This weekend sees the release of Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss, about a soldier who returns from a grueling tour of duty in Iraq only to learn that he's being sent back for another one. The movie's not bad: very passionate, very angry, a bit didactic, and liberal to the core. (See our own Eric D. Snider's SXSW review here.) The "liberal" part is no surprise, at least not if you've been listening to the conservative pundits who have torn into Hollywood for what they see as anti-war propaganda masquerading as entertainment. Those same pundits like to gloat about Iraq War movies' perceived financial failure, holding up their box-office receipts as proof that the American people either aren't interested or aren't on the same page.

But have the Iraq War movies we've seen in the past couple of years actually performed all that poorly? And even if they have, does that have anything to do with public distaste for liberal Hollywood or its "propaganda"? Take a look at some numbers and share your thoughts after the jump.

No, it won't be a movie based on the duet between Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton. It will be a movie version of the Ernest Hemingway novel, posthumously published in 1970, about an American painter who lives the quiet life in the Bahamas and ends up getting entangled in some naval activities-adventures at the tail end of World War II. The book has already been filmed once, in 1977, with George C. Scott in the pivotal role but that version wasn't well-received. Tommy Lee Jones tells The Telegraph in a new interview that this project is likely to be his directing follow-up to 2005's very well-received The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. Jones says of the project "In the 1970s it was made into a bad movie. I reckon there's a good movie in that book and that's the one I want to make." The actor-director is currently at work on a script for the film, but offered no other details about how far along in the process he is.

The interview also contains some other interesting tidbits, such as Jones' assertion that his character in In the Valley of Elah is intensely dislikeable. "I was really interested in the more disgusting aspects of the man," Jones says. "Old Hank is the kind of character that I, personally, would dismiss. He's certainly ethnocentric and blindly, unquestioningly patriotic. I looked upon him as typical of the sort of person who can be led by the nose by jingoistic headlines into a fraudulent war." He also gets into the subject of No Country for Old Men and how he approaches acting and working with directors -- all in all it's a pretty interesting read.

Want to know a dirty little secret?

Contrary to what you've heard recently, critics hate writing bad reviews.

No, they're not fun to write; they're exhausting. No, they're not less work than a good review; they're more difficult. And when you love movies -- which you better, as a critic -- you don't sit down in the dark before a film and think, "Boy, I hope the next two hours of my life will be wasted." But every movie is not, in fact, good -- and these were the high marks among the low points in 2007, from one critic's highly subjective perspective.

1. The Heartbreak Kid

Racist, sexist, misogynist -- and, even worse, not funny. The Farrelly Brothers proved their "King Midas in reverse" touch by turning a classic piece of comedy gold into a lump of trash. The only possible bright side comes in the fact that the Farrelly's status as box-office kings has now been tarnished, hopefully hastening their slide to straight-to-video film making.

The best movie year since 1999, 2007 offered a staggering bounty of cinematic delights. I keep track of all the movies I see in a given year and give each a letter grade, "A" through "F". Usually my Top Ten list consists of all of the "A's" and a few "B's." This year, "A" pictures made up my top twenty. With so many great films, I won't wallow through a "Worst of the Year" list, I'll simply present you with a few that didn't fully satisfy:

The Biggest Disappointment: The Darjeeling Limited -- A Louis Vuitton commercial stretched to feature length. The Darjeeling Limited is a perfect title for the film because it makes plain what a limited filmmaker the once great Wes Anderson has become. Hey Wes, people running in slow-motion while a Kinks song plays is always going to look pretty neat. But if there's absolutely nothing else going on in the scene, then that's all it is -- people running in slow-motion while a Kinks song plays. We all think it's really cool that you like The Kinks. Hell, I love those guys! The Rolling Stones are awesome, too! But I wouldn't ask them to do my job for me.

and...

The Biggest Question Mark: There Will Be Blood

Undoubtedly one of the year's most impressive technical achievements, There Will Be Blood is frequently stunning. It's so stunning, in fact, that it's easy to overlook how infuriatingly empty it all is. The film focuses on two main characters, and neither one changes a lick in thirty years and 158 minutes. How did Paul Thomas Anderson, creator of such deeply emotional rides as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch Drunk Love come up with a movie completely devoid of human emotion? (I'm not counting greed.) Beautiful, brilliant, and boring in equal doses, I've seen Blood twice, and I still don't know if it's a masterpiece or a mess. I just know I felt...nothing watching it. It's as hollow, as frustrating, as difficult to know as its "hero," Daniel Plainview.

On to my list. First, ten that didn't quite make the cut. Here's #20 through #11: (#20) Breach, (#19) Once, (#18) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, (#17) Sicko, (#16) Sweeney Todd, (#15) The Lives of Others, (#14) Eastern Promises, (#13) Zodiac, (#12) Atonement, (#11) Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

And my Top Ten is after the jump...

Screenwriter and director Paul Haggis gives a pretty good interview over at the Guardian, parting with some amusing anecdotes, like the fact that David Cronenberg is apparently "quite upset" with him over using Crash as the title of his 2004 film, despite Cronenberg already having a film with that title. He also talks a bit about In the Valley of Elah, and defends its box office, saying that it did well in the Midwestern markets, where people go to see a movie because "I like Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron, she's pretty." Gee, who would have ever thought Paul Haggis had a condescending attitude toward red-staters? Haggis also gives his views on the writer's strike and talks a bit about Million Dollar Baby, but the most interesting thing for me to note is that he's still not ready to part with the title for Bond 22, apparently because he doesn't have one.

According to the interviewer -- don't you wish the Guardian would just print Q&As instead of doing everything in profile, by the way? -- Haggis confirmed that the project is "still known only as Bond 22" and that his "contribution is unlikely to include advice on the title. He admits to never knowing what to call his scripts and when writing Crash, only used it as a working title." Although Haggis is known to have been not-quite-finished with the Bond 22 script when the strike happened, the producers were apparently satisfied enough that they decided to push forward anyway. I guess we'll find out how wise that decision was soon enough. In the meantime, what do you think the title of the next Bond picture should be? Take what you know of Casino Royale and Ian Fleming-sounding titles, and add in what you know so far about the next one -- it will be partially set in South America, it will have another Eurotrash villain, and will have Daniel Craig again.

Sometimes when I can't sleep I run through lists of my "desert island movies," or the ten movies I would most prefer to have with me on a desert island (provided there was also a DVD player, flatscreen TV and electricity). It's an interesting game, because you get deeply into questions of what is good versus what is enjoyable. For example, Joel and Ethan Coen's new No Country for Old Men may be their best film, but it's not as much fun as Fargo or The Big Lebowski. The other night, I started playing another game: desert island movie star. If you could take the entire filmography of a single movie star to a desert island, whose would it be? (For the purposes of this column, I'm sticking to my usual realm: actors appearing in movies currently playing on 400 screens or less. Otherwise we could continue to play on into the length of a book.)

British actors are always a good choice, because they generally have a kind of old-fashioned work ethic; they're more interested in being a good worker than in crafting a certain type of career, so you've got more to choose from. Take Michael Caine, currently in Sleuth (7 screens). He's a double Oscar winner, but he's made a ton of movies worth looking at a second time, notably The Prestige, Batman Begins, Children of Men, The Man Who Would Be King, Hannah and Her Sisters, Get Carter and Dressed to Kill. On the downside, you'd also be stuck with stagnant award-winners like The Cider House Rules, as well as turkeys like Jaws: The Revenge and On Deadly Ground and Bewitched. But at least you'd have more than 100 to choose from.

I'm thankful for a lot of things this year, my son being first and foremost, but I wouldn't get too far down the list without coming to movies and food, and then food in movies. Showing characters eating or relating to food in some way can be a quick and easy way to capture a magical moment. You can reveal something about a character, you can take a break from an otherwise hectic narrative, or you can simply bask in the sheer, physical beauty of food, the same way another movie might show characters dancing. The following is my second annual "thankful" list of food scenes in current movies playing on 400 screens or less.

I'm thankful for the use of the term "savory snacks" in Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited (285 screens). When Jack (Jason Schwartzman) returns from having made love with the Indian stewardess (Amara Karan) in the train's bathroom, his brothers ask: "where's our savory snacks"? I'm thankful for the adorable Sarah Silverman and the way she sighed her way through the line "I want someone to eat cheese with" in I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (3 screens). And I'm thankful for Scarlett Johansson eating potato chips in bed in The Nanny Diaries (26 screens) -- her only way of dealing with the end of a horrible, horrible day.

With the writer's strike in full swing, I thought I'd pay tribute to a few of the writers who currently have films in theaters. Quite frankly, you really have to admire some of them. Take Allison Burnett, who adapted Feast of Love (2 screens) as well as this year's earlier Resurrecting the Champ. Burnett received very little love for either movie, but consider how hard it must have been to cut down a novel and expand a newspaper article at the same time? It makes my head spin. It's also quite impressive that Burnett was able to work again after his earlier script was turned into the universally panned film Autumn in New York (2000). But the thing that impressed me most of all about Burnett is his first produced script, Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight (1992), a vehicle for "Z" level action star Don 'The Dragon' Wilson. This is from a guy who studied playwriting and has published a novel. I can only imagine what it must be like to sit down and actually write something like that. Do you tape the paycheck on the wall next to your desk and keep staring at it? Good for Burnett that he made it out of that hole.

Then there's The Simpsons Movie (96 screens), which has at least eleven credited writers, and possibly more who added material without credit. Among them we have David Mirkin, who directed one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures, Heartbreakers (2001), and James L. Brooks, who won an armload of Oscars for Terms of Endearment (1983). Most of the others are from TV, and I'd like to think they wrote this movie the way they might have written a half-hour episode: by sitting around a big table and throwing out ideas and laughing a lot. Those writer rooms are usually decorated with stuffed animals and novelty items, as well as plates of donuts and other snacks -- perhaps some kind of air freshener as well. It makes me all warm just thinking about it.

The Middle East International Film Festival has wrapped, and the winners of the first-ever winners of the fest's Black Pearl awards have been announced. The closing night of the fest included a screening of In the Valley of Elah; Paul Haggis was on-hand on the red carpet, along with a slew of other talent from Bollywood and the Middle East.

Director/actor Nadine Labaki of Caramel walked away with the Variety Middle East Filmmaker of the Year award,; while the UAE Filmmakers of the Year went to Fadel Al Muheiry and Hani Al Shibani.

Side note: Variety's Mike Jones, who's there covering the fest, has an interesting piece up about prayers in Abu Dhabi, and some pics of the Variety MEIFF party.

The complete list of MEIFF's Black Pearl winners can be found after the jump ...

For years, critics have defined films in terms of their directors, but every so often someone comes out with a book or an article in defense of screenwriters. And a recent book argues for a brand new auteur theory putting screenwriters in the spotlight. Considered one of the world's greatest screenwriters, Jean-Claude Carrière's name appears on one current film, Goya's Ghosts (13 screens). It's one of over 100 produced screenplays he has written, and what's more, he has never had to turn director to protect the integrity of his work (he has one directorial credit, shared, for a 1986 film L'Unique that didn't exactly make or break his career). This is a guy who will never have to worry about his name in the history books. But let's take a closer look.

For one thing, Goya's Ghosts is messy and uneven. Then there's the fact that most of Carrière's films never find United States distribution. On top of that, the vast majority of his work is adaptations of novels. Finally, I think it's safe to say that his reputation rests on the fact that he generally works with acclaimed directors. To go one more, it's probably fair to say that the majority of his entire reputation rests on the six films he wrote with Luis Buñuel from 1967 to 1977. This is not to say that Carrière is a bad writer: on the contrary. Some of his films since Buñuel have been very good, notably Philip Kaufman's The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) and Jonathan Glazer's misunderstood Birth (2004). I'm using this case to point out the trickiness of ranking and cataloging screenwriters and their films. Certainly they deserve much more credit and respect than they get. But where do we start?

I've been thinking about Paul Haggis' new movie In the Valley of Elah (9 screens). It's not a good movie, with its awkward mix of mystery and soapbox and its blatant attempt to snag a few Oscars. Poor Charlize Theron is stuck in the same kind of role that netted her an Oscar (Monster) and another nomination (North Country), wearing boxy clothes and no makeup and working in an all-male workplace, teased by her heartless co-workers. But Tommy Lee Jones' performance struck me as something special. Like Theron, he is also repeating a previous performance. But while Theron's role is all about its external factors, its layers of significance, Jones' performance has sprung organically from his personality.

For The Fugitive (1993), Jones won an Oscar for playing the relentless, meticulous pursuer, chasing Harrison Ford throughout the picture, and -- by some accounts -- stealing the film from its star. Jones made the role unique by dropping the typical "obsession," a word that is overused in Hollywood today, and concentrating on emotionless process and routine. It's a stripped-down performance; he saves his energy for his clipped, barked line deliveries. But at the same time, Jones' sad, droopy eyes revealed just a hint of his character's origins. He repeated the role, literally, in U.S. Marshals (1998), and again, figuratively, in Double Jeopardy (1999) and The Hunted (2003), as well as a comic version in Men in Black (1997).

Judging from the weekend box office estimates reported by Variety, David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises was the greatest beneficiary of positive buzz generated by the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Earning $36,851 per screen, the film known alternately as "the Russian mobster movie" or "the one where Viggo Mortensen fights naked," Cronenberg's latest soared to the top of the specialty charts. You can catch up by reading the review by Cinematical's Ryan Stewart and listening to James Rocchi's interview with the director. As I noted yesterday, Eastern Promises won the People's Choice Award at TIFF.

Julie Taymor's Across the Universe, driven by the music of The Beatles, drew some of the harshest reviews of any gala presentation at TIFF, though some, like Roger Ebert and Anne Thompson of Variety, vigorously defended it. Audiences flocked to see it, to the tune of an estimated $29,783 per screen. Trailing behind in third place, another TIFF gala presentation, Paul Haggis' war-themed drama In the Valley of Elah, still averaged a strong $16,666 per location. James Rocchi was not very enthusiastic, though: "You can tell everyone involved wanted to make an important statement. What they would end up making was a fairly indifferent movie."

Two other films that screened at TIFF also opened this weekend, though neither generated much buzz coming out of the festival. Mike Cahill's comedy King of California, with Michael Douglas and Even Rachel Wood, played at five locations and averaged $7,411 at five locations. While that's not terrific, it's far better than Francois Girard's period film Silk, with Keira Knightley, which tanked, earning just $1,058 per screen at 122 locales.

One of the 78th Oscars clip montages was devoted to films about big social and cultural issues, and when the clips were done and the cheering muted, host Jon Stewart gave a resigned smile to the camera and delivered a cruel, cutting, it's-funny-because-it's-true joke about Hollywood high-mindedness: " ... And none of those issues were ever a problem again." And that moment came to mind watching In the Valley of Elah. You get a sense of what everyone involved, especially writer-director Paul Haggis, was trying to do -- to make a gripping, engaging drama about Iraq and America -- but as the movie stretches and grasps and strains with sweaty-palmed desperation and clumsiness, you can feel those aspirations slip out of reach. You can tell everyone involved wanted to make an important statement. What they would end up making was a fairly indifferent movie. But hey, if an expatriate Canadian Scientologist who used to write for The Facts of Life can't bring the boys home, who can?

And I may, perhaps, be a little over-the top in the above dismissal, but that might just be because In the Valley of Elah is one of a ever-growing class of movies -- released in the last quarter of the year, festooned with talent, and ostensibly about something -- that desperately want to be seen as 'political' and 'important' modern moviemaking. My initial revulsion at the clumsy coincidences and cardboard characters and cheap tricks in Haggis's previous directorial effort, Crash, gave way to a sort of grudging admiration for the fact that, all things considered, Haggis was trying to talk about race and class. The willingness to look at those topics -- so present in life, so absent on the mainstream big screen -- made Crash seem better than it actually was. And while heaping honors on Crash may not rank on the all-time list of Oscar's worst Best Picture Picks (Forrest Gump, Million Dollar Baby, Around the World in 80 Days, et al.), it's not exactly in the honor roll of Oscar's finest moments.

But we've already given Haggis rewards for his lazy storytelling, his cheap sentimentality, his glib and clumsy narrative tricks -- so who could fault him for coming back to them again and again? In the Valley of Elah is very much in the mold of Million Dollar Baby -- where an older man uses his lifetime of experience to try and do the right thing even though doing the wrong thing would be a hell of a lot easier. It's also got Crash's delusions of moral grandeur. Yes, In the Valley of Elah is about great and mighty topics, but it's somehow both self-satisfied and self-righteous, both preachy and predictable.

What I like most about Paul Haggis is how he can bring together a bunch of actors -- some truly loved and others who you might question -- and make a really solid movie. Matt Dillon was swimming in a sea of questionable thrillers and goofy comedies before Crash, Sandra Bullock had her romcoms and c'mon -- Tony Danza? It almost seems like Haggis was chatting with someone, saying that he could pull the good out of anyone. I can only imagine that someone then said: "Okay, you've got Sandy down from Speed 2, but what about Jason Patric?" Well, if you had any doubts about him or the rest of the cast for Haggis' latest, In the Valley of Elah, I don't think you have to worry any longer.

MSN has put up the first trailer for the real-life-inspired drama, which is about an Army vet (Tommy Lee Jones) whose son disappears after returning from Iraq. It's a pretty somber, but intriguing trailer that starts off with his son's worried voice, some fuzzy images and then the dreaded call to Tommy -- his son is missing. All the big players are shown -- Jones, Sarandon, Theron, Patric, Brolin and Franco. As much as I love Josh Brolin in Grindhouse, it's nice to see him get some serious drama, and I can only hope he gets more juicy roles after this, and even better -- James Franco isn't channeling any Osborne whineyness. The trailer's got tanks, darkness, ominous shots, chases with pounding music and those typical pesky military cover-ups. Of course, it's also got some war commentary on Iraq, but that's to be expected considering the themes in Crash. Now, if you head over there to catch it, you might want to avoid reading MSN's description to the right. It's pretty revealing -- more-so than the information we've shared in the past, or the trailer itself.

Last night, I had the chance to chat up writer-director Paul Haggis while attending The Gen Art Film Festival launch party in SoHo (NYC, that is). Though I'm far from your typical sparkling socialite, every so often I do partake in the occasional indie-related party ... so long as there's an open bar. Which there was. And that made me happy. Since I've never been to a party in a shoe store before (mind you, this was a trendy SoHo shoe store), I must say it was interesting to wait on a 45-minute bathroom line while a group of wannabee models in skimpy cocktail dresses tried on shoes at a nearby table. "Oh, this pair is only $800? I'll take it!"

Anyway, Paul Haggis is a really cool dude -- for some reason, I never expected him to be that friendly. After we were introduced, I couldn't help but talk about some of his upcoming projects. Seeing as he did some work on the Casino Royale script, was he involved in Bond 22? And what's going on with In the Valley of Elah (his feature directorial follow-up to the Oscar-winning Crash)? As far as Bond 22 goes, Haggis told me with a peculiar smile that he was not involved in the film ... yet. Though it seemed to me as if he'd be interested in tackling another re-write should the situation present itself. Right now, he's currently editing Elah; he told me he's at that point where "you either forge ahead or slit your wrists." I'm sure every filmmaker out there knows exactly what he's talking about, and can feel his pain. On the horizon, Haggis said he's currently got 3 or 4 more projects he's working on, but wouldn't go into details about what those projects were. Perhaps I should've waited until he had a few more drinks in him (insert winking smiley face here).

The Gen Art Film Festival runs from April 11-17, and it's a great little pre-game before the monster that is Tribeca. For those of you in and around the NYC area, Gen Art's fest hosts one NY premiere each night followed by a swanky after party at some of New York's top hot spots. For more information on the festival, as well as what's playing, head on over to their website now.