HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
They're 5 and 0 on that count, too. However, the following week "The Polar Express" will present a serious challenge. Apparently Bird's old company isn't scared off by "Incredibles'" release date. They're going to have to split the pot. $184mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Will take on "Shrek 2," which drops on DVD the same day, for Best Animated Flick.

------------------------------

BIRTH
(They changed the release date on this at the last minute, so it's already out, but play along.)

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Remember last month when Laura Linney fell for a guy who looked like her dead high school sweetheart? Well, this month Nicole Kidman falls for a little boy who looks like the reincarnation of her dead husband. Next month, Maura Tierney will fall for a goldfish who looks like this guy she saw on a subway once.

WILL IT SUCK?
All right. Let's just put this right out there. Nicole Kidman does something shocking in this film. Just about every preview is talking about it. She does, in fact, wear a short haircut throughout the entire film. Oh, and she full-mouth kisses a little boy. But the hair is something we're all just going to have to accept.

That having been said, the creep-out factor may be mitigated by the wealth of writing/directing talent they've thrown at this one. The director of "Sexy Beast" and writers from "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and "Monster's Ball." Regardless, reviews are pretty bad. Must be the hair.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I'd say this is a clever case of counter-programming, but even folks who'd be up for watching Nicole make out with little Timmy are gonna be more interested in "The Incredibles." That's the power of Pixar; their films appeal to every-frickin'-body. You just don't open anything against them. You wait until next weekend when "Seed of Chucky" comes out. Nicole Kidman kissing a kid won't seem nearly as sketchy next to Jennifer Tilly getting impregnated by a doll. $6mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
It's Nicole Kidman. I think they're required to by law.

------------------------------

ALFIE
(Held over from October to prevent this month from being Jude-less.)

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Jude Law (THREE! No, FOUR! Oh, fuck, now my count is off!) reprises the role Michael Caine made famous in…Wait. What do you mean you've never heard of "Alfie"? It was nominated for five Academy Awards people! Yeah, I never saw it, either.

WILL IT SUCK?
By rep, "Alfie" is a movie with a whole lotta fuckin'. It's about a guy who sleeps around and damn the consequences (which in the original include not one, but two pregnancies, one of which ends in an abortion). It centers on a pitiful, self-loathing, dark character for whom we feel sympathy, but not the warm, cuddly kind.

So why is the writer/director of the "Father of the Bride" remake up in here?

Maybe it's because he also did a remake of "The Parent Trap." Maybe that's why the trailer comes off looking like "Alfie McBeal."

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I think a lot of people would like to see "Alfie McBeal," or at least Jude Law fucking a lot. If Paramount had released it when they were going to originally, this might have benefited from that. As it is, it'll have to settle for couples who couldn't get into "The Incredibles." $26mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Jude might have a shot here, but I think one of his other, less sit-commy performances will get more attention. Maybe "Closer."

------------------------------

11/12

THE POLAR EXPRESS

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Santa Claus. No Martians. Lots of animation.

WILL IT SUCK?
The good news is Robert Zemeckis is directing. He's an ace with new technology films (e.g. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"). Here, motion capture CGI lends credibility (or creepiness, depending on your tastes) to the digital versions of Tom Hanks and the other actors. The bad news is Robert Zemeckis is also writing, and one of his last scripts was "Bordello of Blood," which was great, but not in a "good film" kind of way. He's co-writing with William Broyles, Jr. who penned Zemeckis' "Cast Away" and also "Apollo 13" (does this guy like Hanks or vice-versa?), so that should even it out a bit.

Speaking of Hanks, his collaborations with Zemeckis are pretty solid. But the most important thing to remember about this film, besides the fact that it's the last performance of the late, great Michael Jeter, is that it finally reunites Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari, whom you might know better as "Bosom Buddies." I can only hope they'll dress in drag and say "who is it?" in that high pitched falsetto before the movie ends.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I have to admit, it's pretty damn ballsy to open this one week after "The Incredibles." However, there's a reason they're not opening it the following week. (It rhymes with "GrungeMob PearDance"). This'll do well, however, pretty much any time you release it, so Castle Rock (c/o Warner Bros.) shouldn't be concerned.

Based on an award-winning children's book (from the guy who wrote "Jumanji") and hence already bringing a following, the film also has the history of Zemeckis/Hanks blockbusters behind it. The pair has yet to make a film that grosses less than $200mil. Of course, they've only made two together ("Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away"), but still. $262mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
And the nominees for Best Animated Feature are, "Shrek 2," "The Incredibles," "The Polar Express,"and "Some Japanese Film, maybe Ghost in the Shell 2." And the winner is…

------------------------------

SEED OF CHUCKY

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
In a meta-twist worthy of the "Scream" trilogy, Chucky and his new belle Tiffany (voiced by Jennifer Tilly) are resurrected by their son and somehow end up stalking the real Jennifer Tilly, who, of course, is shooting a Chucky-like film. John Waters does some stuff, too.

WILL IT SUCK?
Don Mancini, who wrote all of the Chucky films, finally gets to direct one, so if you liked the other Chucky films (yes, I see two or three of you in the back) you'll be getting the writer's full vision here. And his full vision includes Chucky running Britney Spears off the road. So it can't be all bad.

It's no coincidence Waters has a bit part as "Sleazy Reporter" as this is the only film this year that promises to be raunchier than his own "A Dirty Shame." If you don't believe me, check out the trailer. Or just look closely at the teaser poster. The eye has sperm in it. The iris is kind of an egg. Cute, no?

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This is pretty unchallenged for the horror audience this month. Although I'm thinking of this more as "American Pie" than "American Werewolf in London." In any case, there's surprisingly little crossover between this and "Polar Express," so this should claim a decent niche. $32mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No, but there should be some sort of Best Achievement in Post-Modernism Award.

------------------------------

AFTER THE SUNSET

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
"The Thomas Caribbean Affair"

WILL IT SUCK?
The only reason I'm at all curious about this film is Don Cheadle. He plays the crime boss who tries to sucker retired thief Pierce Brosnan into another big score. I'm not interested in seeing Pierce play another posh thief pursued by another fed (this time it's Woody Harrelson) who doesn't think he's retired. Director Brett Ratner will, I'm sure, do as competent a job with this as he did with the "Rush Hour" films, but this feels more like a good way to spend a Saturday afternoon on cable than in the multiplex.

One of the screenwriters, incidentally, used to write for "Weakest Link," so look out for lots of great trivia. Or perhaps dominatrixes.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Arguably, this is nicely placed. Whoever doesn't go see "Polar Express" or "Seed of Chucky" just might be in the mood for this. And the following week, "National Treasure" looks to fill the "dumb" action movie slot whereas this will probably angle for the "smart" action movie slot. Still, I don't think this will generate enough buzz for anyone to really give a damn. $15mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Don deserves so many back-Oscar noms, I don't even know where to begin. But nothing for this.

------------------------------

FINDING NEVERLAND

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp) meets a tragedy-stricken family and then writes "Peter Pan."

WILL IT SUCK?
Extremely positive buzz from critics and audiences alike. Depp is supposedly superb, and the look and feel of the film should be really cool, with fantasy sequences entering the mind of the playwright. Probably doesn't hurt to have Dustin Hoffman in a supporting role and "Monster's Ball" director Marc Forster at the helm, given his skill with portraying troubled family lives.

And the scene where Depp goes undercover to bust that teen chop shop is supposed to be awesome. (Sorry. "21 Jump Street" just came out on DVD.)

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This has all the hallmarks of an indie crossover hit. It's got a major star in a "prestige" flick with strong word of mouth. Look for it to platform but then quickly expand to a theater near you. $48mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Count on it. We could see director, screenplay, even film, and maybe another shot at Best Actor for Depp.

------------------------------

KINSEY

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Liam Neeson plays the historic sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. Who better to confess your dirty little secrets to than Qui-Gon with an even goofier haircut?

WILL IT SUCK?
This comes from "Gods & Monsters" writer/director Bill Condon. Left to his own devices (that is, when he's not directing something he didn't write, like "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh") he tends to do good work. Having Liam, Laura Linney, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Curry, Dylan Baker, Timothy Hutton, Oliver Platt, John Lithgow, and Gore Vidal (!?!) on board probably doesn't hurt. Early buzz is very strong, but more on that in a minute.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
A lot better if it weren't opening against "Finding Neverland," one of the few indies with stronger buzz this month. Still, the advertising push for "Kinsey" has been more prolific. But "Neverland" will draw a more family friendly crowd, especially after the controversy gets some press. What controversy? Well, the real Kinsey was accused of all sorts of things, not the least of which was aiding and abetting pedophiles. The jury's still out on a lot of these allegations, even after fifty years, but the upshot for the film will be free press on top of Fox Searchlight's strong ability to market. $14mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
This could be looking at some acting noms, especially for Linney and perhaps for some supporting players like Sarsgaard. We'll see how the controversy plays out. Polanski got an Oscar and there was much less ambiguity about his guilt. Condon has already won a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar ("Gods and Monsters") and got a nom for "Chicago" so another adaptation nom isn't out of the question. Don't think a directing nod is in the making, though.

------------------------------

11/19

NATIONAL TREASURE

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
A while back, Dave Barry did a parody of "The Da Vinci Code" in which a secret map was encoded on the back of The US Constitution. That would be too far fetched for a non-parody, so here it's The Declaration of Independence.

WILL IT SUCK?
Guess how many writers it took to concoct this. More. Stop when you get to nine. One more and they get a free entrée. Now among those writers are some of the creative minds behind "Shrek," "Aladdin," and "Pirates of the Carribean," as well as Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, who wrote some of the funnier films of the eighties and nineties, including "City Slickers" and "Gung Ho" (admit it, it was funny).

But these were merely the doctors and first-drafters. The final screenwriting credit goes to Marianne and Cormac Wibberley, the husband/wife writing team who brought us "I Spy," "The Sixth Day," and, their most highly rated film on the IMDB, "Bad Boys II."

The closest the director, John Turtletaub, has come to helming an actioner is "3 Ninjas." (His most highly rated film on the IMDB is, btw, "While You Were Sleeping.")

But hey, it has Nicholas Cage!

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This weekend is going to be a free-for-all, with three key demographics - kids, young males, and women - all being given specific outlets. So really it's just a matter of how many of each actually go to the movies. This will do pretty well with males. Especially if they're drunk. $150mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No, but I'll give it the "Really?" award for Most Unbelievable Premise.

------------------------------

BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Bridget sees the other side of the happily-ever-after ending she thought she had in the original. It involves, naturally, a Thai prison.

WILL IT SUCK?
Hard to believe that a film with four screenwriters would be the film with the least credited scribes opening wide this week. At least they've brought back the original writers (including novelist Helen Fielding), though they added the guy who wrote "Wimbledon" for some reason. They got a new director who's most famous work (to Yanks anyway) is "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar," so that's a big "huh"?

Renee Zellweger, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, and Jim Broadbent are all back. They've also added that chick from "Real World: London," if you keep up with that sort of thing. I couldn't make it through "Real World: Philadelphia," and I freakin' live there.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Should handily pick up the female audience and hold onto it (losing a few to fans of the other Colin in "Alexander" the following week). $72mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Unless your movie has the words "God" and "Father" in the title, getting an acting nom for a sequel is a long shot, especially for the same role twice.

------------------------------

BAD EDUCATION

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
There's actually a lot of nuance and subplot going on here, but the only thing anyone is going to remember is that a priest sexually abuses a boy.

WILL IT SUCK?
The two names to keep in mind here are Almodovar and Bernal. Pedro Almodovar is a virtually can't-miss director, and this is considered one of his best. Early buzz is extremely strong from critics and audiences alike, and it's already picked up two European Film Awards (that's what they're actually called) for Best Director and Best Actor.

Which brings us to Gael Garcia Bernal, who's quickly becoming THE Mexican actor of the decade. Since 2000, he's managed to be there for most of the watershed moments in Latin American film, including "Amores Perros," "Y Tu Mama Tambien," "El Crimen de Padre Amaro," and "The Motorcycle Diaries." Leads in all. A guy worth keeping your eye on and, by most accounts, this is a good place to do it.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
If it weren't for "Kinsey" and "Finding Neverland" from the previous week, this would pretty much run the indie table. However, this is a very limited release to get the Oscar word out followed by a larger release in December, which is when the real bucks should roll in. Almodovar has been doing much better on this front since his films started to garner BAFTA/Oscar attention. "All About My Mother" made nearly 8 times as much as "Live Flesh," before "Talk to Her" made even more. $10mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Count on it. Probably a nod for Bernal, almost definitely one for Almodovar. Just don't expect any actual awards this time.

------------------------------

11/26

ALEXANDER

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Colin Farrell looks a lot like Treat Williams if you give him long blonde hair. That's not what the movie's about, but that's all I remember from the trailer.

WILL IT SUCK?
Well, how do you feel about Oliver Stone? Was "Platoon" too preachy? "JFK" too loose with history? "Nixon" too damn long? "U-Turn" too…well, "U-Turn" just sucked. At heart, I'm a Stone fan. At the very least his work is interesting, and most of the time it's fascinating with terrific performances. So the direction doesn't concern me here.

The writing on the other hand… Stone took some story credit but the screen credit goes to a guy who did "K-19" (not bad, maybe even underrated) and a woman who used to write for "Birds of Prey" (Oh, dear God!) That's not the worst part. The worst part is that's somehow qualified her for the "Wonder Woman" script.

I have confidence in the acting ability of everyone involved and I'm sure it'll look sumptuous but the end result will likely be an incoherent mess.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Not as well as you might expect. I think the second frame of "National Treasure" is gonna pose a greater threat than anticipated. Sword and sandal epics are not sure money, as "Troy" proved earlier this year (with bigger stars). The best friend this flick has is the Thanksgiving weekend, but that's more of a family affair and this is an "R" (a hard "R" if Stone shoots par). I'm not saying it's gonna tank or anything, but this is not "Gladiator." $101mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Epic battles? Check. One lone man, preferably in a loincloth (or kilt) leading a great army? Check. Takes place long, long ago in a galaxy on the other side of the Atlantic (a galaxy populated by - or at least portrayed by - mostly white folk)? Check. Sounds Gladiatorheartariffic to me! Noms for Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay and lots of technical shit.

------------------------------

CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
The Kranks, known for their holiday cheer, decide to skip all that when they learn that their daughter will not be home for the holidays. At the last minute, they find out she will be around and so they try to put on a last minute celebration. From legal thriller novelist John Grisham. I'm not kidding.

WILL IT SUCK?
I hate Revolution Studios sooooooo much! And this is being helmed by their fearless leader, Joe Roth. It's written by "Home Alone" helmer Chris Columbus. {Interesting aside: Guess who's writing the film version of "Rent." That's right. Chris Columbus. The guy who wrote "The Goonies." Now, I give out mad love for "The Goonies," but I don't want the leads in "Rent" singing about how "It's our time. Down here."} Anyway, he's doing the adaptation here of the best-selling John Grisham novel "Skipping Christmas." To put it delicately, John Grisham novels don't always make the best movies. He has about as much luck with adaptation as Michael Crichton.

But put that aside for a minute. Even put aside the trailer that can only be described as…is "sucknificent" a word? And even grant that Columbus might pull another "Gremlins" (or better yet, "Gremlins 2") out of his hat. And that Joe Roth can incorporate the few parts of "America's Sweethearts" (which he also helmed) that didn't suck. Even assume that the presence of Felicity Huffman and celebrated character actor M. Emmet Walsh will somehow elevate the material instead of them being dragged down into some "I really needed the money" abyss of mediocrity. Assume all of that. At the end of the day, it's still a Revolution studios film and they can make anything suck.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
As much as I hate to admit it, the pundits, who say this film has everything going for it, are mostly right. It does have Tim Allen in a key demographic-pleasing genre for him (think "The Santa Clause") and Jamie Lee Curtis who's synonymous with family-friendly comedy now ("Freaky Friday") and a trailer that, much as it traumatized me, made the family behind me guffaw like it was early Eddie Murphy. And most importantly it has the Thanksgiving "Grinch" slot that's a money tree for family fare. I can see the Variety headline now. "Kranks Konquer Alexander" $145mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
That's my one consolation.

------------------------------

NOTRE MUSIQUE

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
Concept movie from Jean-Luc Godard (go figure). Part one takes place in Hell (i.e. a bunch of war footage), part two in Purgatory (Sarajevo), and three in Paradise (a beach guarded by marines). Each part is a different musical movement as well.

WILL IT SUCK?
Much better received by critics than audiences. Supposedly an interesting mediation on war and cinema. I already like it more than "Christmas with the Kranks."

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The foreign film event this weekend will be "A Very Long Engagement." And the following week, "House of Flying Daggers." $500,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
If France or Switzerland, who both lay claim to this film, had submitted it, probably. But they didn't.

------------------------------

PURPLE BUTTERFLY

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
You know how sometimes you run into an ex and you find out that they now work for the government organization that you've sworn on your life to destroy? Awk-waaard!

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz not so good. This in spite of a Palme D'Or nod at Cannes, which is why Palm Pictures (no relation) probably decided to pick it up. That, and it stars Zhang Ziyi.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The big Zhang Ziyi event will happen next week, when "House of Flying Daggers" opens. $70,000.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
"Daggers" steals that crown, too. It was China's selection for submission to the Academy.

------------------------------

A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT

WHAT'S THE PITCH?
A woman ("Amelie's" Audrey Tatou) goes off in search of her fiancé, a captured World War I deserter left to die in no man's land (the quaint name given to that space between trenches).

WILL IT SUCK?
Probably not. Jean Pierre Jeunet, besides having about the Frenchest name in director history, is also one of the best. "Amelie" represents some of the most imaginative filmmaking I've seen in a while. The rest of his work has a similar rep. And remember, he didn't write "Alien: Resurrection." He did, however, write this flick with long-time collaborator Guillaume Laurant, another plus. The early buzz is very, very good. And he's working again with Audrey Tatou who in "Amelie" and "Dirty Pretty Things" alone has shown almost peerless range and talent.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The subject matter is a bit darker than "Amelie" (okay, a LOT darker) so there won't be quite as big an audience. However, it's not nearly as dark as "Bad Education" and may have an audience that can compete with the slightly different demographic for "Daggers" the following week. This has a pretty good shot if Warner Independent gives it a big enough push, which they probably will (see below). $16mil.

WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
That's the plan. Due to some weird changes in Oscar rules, this film is ineligible for submission for Best Foreign. Warner had the chance to release it in such a way as to accommodate those new rules, but has decided, apparently, to push for a Best Picture nod instead. It's not inconceivable. And it'd be really neat to see a doc and a foreign film taking up two of the five slots. And with a year looking as Academically anemic as this one, it's possible (though still unlikely). Also, I'd love to see Tatou get the nod she was woefully denied for "Amelie". Jeunet as well.

Next month, all the real hard-core Oscar contenders come out to play. None of which look nearly as interesting as "Ocean's Twelve" or "Blade: Trinity." Did I mention the Oscar race sucks this year? Dave Thomas
http://travelindave.blogspot.com