petition, feel free.

I've been steeped in year-end "for your consideration" screeners and press screenings, dozens of high-profile movies, each hoping for some kind of Oscar buzz. I can't really talk about most of them yet, given that they haven't opened and also that they're not in my 400 screen realm, but I can tell you that my "worst" list is expanding faster than my "best" list.

I wanted to focus, instead, on those movies, now playing on 400 screens or less, that aren't getting any awards consideration.

Christopher Nolan's The Prestige (321 screens) had the misfortune to open a few months from a vaguely similar film about stage magicians, The Illusionist (173 films). Both films have their supporters and detractors, but both have fared well. The Prestige currently rates 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.com, while The Illusionist rates only two points higher. The Prestige has earned $51 million on a $40 million budget, while The Illusionist has earned less, but with a wider margin of profit: $40 million on a $16.5 million budget.

Perhaps host David Cross said it best when talking about the ever-present indie vs. studio issue currently shining a negative light on the Gotham Awards (a 16 year-old event that's supposed to honor low-budget indie flicks, yet somehow managed to include films with budgets close to $100 million): "We're here to celebrate the films that show you don't need a big studio, films with an untested director and cast -- films like The Departed. How that got greenlit I have no idea."

Of course, he's referencing the Martin Scorsese pic, which was one of five films nominated (Half Nelson, Little Children, Marie Antoinette and Old Joy being the other four) in the Best Feature category, despite it's $90 million budget. However, with its minuscule $1 million budget, Half Nelson came out victorious, taking home the award for Best Feature, while Ryan Fleck picked up the prize for Breakthrough Director and newbie Shareeka Epps won for Breakthrough Actor (an award she shared with Babel's Rinko Kikuchi). Babel also came out on top in the Best Ensemble Cast category, Iraq in Fragments won for Best Documentary and, last but certainly not least, Choking Man claimed the prize for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You -- a category that specializes in honoring films that currently do not have theatrical distribution. For those of you interested in watching the ceremony (which took place last night), you can catch it on NYC TV next Wednesday, as well as on iFilm beginning this Monday.

So, what do you think -- do films like The Departed, Marie Antoinette ($40 million budget) and Babel ($25 million budget) belong at an event that's supposed to be geared toward indie flicks? Then again, the definition of "indie" was thrown out the window a long time ago, and is now used as more of a marketing tool than anything else.

Independent film has become a growing force in mainstream cinema. There used to be a large chasm between indies and mainstream, where only the most lucky could jump the divide into financial success. Now, it's a lot more common. Indie cinema has gained mainstream cred, to the point where they're not a stepping-stone for no-name talent, but a vehicle for well-known actors to re-invigorate their careers. It is, therefore, not surprising that big business has begun to find its way into the indie world, and as the divide lessens, some are not happy with it.

The IFP is an organization created in 1979 that exists to promote American, independent film production. They're also the group that brings us the Gotham Awards. At its inception, the awards were for independent productions with "a little local flavor." But that was sixteen years ago. Today, it's more like the Oscars with an amalgam of cheap, independent features and large, pricey productions. The mission statement seems to be lost, as former IFP member Tim Hope rues: "I don't know what the Gotham Awards mean anymore."

When the awards are held tonight, the little guys will be up against big competition. Low budget dramas like Half Nelson are set to compete against the $40 million Marie Antoinette and $90 million The Departed for best picture. Michelle Byrd, executive director of IFP, is said to want no limits on what can qualify, which is strange coming from someone who heads an organization created to help independent film. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see who comes out on top tonight. While everyone is wondering if big budget will beat out small budget, I'm anxious to see who will take the ensemble category, which has the likes of For Your Consideration and A Prairie Home Companion competing against the very Gotham and very naked Shortbus.

Welcome to yet another edition of Cinematical's podcast, Coming Distractions. As ever, I'm your host, Cinematical editor-in-chief James Rocchi, and this week's guest co-host is Lisa Rosman of Flavorpill. Lisa and I talk about a whole lot of everything this week -- from Marie Antoinette to Halo, The Departed to The Road to Guantanamo -- as well as longing for the old-school B-movie, watching movies during wartime and much more. Also, this edition comes with free stuff -- be one of the first five people to mail james.rocchi AT cinematical.com with the answer to our trivia question, and you'll win a Cinematical t-shirt. All you have to do is answer this question: Name the director Lisa Rosman mistakenly thinks directed King of New York. That's all you have to know; the answer's within the podcast -- and you'll get one of our lovely orange Cinematical T-shirts. You can download the whole podcast right here, and, as ever, let us know what you'd like more of -- or anything you think we should be talking about!

(Music: "Overdose," Dumb.)

After opening up at the Cannes Film Festival this past May (where James felt Kirsten Dunst's wigs were "far better-developed than her character") to a slew of boos from the French crowd, Marie Antoinette (writer-director Sofia Coppola's follow-up to the critically acclaimed Lost in Translation) finally hit the streets of the Big Apple on Friday as part of the New York Film Festival. Would Coppola, Dunst and the gang find more success here in the States? Well, Netscape's Karina Longworth loved the film so much after two viewings, she's even thinking about checking it out for a third time. And she's not alone. According to The IFC Blog, "There's no way around it -- [the film] just looks so good," while Aaron from Out of Focus felt Antoinette "will be unfortunately and unfairly criticized as being not much more than anachronistic eye candy."

Karina attended the screening this past Friday and managed to record the press conference that followed where Coppola, Dunst and Schwartzman had a chance to defend their film. Marie Antoinette hits theaters October 20. Enjoy!