Independents gather to discuss distribution strategies

By Sarah Sluis
FJI correspondent Doris Toumarkine reports on a panel on independent film distribution strategies, sponsored by HSBC, SnagFilms and IndieWIRE.

Last week's inaugural evening of wine, cheese and insiders' observations at a New York independent film community gathering raised spirits and awareness but also left up in the air some unanswered questions that will surely be addressed in subsequent sessions.

"Ask the Experts: Strategizing Film Fests & Distribution Today," organized by HSBC and SnagFilms and its must-read IndieWIRE website, began with a low-key pep talk from Sony Pictures Classics co-president Tom Bernard, followed by panel discussions addressing some aspects of festivals and distribution strategies. A brief Q&A followed but failed to elevate the discussion.

The session, which borrowed from the Independent Feature Project's time-honored efforts, was more make-up course than rigorous drill-down into the current or future state of specialty cinema and its challenges.

A harbinger of good things to come, the event introduced HSBC and IndieWIRE's partnership in the new Filmmaker Toolkit Series, comprising similar indie-themed industry evenings to follow and online tools for filmmakers at the IndieWIRE website.

Attendees, panelists and organizers schmoozed and fueled up at the reception before tackling the promised issues: navigating the festival circuit and securing distribution deals. Not as abundant as the reception's cheese cubes, valuable takeaway tips and nuggets of information were in short supply, as so much seemed aimed at newbies in the audience. But the August 11 gabfest was an impressive gathering in terms of those like Bernard who came to share.

A packed auditorium at HSBC's midtown headquarters listened as a number of participants from the nervous playing fields of distribution, production, direction, public relations and festivals shared views about that now proverbial falling or not-falling "sky." The celestial metaphor, or course, was coined only a few short years ago by former Miramax and Warner Independent Pictures exec Mark Gill to denote the digitally and technologically shaken state of the independent sector.

While storm clouds reportedly darken the sky over Gill's latest venture, event participants betrayed no negative notions of the state of things: no sky is falling and, on the contrary, there's hope ahead. Even that "light at the end of the tunnel" metaphor popped up. Sales agent Josh Braun of Submarine spoke about the tiny film Tiny Furniture, which he sold to IFC, the voracious acquirer of so many indie titles.

In spite of Magnolia Pictures' Tom Quinn's pronouncement that "it's a terrible business," there was a largely upbeat vibe in the air regarding the independent sector. But breathing that air was also that proverbial and largely ignored elephant in the room, meaning the brutal but unaddressed topic of "Who the Heck Is Making Money Today and How?" which never tainted the lightweight discussions, even as titles like Bubble, Tiny Furniture, Children of Invention and others were referenced. Most frustrating was the lack of more concrete examples of what's working today and what isn't.

(With the ABCs of the indie world shared during this inaugural event, IndieWIRE co-founder and editor-in-chief Eugene Hernandez, who moderated the discussions with IndieWIRE managing editor Brian Brooks, told FJI that subsequent Toolkit evenings would get more into the nitty-gritty business of the indie sector.)

In introductory remarks, Bernard, who kicked off the discussion that several panels would continue, talked about the "empowered filmmaker" and what he/she must do in the new digital era. The mantra, according to Bernard, is for filmmakers to do the research themselves, that they are the ones who control the destiny of their films and cannot be dependent on anybody else to get their films into the marketplace.

He advised filmmakers to research all potential partners like distributors, publicists, lawyers and sales agents. These latter, he warned, might take too big a chunk of future profits, so let the seller/filmmaker beware of who he/she does deals with.

Flashing back into what seems like ancient movie history, Bernard referenced the millions of dollars the Blair Witch Project filmmakers lost to lawyers and agents. He asked rhetorically: "But should you be giving away anywhere between five and 15 percent of the lifetime profits from your film for free legal work and a sales strategy that usually is comprised of screening your film at a festival, getting all the buyers in a room and seeing who can come up with the most money?"

To underscore his point of filmmakers doing their homework, Bernard handed out a list of more than 60 U.S. theatrical distributors, including a smattering of Bollywood and service-deal companies. He urged the many industry groups like the IFP or DGA to help with this empowerment by providing other useful information. Filmmakers must also answer important questions regarding which time of year is best to release their work and to which theatres. (Bernard's complete speech is available on Indiewire.com.)

Later as a panelist, Bernard reminded that, these days especially, thought must be given to the many platforms available for films and what revenues each might generate. While every distribution outlet is valid, he said, the theatrical window "opens a lot of doors" to and provides a five-year cycle for the many releases (cable, DVD, hotels, etc.) to follow.

The trend of certain film fests getting into the distribution game took a drubbing on the "Strategizing Film Festivals" panel. Cinetic Rights Management's Matt Dentler, formerly atop Austin's SXSW, was especially critical. "The two worlds are very different," he said, and the festivals should be at "arm's length" from distribution because "what works at festivals isn't necessarily what works in the marketplace." Sundance, with YouTube; SXSW with IFC and iTunes; and the Tribeca Film Festival, which set up its own distribution pipeline for titles it had selected for its festival, were cited as crossing this cinematic China Wall. Bottom line, said Dentler, is that it's just no good when festivals are cutting checks back to the filmmakers this way.

But an even more interesting bottom line was revealed when the panel called for a vote of those in the audience who bothered to watch any of these festival films through their distribution channels. Not a hand went up.

Festivals continue, of course, to serve a valuable purpose as marketing tools or even as venues for a film's only chance for a "theatrical" (actually, big-screen) release, said PMK-BNC's Marian Koltai-Levine. Panelists disagreed on whether filmmakers should submit rough cuts and works-in-progress to fests. Women in Films' serial fest-goer Debra Zimmerman voted no, while Rose Kuo, festival programmer and recent big hire at The Film Society of Lincoln Center, opined that, depending on the festival, presenting an unfinished work can be a good thing. Just getting a film looked at and getting knowledgeable feedback can be valuable.

Producer Mynette Louie, whose Children of Invention played about 50 festivals, shared that "a good chunk of change" was made from all the fees her film received from so many festivals paying just for the right to present the film. The fest exposure also helped increase sales for the film's DVDs.

There was plenty of old news. We again heard that while acceptance at first-tier film fests (Toronto, Sundance, Cannes, etc.) is the Holy Grail, second-tier and select regional fests can afford filmmakers a much better chance to be found by scouts (yes, distribs infiltrate the smaller events) and even get some publicity (there are few big films to monopolize the attention). You don't need a doctorate in probability to figure that one out. Nor did news that the odds are staggering for Sundance acceptance knock any socks off.

Documentary filmmaker Sandi Dubowski (Trembling Before G-D, Budrus) underscored the importance of bringing partners to a film and reminded that nonprofits�their name notwithstanding�can lead to significant sources of funding. What filmmakers today have to ask, he said, is: "How do we flip our world?"

In terms of getting the word out about a project, there's a delicate balance, the panel agreed: While it's important not to oversaturate the market with information about a film, filmmakers need to "annoy" people a bit.

French world-sales agent Sebastien Chesneau of Paris-based Rezo generated some enthusiasm with his pitch to attending filmmakers to discuss their films with Rezo in order to learn how various international territories might respond. Citing the popularity of directors like Jim Jarmusch and Woody Allen overseas, Bernard seconded this focus on foreign markets and advised filmmakers to hold back international rights from their domestic distributors.

When the continuing plague of piracy entered the conversation, SnagFilms CEO Rick Allen got a laugh when he said that SnagFilms, via its VOD service, has come up with a foolproof anti-piracy model: making the viewing free. From Allen, the crowd also heard that well-worn supplication to tell "powerful stories," especially as there is now access to a global audience.

Other participating speakers and panelists adding sizzle and prestige if not always useful takeaways to the HBSC/IndieWIRE evening included Emerging Pictures' Ira Deutchman, who observed that it's a "healthy" sign that the studios are getting out of the indie business. IFC Entertainment's Arianna Bocco shared that IFC's four-year-old VOD model "has worked successfully," but only whetted appetites for examples that weren't forthcoming.

Magnolia's Tom Quinn offered that Bubble, the company's first DVD/theatrical day-and-date experiment several years back, "wouldn't work today," but there was no comment on how it even worked back then (although the notion was floated back then that the quirky Soderbergh indie actually was profitable).

One unintended insight gleaned from the evening was the revelation that many at the event weren't aware that there are more theatrical screens available today for specialized product than in years past and that some circuits have even branded these screens dedicated to indies. Audience reaction to news of this availability and a reception conversation with a SnagFilms exec made this clear. Future Toolkit events might want to explore how filmmakers could possibly (miraculously?) exploit this largesse and even learn what might be those miracles for longer runs on theatre screens.

Maybe it's big-city myopia regarding that vast stretch of Flyover America, but there's responsibility somewhere (on exhibitor shoulders?) to get the word out to indies and film fans alike that theatre screens are there for the smaller films.

With its impressive turnout and well-coordinated discussions, the evening did suggest that Toolkit events to follow, as Hernandez promised, will burrow down more deeply into the many issues important to all sides of the indie business.

Discussions, for instance, might focus on which of the more selective fests require world premieres or have similar restrictions regarding submissions. And what might be some real-world examples of truly profitable films initially made available on Web/VOD/DVD prior to theatrical or day-and-date with theatrical but that returned investments and actually worked financially for both filmmakers and distribs (when not self-distributed)?

And in this crazy super-saturated new media world of so much, so often and available anywhere, especially when it comes to e-mail, social networking and Internet content, is there a way to quantify how well sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube work in terms of getting the right attention for a film? And what might be other new forms of viral marketing as a way of getting the word out on a little film to pre-sell it or build awareness, especially when there's little or no marketing budget?

Providing the evening with a discreet whiff of dissent was vet distributor Richard Lorber, who, from the floor during the Q&A, observed (actually groused) that the event had largely been a pitch to first-time filmmakers and that the distributors represented weren't true indies because they were either owned by theatres or the studios. Take that, Sony Pictures Classics, Magnolia, etc.

Privately, a first-time indie director (but not a first-time filmmaker) whose feature is now in edit and who previously produced a strong title for Warner Home Video weighed in on the event to FJI: "It was all kind of basic stuff that I already knew. But it was really good to see so many players and to now be able to put names to faces so that I have more of a potential entry point. But I don't really think I learned anything new, though this gives me more confidence in my instincts [about the business]."

Her most important takeaway was how encouraging the panel was about the marketplace, that there is still a market for small indie films and that "it's no harder than before." She was also grateful to be reminded that finding a distributor isn't necessarily hard, but making money is.

And there's also some newfound confidence that more of her calls will be taken. All in all, this initial and successful HSBC/Snag/IndieWIRE evening assured that events to follow will provide more to chew on (cheese cubes aside).

Indie film execs ponder the future at BAFTA East Coast panel

By Sarah Sluis
FJI writer Doris Toumarkine reports exclusively for Screener on a May 27 gathering of leading New York-based film executives.

Indie veteran Mark Gill famously suggested at the height of gloom that "the sky is falling" on the specialized movie business. That prognosis got an encouraging if hardly conclusive update from a panel of high-level New York-based executives in the thick of the action at a May 27 BAFTA East Coast event at Scandinavia House in Manhattan.

The good news they reported is: The sky is still up there, although the forecast remains uncertain and evolving. The nominal topic�"Has Distribution Been Democratized at the Expense of Capitalism?"�was not resolved except for the politically inclined Focus Features CEO James Schamus drolly noting that "the Chinese have proven that capitalism can happen without democracy."

But the focus of the event was on indie film in our democracy and how that business might heal itself and make capitalism proud. Observations abounded, if not answers.

Concurring with the notion that the pipelines for movie consumption have indeed opened up, speakers pondered which new business models might also have profits running through those pipelines for content creators and deployers.

Journalist Anthony Kaufman, who has followed the independent scene for years and served as moderator, got the discussion going with the proclamation that "the [specialized] industry is in transition, not in decline." So far, so good.

Reminding that ticket, DVD and foreign sales are down and online distribution and video-on-demand activity haven't made up for the loss in revenues, he challenged the panel�Sony Pictures Classics co-chair Michael Barker, National Geographic Films president Daniel Battsek, Focus Features' Schamus, Cinetic Media founder and lawyer/sales agent/distributor John Sloss, and CAA agent Daniel Steinman�to come up with ideas for what can be done to get things on track.

Battsek, referring to his native U.K. where the emergence of multiplexes helped turn things around for independents, suggested "good movies in good theatres" might be a solution, that building more quality theatres stateside might get more people in seats. And Barker cited exhibitors like Cinemark and Regal that have screens dedicated to specialized product, making it easier for art-house fans to find them.

Regarding the so-so profitability, if any, of films on VOD, at least as seen by filmmakers and their sellers, Steinman, who sells films to distributors, suggested that the on-demand films need better marketing to viewers. The problem, as he sees it, is that there are just so many titles available and it's hard and confusing for consumers to find what they want.

Panelists referred to a number of other pressures, including piracy. In fact, Sloss proclaimed piracy "the real problem, as all we're going through a reorientation." Schamus pointed to Spain and Korea as the worst piracy offenders and Sloss backed this up with his observation that in Spain pirating movies is almost a badge of honor, that it's a "cultural" inclination that people "enjoy" and has become a "frightening habit."

Barker too called for a secure digital platform to guard against piracy, but also said there needs to be "a meeting of the minds on DVD price points."

Panelists pointed to the economic inefficiencies of the pricing of content, which does not reflect the true supply-to-demand ratio.

The conundrum of windows reared its head, with Sloss opining, "It's ridiculous having to wait so long after theatrical" for other outlets to be available, a delay viewed, right or wrongly, as fueling piracy. Others noted that there's no guarantee that getting ancillaries out earlier will counter piracy.

The strategy of day-and-date releasing got mixed notices. Some panelists agreed that simultaneous releases would be appropriate for certain, narrowly targeted films like the upcoming Restrepo or Alex Gibney's new documentary about Elliot Spitzer. With regard to the latter, Sloss said it might work first going into VOD, then theatrical, as "it has built-in awareness." And Battsek even suggested that to better understand day-and-date, "maybe we should take some risks and sacrifice a few movies to find the way to do this."

Barker agreed that perhaps the strategy could work for some films but explained that "the goal is for [Sony Pictures Classics] films to become evergreens, and day-and-date cuts off that opportunity." In other words, good films need a lot of exclusive time in theatres to generate the needed word of mouth and the revenues this produces.

CAA's Steinman agreed. "We don't put movies together thinking of the IFC or Magnolia [VOD] model. The way that money gets made for filmmakers is with theatrical happening first." Barker concurred, saying that "for a fair shake, filmmakers need theatrical," but he admitted that "if it seemed right, we would even experiment with a day-and-date situation."

And there's still the murky business of where and how much revenue there is in the VOD business, critical information that trickles back to filmmakers as rarely as the money does. And because VOD and DVD titles are so numerous, panelists joked that there is a clear advantage to films beginning with the letter "a" or a number to put them at the head of the long availability lists consumers must pore through.

Of course, the lower the budget for a film, the better, at least in terms of seeing a return. Kaufman suggested that the "bright budget" these days for indies is about $450,000. And while the trend is that directors and actors are cutting their fees, Steinman said that agents advise their clients not to work on spec.

The importance of P&A money these days was also addressed, as financiers also need to raise that cash, especially when no domestic distribution deal is in place for their projects. "We're more in the P&A business than ever before," declared Steinman.

As for the importance of marketing films to young audiences via Facebook or Twitter and other online sites, Barker observed that the studios, as opposed to the smaller distributors, are dealing with the Net the way they deal with TV. But Battsek pointed to the fact that using the Net is difficult because "everyone is pushing their products there, so it's more difficult than taking out a New York Times ad."

Overall, guarded optimism in spite of so many unanswered questions permeated the discussion, as did an acknowledgement that change will be inevitable if not yet identifiable. The somewhat upbeat vibe was also assuring, as these big guns of the indie sector seem less prone to the cheerleading done by their counterparts atop the studios and corporate conglomerates�a reflection of the indie films themselves, which tend to be more in touch with reality than mainstream fare.

But then, certain big-gun producers in the BAFTA audience like John Heyman and David Picker, known for their big-budget tentpoles and studio affiliations, might beg to differ.

Aim low this weekend with 'The Back-Up Plan' and 'The Losers'

By Sarah Sluis

Audiences looking for entertainment this weekend will be hard-pressed to find a new offering with rave reviews. Leading the pack is CBS Films' The Back-Up Plan (3,280 theatres), a tired romantic comedy

about a woman (Jennifer Lopez) who falls for the perfect guy just as she becomes pregnant with a child conceived with a sperm donor. When I reviewed the movie, I concluded that there's "nothing to see for anyone who's already viewed their fair share of formulaic romantic comedies." Still, for those that enjoy that kind of film, the experience will be "a not very good and yet painless waste of time," as A.O. Scott of the The New York Times so aptly put. The movie is expected to open in the teen millions. A debut on the low end of expectations could put it behind How to Train Your Dragon, which should also post a teen-million figure.

An action-adventure film with an intriguing cast and not much else, The Losers (2,396 theatres), also comes with a caveat emptor. FJI critic Ethan Alter cautions that "the real losers are those folks tricked into forking

over good money to see this dumbed-down adaptation of the popular comic book." The adaptation follows a group of CIA special operatives who are ordered killed by someone in their own agency. They escape death and turn to wreaking vengeance on the hit man. The cast includes action alums such as Zoe Saldana (Avatar) Chris Evans (Star Trek) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Watchmen). Unfortunately, they seem stuck in a movie that seems disorganized and extensively re-worked. This movie is expected to barely cross over into the ten-million range.

After opening yesterday, Earth Day, Oceans will go into the weekend on 1,206 screens, a high number for a nature documentary. The film has already earned $54 million overseas, boding well for its U.S. release. Last

year's Disneynature Earth Day release, Earth, earned $8.8 million its opening weekend on a similar number of screens, so Oceans will probably open in line with those numbers.

The specialty releases this week are a mixed bag. Daniel Eagan despised the "sloppy, thoughtless" documentary Behind the Burly Q (NY), which tries to glorify burlesque while glossing over the drug and sexual abuse that goes along with the profession. Those in the mood to see people with questionable morals would be better served by viewing the "gaggle of (take your pick) hugely rich, greedy, sneaky, promiscuous, self-serving, coke-indulging, desperate denizens of the contemporary art world" in Boogie Woogie (NY). Then, out of left field, there's Paper Man (NY/LA), an uber-quirky tale of a man with an imaginary superhero friend.

On Monday we'll see if the relatively weak films The Back-Up Plan and The Losers were able to bring in their "teen million" figures or if fourth-weeker How to Train Your Dragon tops one or both movies.

Tribeca Film Festival coming to a Peoria television near you

By Sarah Sluis

Taking a cue from IFC Films, which has pursued day-and-date releases of its movies on-demand along with their theatrical release at New York's IFC Theatre and other select art houses, the Tribeca Film Festival will become a distributor of movies both year-round and during the festival. The theatrical platform will be called Tribeca Film, and the online version will be called TFFV (Tribeca Film Festival Virtual).

As someone who has not always had the benefit of living in a city as culturally rich as New York City (seriously, there is so much going on here), nor the inclination to make treks to various city centers for every cool thing going on there, I can see a strong demand for specialty movies finding a way to connect with isolated audiences over their televisions or laptop screens. Most of the people that would take advantage of these movies would have to rent or buy them on DVD anyway. Home exhibition systems that can give the movie an accurate, if not jaw-dropping, presentation, are standard nowadays. Plenty of people in Peoria would be interested!

The movies available on-demand will include niche titles like the environmental documentary Climate of Change, a biopic of someone famous

to select people, Ian Dury, in Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll, and what

sounds like a version of Eat, Pray, Love, or maybe The Darjeeling

Limited: Road, Movie, which follows a young man's journey through

India. All of these titles sound like good candidates for on-demand,

with their presumably smaller audiences and limited prospects of

theatrical release. Because the movies will premiere on VOD at the same time as the film festival, there will be some added free publicity. Instead of waiting months for the movie to show up on DVD, or, if they're lucky, a local specialty theatre, people will be able to see the movie at the same time as their city cousins. Given the select audience and niche content, I don't really see this as being a threat to theatre exhibitors. For them, showing these kinds of movies would be unprofitable or require an all-out marketing onslaught.

On the Internet, TFFV (Tribeca Film Festival Virtual) costs $45 and will run concurrently with the festival, showing select movies as they premiere at the New York event. There is a free version that offers the standard briefs and recaps, but the select version will have short films, Q&As, and everything to make a non-NYC-based film geek drool.

There is some precedence for this kind of move. Just this year, Sundance released feature-length films on Hulu, which currently exists as a section (sponsored by Bing) with clips from some films and free (ad-supported) feature-length versions of others (including years-old Super Size Me). On television, Sundance also offered three movies on-demand.

The way I see it, these types of alternative distribution ideas are a way to help match the increase in film production. With digital camcorders, making a movie is cheap, and there are far more films made than exhibited. Considering the kind of dreck that's out there, that's a good thing. But for every movie that deserves never to be seen, there's another that didn't reach a wide audience, was too niche, or too odd. I hope that on-demand, self-distribution, and other platforms can help these movies find an audience. And for viewers, it's a way to bring a little bit of that festival glitz to their own homes.

'Edge of Darkness' challenges 'Avatar'

By Sarah Sluis

This week's new releases have set up shop in diagonal demographic quadrants: older men (Edge of Darkness) and younger women (When in Rome). Edge of Darkness has the best chance of unseating Avatar, which is still bringing in its millions at an impressive clip. A 20% drop for Avatar will still put the movie at $28 million for the weekend. Unless Edge of Darkness can divert a significant portion of the audience, Avatar will remain on top, though it's likely that Darkness will win Friday before dropping through the rest of the weekend, just like The Book of Eli two weeks ago.

A "well-made genre-blender by professionals who know how to coax tears, deliver thrills," according to our critic Rex Roberts, Edge of Darkness (3,066 theatres) offers a familiar filmgoing experience that will appeal to Mel Gibson fans in particular. The theme of a kidnapped daughter worked particularly well with Liam Neeson's Taken, which released exactly a year ago. Will Darkness be able to beat Taken's $24 million opening weekend?

Romantic comedy When in Rome (2,456) falls on the low end of the struggling genre. It will probably appeal most those teenage girls who haven't fully grasped the genre's conventions yet. In my review, I noted that its brisk pace keeps the audience from dwelling on the movie's considerable faults, "[whisking] us through the conventions of romantic comedies so quickly there's barely time to groan." The movie will probably open in the single digits or low teens and drop quickly out of the top ten (e.g. Leap Year).

On the specialty front, Saint John of Las Vegas will release in one theatre as part of a new strategy by distributor IndieVest. Wealthy people invest in the film with the side benefit of parties and Hollywood glamour. The movie raised over $10 million, more than it needed, so at least the investors will get some of their money back, given its 5% Rotten Tomatoes rating. That seems to nix its chance at being a cult favorite.

On Monday we'll see if Edge of Darkness was able to pull a coup on reigning champion Avatar, and if When in Rome and Saint John of Las Vegas were able to draw in audiences for their opening wekened.

Oscar-nominated films expand alongside 'Inkheart' & 'Underworld' sequel

By Sarah Sluis

Oscar nominations were announced yesterday, giving the non-film-obsessed a month to head to their

local theatres and squeeze in a film or two to make the whole Oscar broadcast more entertaining. Studios, of course, try to predict what films will receive nominations, and expand or resurrect the films accordingly.

Since expansions must be planned weeks in advance, it's easy to tell what films met (and failed) a studio's expectations. Revolutionary Road, which expands to 1,058 screens, is the big loser here, earning only one major nomination: Supporting Actor for Michael Shannon as a mentally ill mathematician (hey, it worked for Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind), and two minor nods for art direction and costume design, a gimme for any period film. Turns out just like April and Frank Wheeler, Revolutionary Road thought it was more special than it really was.

Universal also planned a big post-Oscar expansion for Frost/Nixon, which will release on 1,097 screens, and up until now has done pretty light business. Fox Searchlight is expanding The Wrestler (566 screens) and Slumdog Millionaire (1,411 screens). Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei both received nominations for The Wrestler, making this film well-worth its expansion. Searchlight has done a controlled, slow rollout of Slumdog (and earlier actually had to scale up their planned expansion to meet demand), so this expansion caps an extremely well-executed release.

October's Rachel Getting Married, which Sony Pictures Classics hoped would receive a Best Actress nomination for Anne Hathaway (it did!), will show up on 345 screens, although without an accompanying nomination for screenwriter Jenny Lumet. The Dark Knight will also appear on 350 screens, giving audiences one more chance to see Supporting Actor nominee Heath Ledger in IMAX. The most nominated film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, will continue its wide release but will likely see a significant boost in business.

For those with an elementary school child in tow and a brain ready to mentally prepare grocery lists, take your child to see Inkheart (2,655 screens). It's muddled, confusing, poorly executed, but, at the very

least, will inspire you to imagine all the ways this film could have been so much better. Fans of horror film Underworld can rejoice in sequel Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2,942 screens). Just a guess, but those that don't know exactly what "Rise of the Lycans" means should probably stay away, and catch one of those films the Academy has deemed likely-to-be-the-best.

Other films playing on just a few screens this weekend include a worn Jack the Ripper/Hitchcock remake The Lodger, horror-movie-on-a-boat Donkey Punch, and Terence Davies' documentary Of Time and the City.

Fall Releases: 'The Reader' and 'Slumdog Millionaire'

By Sarah Sluis

While we are still several holidays away from the Oscars, Halloween costumes are already in stores, and studios are starting to make their programming chess moves for Oscar season. Documentaries have already made their move, quickly squeezing in a barely advertised week-long run in order to meet the documentary submission deadline of September 2, 2008.

The Weinstein Co. hopes to move up their film The Reader, starring Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes, to a December release, in hopes that the film can rack up some nominations. The film, which covers that Oscar-friendly subject of World War II, war crimes, and the Holocaust, is also a high-profile literary adaptation (Translated from Swedish and featured on Oprah's Book Club). The whole package screams Oscar�but can it deliver?

Slumdog Millionaire, while not an Oscar contender, has also received a marketing boost through a
change in distribution. Previously planned as the last release of now-shuttered Warner Independent Pictures, the film is now being distributed by Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros.. The film centers around a Hindi boy hustler suspected of cheating on a "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"-type show (pictured on the right). Director Danny Boyle, whose films encompass every genre imaginable (horror, romantic comedy, kid pictures), has had some hits and misses. I didn't care for his previous kid-oriented picture, Millions (which incidentally also covered a boy stumbling into wealth) but Slumdog Millionaire might be different�it was the buzz winner of the Telluride Film Festival.  The film will release in the United States on November 28, 2008.

In other topical news, photoshopped posters of last year's Oscar nominee for Best Picture, Juno (retitled as Juneau, get it?), have been circulating the internet, showing up on Cinematical, Defamer, and NYMag, so check them out for some mid-week entertainment/political commentary.