NOTE: This post discusses Twilight, the movie, and the Twilight book series (particularly the latest book, Breaking Dawn), and is SPOILER HEAVY. If you've not read the books and don't want to read spoilers, do NOT read this post until you've read them. It's also longer than my usual column, as I had a lot of ground to cover, so if you hate reading long pieces, skip it. Thanks.

You're probably aware, even if you're not into books about vampires and clumsy, average teenage girls falling in love with one, that there's a popular book series called the Twilight Saga, and the first book in the series, Twilight, is being adapted for the big screen by director Catherine Hardwicke. What you may not be aware of is the little undercurrent of female writers decrying the series as inherently anti-feminist.

The Twilight series grew in popularity, mostly off the radar of the feminist set, until it got so popular that the feminists started to take notice -- and offense. I first became aware of this anti-feminist backlash when Meg Cabot, author of The Princess Diaries (among other girly books) responded on her blog to readers writing her to ask what she thought of the series, thusly: " I didn't take my husband's last NAME when we got married. Do you honestly think I'd like a story about a girl considering changing SPECIES for a guy? No offense to any of you, but as a feminist, I just can't go there... "

I found Cabot's take interesting because I'm a feminist myself, who also didn't take my husband's last name when we got married, but I don't happen to find the series inherently anti-feminist. Nonetheless, since the release of the fourth book in the series, Breaking Dawn, on August 2, the feminist mutterings have started to escalate to a dull roar.

Bill Lobdell, longtime writer and editor for the Tribune-owned LA Times and its subsidiaries, has an excellent, insightful piece up on his new blog titled "42 Things I Know," outlining why exactly he left his cushy corporate job and what's wrong over at the LA Times. Much of what Lobdell has to say is pretty much what those of us who work in new media have been saying for a long time now: that print media (in particular, the overfed layers of managers who spend most of their days having meetings about meetings so they can plan more meetings, thereby justifying their spendy salary-and-benefits packages) don't know what the hell they're doing when it comes to the real world in the age of the Internet.

The most telling of Lobdell's "42 Things" are the following:

Newspapers were unbelievably slow in embracing the Internet, even though younger reporters have been pleading with their bosses for years to embrace the Web.

Amazingly, it took until 2005 for top editors at The Times to realize the Internet not only wasn't going away but might lead to the demise of newspaper.

Prior to that, the Internet operation at The Times was used as a place to hide reporters and editors who had fallen out of favor.

Earlier today, Peter wrote up a piece on movie mogul Harvey Weinstein explaining how The Weinstein Company created their division Third Rail as a dumping ground for movies they feel have only "ancillary value." Harvey and his younger brother and business partner, Bob, have been under a bit of an attack since ditching Disney/Miramax for their own shingle back in 2005, with a lot of sharks swimming the waters surrounding them, just waiting for enough money to bleed through the Weinstein's fingers.

An article over at the Sunday Telegraph by Tom Teodorczuk goes into some fairly good detail about the troubles facing the beleagured brothers. You can read the full piece yourself to see his analysis; suffice it to say that the Weinsteins have yet to bring that old Miramax magic to their independent shingle, probably for a variety of reasons, not the least of which include the troubles facing the indie film world generally. As Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeff Wells, quoted in the piece, notes, "The Weinsteins have suffered from the same pressures affecting the indie film sector that everyone else faces. There is a glut of product owing to hedge fund firms now investing in films."

The Life Before Her Eyes, the latest film by Vadim Perelman (House of Sand and Fog), opened this weekend in limited release. In part as a response to the negative reviews by a number of critics, Perelman said recently in an interview that he's decided that it's better for audiences to know the ending going in (I did confirm with Perelman that he actually said this, because I was rather surprised that he would). And while I understand Perelman's desire to counter the critical response to the film in this way, I decided to take a look at what the negative reviews actually say.

First, I'm going to largely ignore the reviews (good and bad) that came out of the Toronto International Film Festival last year, because the cut of the film in theaters now is different. So let's look at what critics have to say about the current cut. Let's look at one titled (ever so objectively) "Hollywood and the War on Women", by Prairie Miller over on News Blaze. Miller starts her "review" of the film with a five-paragraph rant that tries to tie films about the Iraq war into a perceived "war against women" in Hollywood, going so far as to make the accusation that this war is fueled, in part, by male directors and producers whose coffers are being drained by alimony and child support payments. Uh, what?

I've been mulling over the whole issue of the Atlas Shrugged film adaptation, which, at the moment at least, seems to be churning ahead to start filming later this year, and I wanted to talk about something several commenters have mentioned: whether it would be better to film Atlas as a miniseries, as opposed to a two-hour-or-longer movie. Of course, attempts have been made to bring Ayn Rand's most famous book to the screen before, and they've never made it past the script stage.

Why? Well, first of all, there are a lot of politics around this book. The Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Peikoff have been notoriously protective of it for years, and trying to make a film that's going to please both the hardcore Objectivists (those who follow Rand's philosophy) and the average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained is, in my opinion, just an exercise in futility. Then I read this interview over on The Atlasphere with John Aglialoro, producer and CEO of Cybex, International, who paid $1 million for the film rights to Atlas.

One of my favorite bloggers, Jim Emerson, gives Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeff Wells a virtual bitchslap for a recent post Wells made on his favorite topic: how he doesn't believe guys who look "normal" (i.e., to him, fat and ugly) really score with beautiful women. In a post last month titled "Eclipse of the Hunk," Wells starts off by talking about the opening of the Judd Apatow-produced Forgetting Sarah Marshall, then goes on to mourn the loss of sexy, buff leading men and the success of Judd Apatow's films, in which dorky guys like Seth Rogen and Jason Segel get the hot chicks. Emerson excerpts my favorite quote from Wells piece:

"Taking their place are guys who look like real guys, which means almost never slender or buffed, and frequently chunky, overweight or obese. And usually with roundish faces with half-hearted beard growth, hair on their backs, man-boobs with tit hairs, blemishes, and always horribly dressed -- open-collared plaid dress shirts, low-thread-count T-shirts with lame-ass slogans or promotions on the chest, long shorts and sandals (or flip-flops), monkey feet, unpedicured toenails."

I hit a late night screening of Heckler here at AFI Dallas last night. The film is a documentary by Michael Addis (Poor White Trash) about comedian and actor Jamie Kennedy (Son of the Mask, Malibu's Most Wanted). The film starts out talking about people who heckle comedians at live comedy shows, before diverging into an exploration of various critics who have slammed Kennedy's films. Kennedy talks to a few critics about their reviews, reading their eviscerations of his work out loud to them and gauging their reactions both to hearing their own words and seeing the effect their writing has on him as a person.

I'll have a full review of the film up shortly (it was actually very funny and insightful, for the most part), but I want to talk a bit about the film here. One of the points raised in both the film and in the post-show Q&A, ran jointly by Addis and Film Threat's Mark Bell (pictured, above), who got into a bit of a heated kerfuffle with Addis at the Q&A for the film's AFI Los Angeles screening, was whether critics should hold comedies to the same standard as more highbrow films. Kennedy, dialed into the Q&A over Addis's cell phone, noted that Bell had called Malibu's Most Wanted an "easy target," and wondered why Bell and other critics hold comedies to a different standard than a film like, say, There Will be Blood.

In what has to be the most ironic post he's ever written, Mark Cuban put a piece up today on his own blog explaining his decision to ban bloggers from the Dallas Mavericks locker room. Now, Cinematical isn't a sports blog, it's a movie blog, but Cuban, of couse, also owns HDNet and Magnolia, companies we work regularly with, and so naturally I found some of the things he's had to say about his decision a bit ... disconcerting.

According to a story on the Dallas Morning News (which should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, since they currently employ Tim MacMahon, the only blogger banned from the Mavs' locker room thus far), Cuban responded to questions from a reporter about the ban by saying "What I do care about is being fair to all bloggers," and that there's "not enough room in the locker room, nor enough media passes to fairly accommodate everyone." The DMN seems to think Cuban's decision was intended as retribution against MacMahon for writing a piece criticial of Mav's coach Avery Johnson. Cuban says it's not.

Although I read Libertas and other conservative sites regularly, on the premise that it's a good idea to know what the barbarians are up to before they get to your gate, I rarely post about stories I read there. This piece they had up yesterday, though, is so blatantly misinformed and misguided that I felt compelled to address it.

The piece is yet another conservative rant against the liberal Hollywood machine. It starts out by linking to an article over on The Daily Standard, deemed by Libertas an "insightful piece on a disturbing trend." That alone set off my inner alarm bells, but I gamely went off to see what insights the Standard had to offer. In his piece, titled "Hollywood on the Offensive -- Child Abuse Hits the Silver Screen," Kevin Kusinitz starts out by attacking two films from Sundance 2007 -- Hounddog, starring Dakota Fanning as a young rape victim, and An American Crime, a dramatization of the murder of Sylvia Lukens in 1965, starring Ellen Page. Kusinitz then goes on to attack Page for her role in Juno thusly:

Over at indieWIRE, Anthony Kaufman has an excellent piece up on Michael Moore's proposal that theaters across America designate a night each week at "Doc Night at the Movies." Citing the dismal box office returns for docs in the past year (only Moore's Sicko, No End in Sight, and In the Shadow of the Moon grossed over a million dollars), Kaufman seems intrigued by Moore's proposal, if somewhat skeptical it would work. Kaufman raises some interesting points about the feasibility of a "Doc Night," including these questions:

• Who will select the documentaries that are chosen? And on what basis will they be chosen?
• Will the documentaries already have distributors or not? Or will there be a mix?
• Will participating filmmakers pay a fee? Or conversely, will they get a split of the ticket sales?
• If most multiplexes are film-only, and the majority of documentaries are finished in a high-definition digital format, how will they be screened? Will expensive projectors be rented? Or will filmmakers need to pay for costly film transfers?

... and perhaps the most interesting question: Will Moore's next film also go out through the program?

Jeff Wells has stirred up a sh*tstorm of controversy over on Hollywood Elsewhere with a post about the Heath Ledger autopsy report. In a post bluntly titled, "Heath did it to himself," Wells says, in part:

New York's medical examiner report was predictably dry and succinct and non-judgmental, but the implication is that Heath Ledger didn't care to calculate or remember which prescription drugs he'd taken, much less assess their combined effect upon his body. You can say "accident" over and over but the blunt answer is that Heath did it to himself. Like I wrote the day he died. A tree didn't fall on him. Actions have consequences.

The post has generated the predictable array of comments, from the sympathetic to the angry to the truly asinine. Which all goes to show, if nothing else, the impact the death of a celebrity can have on people who never even knew him. Of course, with the release of the autopsy report today, no matter which way it came down, people were going to make judgments and jump to conclusions they shouldn't be jumping to. It's easy to judge Ledger, even if his death by overdose was accidental, because he should have known better, right? It's easy to look at what we (think we) know of his life and say, hell, the guy had everything going for him, what the f*ck? That's what most everyone was saying around Park City on the afternoon of January 22, as we all got out of press screenings to the news of his death. Shock. Profound sadness. Disbelief. Vehement indignation and anger, even.

Well, the Golden Globes are over (boy, that was exciting), so now I'm going to turn my attention to something I really care about: Sundance, baby! In gearing up for 2008, I decided to take a glance back through our Sundance coverage from last year ... a little walk through the past to remind myself of all the great films I saw last year, and to keep my current pre-Sundance stress level in perspective. In going back through our Sundance 2007 coverage, I came across this journal entry from former Cinematical editor Karina Longworth (now editor over at Spoutblog) written just before the fest started:

Reading Eugene Hernandez' blog whilst waiting the for the cab to arrive to take me to La Guardia this morning, I learned that David Poland and Jeffrey Wells have declared that Sundance 2007, which officially begins tonight, is, in fact, already over. You see, they arrived in Park City a good 48 hours ahead of me, took turns inserting their thermometers in the rectum of the festival, and rushed to their computers to report the reading: cold. In fact, according to Wells, EVERYONE is saying that this year's line-up looks "flat, so-so, nothing to write home about material...a couple of almost-but-not-quite- as-good-as-Half Nelson flicks, and apparently nothing even close to a Little Miss Sunshine-type breakout waiting to happen."

And of course, rumors of the early death of last year's Sundance proved to be false -- more than a few Sundance flicks got bought last year (though we're still not-so-patiently waiting for some of them to actually see light of day), and a decent number of Sundance flicks ended up being critical darlings and finding audiences outside the fest (Waitress, Once, The Savages, Away from Her, War/Dance, No End in Sight). Some of the films I enjoyed last year, including Son of Rambow and Teeth, are finally getting a release in 2008.

On this last day of 2007, I thought I'd wrap up with a look back at the year. Although we can't seem to get away from Hollywood's inexplicable desire to greenlight the usual array of craptacular rom-coms, lukewarm kiddie flicks, and so-so sequels, 2007 also had a lot to be thankful for. From Sundance to Toronto, this year's fests were packed with promising newcomers and new material from old favorites. A lot of them, unfortunately, didn't see much distrib past the fest circuit -- if you really love indie film, you just gotta hunt down the fests or wait it out until they come out on DVD.

We're just a little over two weeks away from kicking our 2008 fest coverage with the Sundance Film Festival ... Happy New Year, and here's to hoping 2008 will be a spectactular year for film!

Hype on Overdrive: Things I'd Most Enjoy NOT Hearing About in 2008

Iraq war movies -- Please, no mas. Well ... unless they're really, really good.

"It's the Year of the Pregnancy Film!" -- No, Hollywood hasn't suddenly turned pro-life. Lake of Fire and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days more than balanced out Juno, Knocked Up and Bella. It's just that no one -- pro-choice or pro-life -- really wants to see an abortion on the big screen.

The Writers Strike -- Note to moguls: Stop being so damn greedy. You're rich enough.

Bob Shaye Vs. Peter Jackson -- Great. Let's get on with making a killer movie of The Hobbit now, shall we?

Threequels -- With the possible exception of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, none of this years glut of threequels needed to be made. Stop greenlighting this crap, please.

"Is film criticism dead?" -- Enough, already. Do we really need to rehash this topic every year? No, I didn't think so.

The Format Wars: Do I care whether either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD looks marginally better than the other from a distance of eight feet, or 10 feet, or whatever, when viewed on a big-ass TV? No, I do not. Wake me when y'all pick one. I won't be able to afford a killer home theater system until the kids are out of the house anyhow, so hopefully by then the hype will be over and I can just go buy whatever works and looks really spiffy.


... and more after the jump.

My earlier column about the controversy swirling around The Golden Compass generated a lot of thought-provoking comments, and I thought that, with the film's opening date coming up on December 7, this might be a good time to address one of the questions underlying a lot of the comments we've had on the subject: Is a story, in this case, just a story? Or is it a tool with which to push or indoctrinate a set of beliefs?

One of our commenters, Rodway, included a link to this post titled "Sympathy for the Devil" over on Plugged Online, a movie blog arm of Focus on the Family. The site's "About Us" section says about its mission:

"Plugged In is a Focus on the Family publication designed to help equip parents, youth leaders, ministers and teens with the essential tools that will enable them to understand, navigate and impact the culture in which they live. Entertainment is a potent influence on our culture for both good and evil. Through our reviews and discussions of that entertainment, we hope to spark intellectual thought, family discussion, spiritual growth and a strong desire to follow the command of Colossians 2:8. "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

So you can probably figure out going in which side of the debate this post is going to weigh in on. Nonetheless, the piece does offer a fairly reasoned argument to its target market for why Christian parents should keep their kids away from The Golden Compass, both in its (likely to be) watered-down film form, and its even "more dangerous" written form to which your children (so implies the author) will surely be led if they watch the film.

When I first heard that a film was being made of The Golden Compass, the first novel in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy -- and that it was being adapted as a family film -- I thought to myself, "Hmmm ... I wonder how they're going to pull THAT off." Then I heard the planned release date -- just in time for Christmas, 2007 -- and then I sat back and waited for the inevitable storm of controversy that would start swirling as soon as Christian groups got wind of the film and its storyline.

The other day, Fox had this story about Christian groups claiming The Golden Compass is a "stealth atheism campaign" aimed at children, which starts out, "A children's fantasy film that stars Nicole Kidman and features a little girl on a quest to kill God has some Christian groups upset over what they believe is a ploy to promote atheism to kids." The story goes on to note that New Line has taken most of the "godless" elements out of the film and that the studio has made a film that focuses on the "entertaining fantasy" elements of the story.

The opener of the Fox article is annoyingly misleading right off the bat; The Golden Compass is not a story about a little girl on a quest to kill God, it's about a little girl, Lyra (played by newcomer Dakota Blue Richards in the film), on a quest to find her friend, who's been kidnapped by Mrs. Coulter (played by Kidman in the film). Lyra is never on a quest to kill God, she's on a quest to find out why children are disappearing, and in the process she becomes involved with a plot concerning her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) and Mrs. Coulter, and a mysterious substance called "dust" that may or may not have something to do with sin.

The plot involves (in the books at least) one side (the Church) trying to rid the world of sin by committing atrocious acts against children, while the other side, headed up by Lord Asriel, which is trying to stop them, are not clearly the "good guys" either. Unless someone has substantially changed the plot for the film to something that is certainly not in the book (and I doubt that, given that New Line would like this film to be marketable), saying this story is about a little girl trying to kill God is both misleading and irresponsible.