I think we all know that Ratatouille will win the 2008 Oscar for Best Animated Feature. So, do we really need to waste time nominating others? Yesterday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences named 12 movies eligible for the award, a shortlist that will eventually be pared down to three finalists when the Oscar nominees are announced in January. Had there been at least 16 eligible animated films this year, the number of nominees would be five, but with only 12, the category will only see three contenders. What could they be? Certainly Ratatouille will be one of them, and it's my guess that Persepolis and Surf's Up (the Academy loves penguins) will be the ones to join the Disney/Pixar sure-thing. I'm on the fence about Beowulf, especially after reading Scott's praise this morning, but I think it has a good chance of eventually being disqualified from being nominated. There's some debate already about whether or not it is technically an animated film. Another movie I have doubts about is Alvin and the Chipmunks, which seems to be primarily live-action. Last year, Arthur and the Invisibles ended up out of the race due to its own matter of having too much live footage.

The full list of animated features: Ratatouille; Persepolis; Shrek the Third, which should be the first of its series to not get a nomination; The Simpsons Movie, which the Academy should deem too television for its award; Bee Movie, which would only get a nomination if the Academy needed Seinfeld to attend the ceremony -- and hopefully it doesn't; TMNT (aka Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles); Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters; Alvin and the Chipmunks; Beowulf; Meet the Robinsons; Surf's Up; and Tekkonkinkreet, a Japanese film by American director Michael Arias, which could be a dark horse if Persepolis wasn't the favorite for the necessary foreign animated selection. I'm not sure why Happily N'Ever After was excluded, but I guess it wouldn't have a chance anyway. What do you think should win, or at least make the nomination round?

Here are some of the words Harvey Weinstein is using to describe his critics: jealous; disgruntled; has-been. The first two, you may have assumed, refer to the many people criticizing the ability and financial stability of The Weinstein Co. The latter, though, is directed at an internationally respected filmmaker, Luc Besson. The comment was in response to Besson's claim that TWC mishandled the American release of his animated film Arthur and the Invisibles. Weinstein says he'll give the "has-been" $1 million if he can prove that Arthur actually cost $85 million, as Besson claims. So, once again, a film industry dispute turns into a messy blame game, battled with egos rather than brains (and here, I thought Weinstein actually believed Arthur failed because audiences are not used to films that feature both animation and live-action).

But Weinstein could never be personally apologetic for his company's failures. Then he wouldn't be Harvey Weinstein. And it has become a regular thing for him to tell reporters, such as Variety's Anne Thompson, how everyone else is wrong about The Weinstein Co. Despite the obvious, which has been easily noticed by all of us following the film business, Weinstein continues to claim that TWC is doing just fine. Sure, most criticisms are speculative, but mostly they are reasonably so. According to Thompson, rumors are floating around that the Weinstein brothers could lose TWC to its investors; either they will be forced to sell the company or merge with a studio. She also questions TWC's chance for independent success given that even Dreamworks was unable to survive on its own.

Still, Weinstein feels secure in the future of TWC, stating to Thompson that the only thing it's missing is a "glamorous theatrical hit." And he seems hopeful about this summer's release of SiCKO, as well as next year's slate of in-house productions like The Great Debaters, Crossing Over and The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. According to Weinstein, anyone who is doubtful about TWC making it is either a jealous competitor, probably some exec just trying to look cool, or a disgruntled former employee. Considering Weinstein has already surprised me once this year, with his almost personally apologetic reaction to the disappointment of Grindhouse ("We obviously didn't do it that well."; "We didn't educate the South or Midwest."; "We missed the boat." -italics mine), I will just have to be open-minded about the possibility of him turning TWC's reputation around.

Hey, remember last winter when you and your kids ran out to see Arthur and the Invisibles and nobody liked it? Oh wait, that wasn't you. You're American. Nobody in this country went to see it. And director Luc Besson is not only well aware of that fact, but he also places the blame squarely on the Weinstein boys. (The numbers don't lie: Arthur barely broke $15 million in North America, yet it pulled in over $90 million outside of North America.)

In a recent interview with Dan Epstein over at SuicideGirls.com, Mr. Besson had precisely this to say: "I've worked in the movie business for 30 years now and for each film I work 40 different distributors around the world. The American distributor on Arthur [The Weinstein Company] was the worst I have worked with in my entire life, in any country. I think this is the essence of all the problems. Why the critics didn't like Arthur was because they changed so much of the film and tried to pretend the film was American. The critics aren't stupid. They watched the film, they vaguely smell American but they can feel the film is forced for an American audience. The film is European. It's made by a Frenchman. This was the only country where the film was changed. The rest of the world has the same film as France."

Yowch. Besson got one thing right: The critics were pretty unkind. According to Rotten Tomatoes, only 17 out of 83 polled critics gave the flick a positive review. (That's a 20% approval rate.) I saw the American version -- and I thought it was a really sloppy mess for the most part. Guess I'll be renting that French version as soon as possible.

The teens were dying for something to sink their teeth into this weekend -- sick and tired of all the kids films and award contenders -- and so they rushed out to see Stomp the Yard, subsequently refusing Night at the Museum a fourth straight number one finish. You Got Served 2 (or, should I say, Stomp the Yard) took home a hefty $22 million, while Museum settled for second and $17.1 million. This is the third straight year (Glory Road in 2006 and Coach Carter in 2005) in which a black-themed film has opened number one on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend.

The Pursuit of Happyness ($9.1 million) remained in the hunt, finishing third, and the expansion of Dreamgirls ($8.1 million) to 1,907 theaters helped secure it fourth place. Freedom Writers and its $7.1 million rounded out the top five. It's my belief that marketing hurt the openings of both Alpha Dog ($6.1 million) and Primeval ($6 million). The former couldn't quite find a way to reach out to younger folks with its R rating, and the older crowd appeared to be interested in a little more substance with their drug-fueled entertainment. The latter, well, did not screen for critics -- which meant audiences had to go by those horrific TV spots that were in no way memorable enough to secure a load of ticket sales.

And, while France seems to be scarfing down Arthur and the Invisibles ($4.3 million), it's expansion to 2, 247 theaters still couldn't convince parents to skip another Night at the Museum.

Full numbers after the jump.

You think this weekend is light? Next Friday gives us only one new release: that remake of The Hitcher. But this weekend we get a festival-type indie, a giant croc fest and a foot-stompin' dance flick. Expanding from its platform release is Luc Besson's Arthur and the Invisibles, plus we also have a review of Verdict on Auschwitz, a documentary which opens today in NYC.

Alpha Dog (53 positive / 41 negative at RottenTomatoes.com)

Pro: "It's a piece of mainstream entertainment that doesn't require the viewer to disengage the brain to enjoy it." -- Jim Hemphill, Reel.com

Con: "For all of the credibility of the performances (or at least the teens), it all feels like recycled social commentary." -- Sean Axmaker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Pro: "Director Nick Cassavetes has a blast with scenes of testosterone-fueled aggression (until it's time to repent), working the subwoofer in a way that'll surely boost DVD sales among boys with bedroom posters of Tony Montana." -- Rob Nelson, Village Voice

Con: "You know you're in trouble when a guy from *NSYNC is the best thing in a movie." -- MaryAnn Johanson, Flick Filosopher

Bonus! "A film that's a tad too long, too drawn-out and too over-the-top." -- Erik Davis, Cinematical

Primeval (Did not screen for press; currently has only a few reviews at RT.com, all negative)

Pro: N/A

Con: "The camera is jolted around so much that it's almost impossible to tell what's going on. That's okay for a movie trailer, but it becomes unwatchable for a full-length feature." -- Kevin Carr, 7M Pictures

Pro: N/A

Con: "Those seeing this movie just for the crocodile might feel let down, and others might be surprised that the movie might have worked just as well or better without it." -- Edward Douglas, ComingSoon.net

Bonus! [Pending; I'm seeing the movie later tonight.]

Stomp the Yard (15 positive / 41 negative at RT.com)

Pro: "By no means great drama, but if you don't feel like cheering half a dozen times, check yourself for low blood pressure." -- Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Con: "Is it really so hard for filmmakers, and particularly screenwriters, to give us something new in the way of a story?" -- Claudia Puig, USA Today

Pro: "The dance sequences are so exciting, so captivating, so full of life, it's almost possible to forget you've seen this movie a hundred times before." -- Josh Rosenblatt, Austin Chronicle

Con: "A silly bit of teensploitation that presents a world in which there isn't a single problem imaginable that can't be solved by winning the big dance contest in the final reel." -- Peter Sobczynski, eFilmCritic.com

Bonus! "I don't think I would have liked Stomp the Yard half so much in an empty theater or on DVD; it's definitely a film to catch on a weekend night with a big crowd." -- Jette Kernion, Cinematical

The Review Roundup will be taking next Friday off, partially because it's Sundance season, but mainly because (like I said) The Hitcher is allllll we're getting next weekend.

Slogging out to the multiplexes to see 2006's overstuffed lineup of CGI-animated kids' films was a truly soul-deadening experience. These polished widgets -- Over the Hedge, The Ant Bully, Cars, Barnyard, Flushed Away -- dropped off the conveyor belt like so many shining pennies, exactly the same and worth about as much. Most of these films used the exact same template: An outsider hero with some kind of "loner" issues was accidentally thrust into a world peopled with colorful characters. After facing some kind of larger challenge, the hero learned how to be part of a family. These films didn't even bother to disguise their boredom; they could have been generated from the same computer program.

For the record (and to register a differing opinion from that of our own Kim Voynar) George Miller's Happy Feet is the year's only example of animated excellence; it's the only entry that demonstrates even the tiniest form of imagination, and it has practically become a phenomenon among audiences starved for such things.

While spending some time hawking his Arthur and the Invisibles at a left-coast press junket, French filmmaker Luc Besson dropped a few juicy hints about a sequel to District B13, the truly nifty action flick that earned a limited release from Magnolia Pictures this past June. Chock-full of what's known as "parkour" martial arts, District B13 is a short, slick and very fast-paced action movie that features some dazzling physical histrionics from co-leads Cyril Raffaelli and David Belle.

No firm word on when the second District will begin, but the frantic Frenchman (who co-wrote and co-produced the first flick), seems pretty confident that it'll be sooner than later: "B13 I want to do the sequel to, I love the two characters, and there's the room to do another one. I have the idea then I think we're going to make it."

According to ComingSoon.net, Besson (who recently semi-retired from directing) is also thinking about a third Transporter entry in addition to a vague project called Taken, which will star Liam Neeson.

And if you haven't seen District B13 yet, make sure to drop it in your queue. If you dig the action stuff, I bet you'll enjoy it.

Word has been spinning around about Luc Besson and his latest, and at one point reportedly last film, Arthur and the Invisibles (Minimoys) for a while now. It has that kid who seems to appear in everything, a whackload of famous names attached, and the spinning hubub over Besson's alleged retirement. While it was looking to be a really interesting animated offering, the response hasn't been too good so far -- Rotten Tomatoes has 2 out of 10 fresh tomatoes, and one of the fresh ones has rotten spots. Now, the film seems to be getting a deadly blow from The Academy Awards.

According to Cartoon Brew, Arthur is being officially disqualified from consideration for Best Animated Feature. The film, which is part live action and part animation, apparently has less animation than first anticipated -- under 75%. While this is a blow for Luc and the Weinsteins, it is also a blow for the possible nominees, unless the people behind the golden statues bend the rules. Before Arthur's removal, there were 16 eligible features, and 16 is the magic Oscar number, as Scott Weinberg told us in November. When there are at least 16 options, there are 5 nominee places. However, when the eligible number dips below 16, we only get 3.

The animation race was looking to be a great moment for the Oscars this year, with competition from the likes of Cars, Flushed Away, and even A Scanner Darkly. But what will come of it now? Personally, I think they should just keep Arthur in and let him get axed by the competition, thereby securing us the broader race we were hoping for. If current rumblings are true, Arthur has already shot himself in the foot anyway. ...

It's been a while since we've had some news on Arthur and the Minimoys, save a trailer. Wait, Invisibles. No, Minimoys. Is anyone else getting a Sorcerer-vs-Philosopher flashback? To recap, the film is based on Arthur and the Minimoys, a book written by Luc Besson himself. In the book, Arthur and his grandmother are facing eviction, suffering in the absence of his grandfather, who is missing. After discovering one of his grandfather's drawings of a red-haired princess, he travels to the land of Minimoys in an attempt to save his family.

A mixture of live-action and computer graphics, Martha Fischer previously reported on the interesting cast that contains the voices of pop music icons Madonna and David Bowie. Now it's time to add a whole mess of non-musical names to the list. There are the funny men, like Jason Bateman and Jimmy Fallon, but there are also a whole slew of actors known for their macho image. With the likes of Harvey Keitel, Chazz Palminteri and Robert De Niro also in the film, do the Minimoys have their own collection of mini-mobsters?

Now that Besson is retiring from filmmaking, this could very well be his last directorial effort in the feature film world. If you're trying to get in all the Besson you can before he commits himself to a life of civic work and youth groups, you can also catch the Luc-penned Taxi 4 next year, although the third sequel to a franchise hardly seems like the right send-off to the man who made Leon. Arthur and the Minimoys will enjoy a limited release on December 15, and grab a larger release in the new year.

We've all been there. You and your friends are racing to get to the theater on time when someone says, "What's the hurry? There's going to be twenty minutes of trailers anyway." You fix the offending party with an icy stare and weigh the pros and cons of kicking him or her in the shins. People who say such things are, in fact, NOT your friends. Trailers are part of the film-going experience, and acquaintances who don't get that should be shunned like a beta max copy of Roller Boogie with a permanent tracking glitch.

Trailers expose us to films and genres we might not otherwise seek out. They can show us new ideas, and that's what this installment of Trailer Park is all about: films that buck the trends and do things that, while not necessarily unique, are out of the ordinary...

• Arthur and the Invisibles
  With so many computer animated kids' films coming out these days, they've all started to look alike to me. Arthur and the Invisibles follows the road less traveled by mixing live action with computer animation and taking on a darker, more sinister look, while still being lighthearted enough for the kids. Ten-year-old Arthur is played by the very talented Freddie Highmore, whose performance in Finding Neverland left nary a dry eye in the theater, then scored himself some serious cool points by working for Tim Burton as the title character in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Arthur's home is about to be demolished unless he can pay off the bank with the legendary treasure of the Minimoys (actors deemed too small to play Vulcans tiny elf-like beings). There are lots of celebrity voices, including David Bowie as the head villain.