A MAGICAL AUTUMN

Our musical highlight for this monumental Friday is DAVID BOWIE’S ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS – from the movie of the same name.

Fabulous song for any time of year. But particularly now.

Terrible flick, though. If you want to check out a great film set in the swinging 60s, DARLING is an exceptional treasure.

It was a BEST PICTURE nominee. JULIE CHRISTIE won a well deserved ACADEMY AWARD for her performance.

That’s all I have to say at the moment. I’ll be back tomorrow with lots more.

Until then, enjoy the weekend. Make sure you don’t strain anything…

THE PITFALLS OF THE 10 NOMINEE BEST PICTURE CATEGORY

FROM USA TODAY

This article genuinely needed to go up today. It’s a well thought out, thoroughly brilliant analysis of the 2009 OSCAR race.

It’s that time of year. Things are just going to get hotter from this point on…

BY SUSAN WLOSZCZYNA

At the ripe old age of 82, OSCAR could do with a face lift now and then.

But JANE CAMPION – among other voters – has reservations about the latest makeover of Hollywood’s most coveted prize.

The New Zealand born filmmaker, one of only three female directors ever nominated for an ACADEMY AWARD, can’t comprehend why the BEST PICTURE list of nominees was expanded from five to 10 slots for the first time since 1943, when CASABLANCA took home the statuette.

“I’ve heard it’s because of the major studios,” said the screenplay winner for 1993′s The Piano, whose hopes this year are pinned on her period romance Bright Star.

“None of their movies are being chosen.”

Ms. Campion isn’t the only one of the 6,000 or so ACADEMY members who was taken aback when the switch was unveiled in June.

“I think it dilutes the exclusivity of it,” commented actor WILLEM DAFOE, a two time nominee.

“You know, some years there might not be that many movies that deserve it. I just worry that it lowers the bar a little bit.”

Or, as FROST/NIXON star MICHAEL SHEEN, who joined the ACADEMY in 2007, put it: “The more films you have, the less special it becomes.”

It’s all an experiment, assures TOM SHERAK, newly appointed president of the 6,000 member ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS & SCIENCES. The decision was made by the 43 members of the board of governors.

The supersizing of the BEST PICTURE category was suggested during a postmortem with BILL CONDON and LAURENCE MARK, producers of this year’s ceremony, which boosted viewership from the previous year by 13%.

Still, considering the 2008 edition – when NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN claimed the BEST PICTURE trophy – was the least watched show ever, the increase was only a mild improvement. Which is why, to continue to draw more eyes, the ACADEMY would like OSCAR to find room for more popcorn type films in its diet.

“All the critics’ 10 Best lists have 10 films,” TOM SHERAK explained, stating the logic behind the move for the MARCH 7 ceremony.

“And there have been 10 nominees in the past. Maybe it would create more interest and allow us to have more fun. Maybe a comedy or a blockbuster would be nominated. The board felt it was an idea that should be tried.”

Making it easier for films such as last year’s superhero smash THE DARK KNIGHT to be recognized doesn’t sit well with JANE CAMPION.

“It’s not a popularity contest. That is box office. We have that. The Oscars should be something else. Whose decision was it? Why didn’t we vote on it? Let it be a challenge for these studios rather than just expect to see Batman on the list.”

To some, it feels like cheating.

“Then 10 small films will be nominated,” TOM SHERAK said.

“The bottom line is: we want to find ways of doing things that people are interested in. We want to do what is good for the show. If it doesn’t work, we’ll change it.”

One voter who enthusiastically supports the five extra finalists is JOHN LASSETER, the big cheese of animation at PIXAR and DISNEY as well as the secretary of the board of governors.

Considering the only animated feature to ever make the BEST PICTURE cut was 1991′s BEAUTY & THE BEAST, he’s delighted that movies like PIXAR’S summer hit UP – which earned ecstatic reviews – will have an easier chance of sneaking in.

“I don’t think it diminishes anything. There are an awful lot of commercial films that have not been nominated that should have been. Now there’s a whole generation of moviegoers who don’t relate as much to the Oscars, since the movies that they love so much are not represented. This will open the door.”

It does rankle some that the rules had to be bent before animated features as well as documentaries and foreign language films, which all have separate categories, could be given a fairer chance at the biggest honour.

PETER SCHNEIDER, the former head of DISNEY feature animation who was in charge when BEAUTY & THE BEAST was in the running, stated: “It won’t mean as much. Getting in is not as special as when it was just five. It’s like cheating.”

At least the added contenders have given those pundits who cover the OSCARS something to chew over in a year when no clear frontrunner has stepped forward. A favourite topic: the pitfalls of the new procedure.

And the nominees for favourite gripes are…

REDEFINING FIRST PLACE. In the past, voters simply picked one of the five nominees as BEST PICTURE. Now, with 10 choices, sticking with that method could result in a winner with only 11% of the votes.

Instead, the ACADEMY has reverted to a preferential system where voters rank the nominees from 1 to 10. If the title on top does not have at least 51% of the vote, then second and even third choices on ballots could be included in the selection.

Sounds fair, except suddenly the night’s winner may not have the most #1 votes.

“The new procedure is bad,” commented DAMIEN BONA, ACADEMY expert and coauthor of the book INSIDE OSCAR.

“It means the least offensive movie will make it – the one that everyone sort of likes but no one is passionate about.”

For instance, he said, “In 1969, Z and Midnight Cowboy (the winner) represented the cutting edge, while Anne Of The Thousand Days and Hello Dolly were the traditional choices. Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid would have been #3 for everyone and would probably have won.”

BOX OFFICE TRUMPS QUALITY. When the BEST PICTURE changes were announced, the OSCAR year of 1939 – often considered Hollywood’s best – was invoked as an example of what could happen with 10 nominees.

GONE WITH THE WIND, the box office champ of all time when adjusted for inflation, was the victor. But also in the race was an abundance of enduring classics such as THE WIZARD OF OZ, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON and STAGECOACH.

However, that was when the most popular films of the year often were among the best.

All ready, a shortage of worthy selections is being cited as a problem this year by voters who prefer not to be quoted. Even with five slots, they might only fill in two or three titles on the ballot, leaving the rest blank.

“A lot more Best Picture movies were made back then than now,” commented long time OSCAR watcher STEVE POND, who writes the on line column THE ODDS for THE WRAP.

“The Academy did what it could to expand the slate of films, but it is at the mercy of what is being released this year.”

THE UNSEEN HONOREES. More nominees mean a greater chunk of the telecast will be devoted to the BEST PICTURE category. Something has to give.

That something will be the honorary OSCARS, which, as DAMIEN BONA noted, “often provide the emotional highlights of the evening.”

Instead, an untelevised though taped ceremony in Hollywood on NOVEMBER 14 will be held for this year’s recipients: actor LAUREN BACALL, B movie titan ROGER CORMAN, cinematographer GORDON WILLIS and executive/producer JOHN CALLEY, who will receive the IRVING G. THALBERG award.

To be denied watching the legendary LAUREN BACALL on live TV as she finally gets her OSCAR or clips of GORDON WILLIS’ splendid work with WOODY ALLEN and all of the GODFATHER films won’t please everyone.

“It dissipates the importance of the award,” DAMIEN BONA asserted.

STATUE SWAPPING FATIGUE. Some voters suggest the real problem isn’t the ceremony or the nominees. It’s the fact that there are so many other awards shows that air before the OSCARS, including the GOLDEN GLOBES, the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, the AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE and the BROADCAST FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION.

Since they feature a similar slate of contenders, they undercut the importance of what should be Hollywood’s ultimate evening to shine.

As 15 time nominee and two time winner MERYL STREEP noted, “The Oscars should be January 2. By the time we get to the Oscars, these same winners have trudged up on stage multiple times.”

“The best acting all year is when they act surprised.”

THE REVIVAL OF THE MIRACLE WORKER: WITH ABIGAIL BRESLIN & ALISON PILL

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

From spunky LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE to an even more heroic young girl…

Thirteen year old ABIGAIL BRESLIN will play HELEN KELLER in the first Broadway revival of WILLIAM GIBSON’S THE MIRACLE WORKER, scheduled to open on MARCH 3, producer DAVID RICHENTHAL announced Wednesday.

Previews begin FEBRUARY 12 at CIRCLE IN THE SQUARE THEATRE.

ALISON PILL will portray ANNIE SULLIVAN, the determined instructor who teaches the deaf and blind HELEN how to communicate.

“I am so honoured,” ABIGAIL stated.

“It’s like the biggest thing in the world. I have read the biography of HELEN KELLER. So I’ve always known the story and it’s always been something I wanted to play.”

“HELEN is a hero of mine – for so many reasons. She never gave up on herself and she had so many people who believed in her like her teacher ANNIE SULLIVAN.”

The production will be directed by KATE WHORISKEY, who has extensive regional theatre credits and recently was named artistic director of the INTIMAN THEATRE in Seattle.

DAVID RICHENTHAL, producer of acclaimed revivals of such classics as DEATH OF A SALESMAN and LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, has been a fan of the play for many years – particularly since he was good friends with WILLIAM GIBSON, who died in 2008.

“But I think one always needs to find ways to reintroduce it,” DAVID RICHENTHAL commented. “I have been waiting for the right director and the right cast.”

And he feels he has found them in his director and two stars.

“I have never met a young girl her age who is so clear eyed and unstarry. HELEN KELLER was brilliant – an IQ of 150 + – and obviously a courageous person to overcome what she did. I see those qualities in ABIGAIL.”

The producer said he thought THE MIRACLE WORKER also needed a great female director.

“This is a play that should not be part of the old boys’ club. I loved KATE’S take on it, which is that it’s really about everybody’s family. Now this story is a little more extreme. But there’s hardly a family that doesn’t have a child or a relative that has some real issues.”

KATE WHORISKEY also told the producer that THE MIRACLE WORKER was about three women – HELEN, ANNIE and Helen’s mother (a role still be to cast), someone who insisted against her husband’s advice of reaching out to this young teacher for her daughter.

“Then the question is: ‘Who can play ANNIE SULLIVAN?’ ” Mr. Richenthal added.

“I must say when I first started working on the production, the obvious thought was, ‘You get a star to play that role.’ But it’s an incredibly difficult part and a movie star might or might not be able to have the stage chops.”

“I think KATE was delightfully pleased that I was in favour of ALISON PILL because she is not exactly a household word. Not yet. She will be.”

ALISON PILL has been in several Broadway productions. She also appeared in HBO’s IN TREATMENT and played ANNE KRONENBERG in the OSCAR nominated film MILK.

WILLIAM GIBSON wrote THE MIRACLE WORKER for television’s PLAYHOUSE 90 in 1957, with TERESA WRIGHT as ANNIE SULLIVAN and PATTY McCORMACK as HELEN KELLER.

His Broadway adaptation opened two years later with ANNE BANCROFT as ANNIE and PATTY DUKE as HELEN. The stage production ran for more than 700 performances.

Both actors won ACADEMY AWARDS for their performances in the 1962 film version.

Rehearsals for the new version of THE MIRACLE WORKER begin JANUARY 11.

JOURNALISM & THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: A LOST ART?

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

What do AMY WINEHOUSE’S flaming beehive and GUY RITCHIE’S self inflicted black eye have in common?

Both stories appeared in the pages of Britain’s tabloid press. Neither are true.

The two incidents were fake showbiz news tips phoned into newspapers by the makers of the new documentary STARSUCKERS to see whether they would be used without fact checking. Considering that they (unfortunately) were forms part of the movie’s argument that the culture of celebrity has undermined journalistic standards and warped society’s values.

“I didn’t realize quite how much of our news is public relations, or lies, or on the basis of criminal acts,” said the film’s director CHRIS ATKINS.

STARSUCKERS, which premieres Wednesday at the LONDON FILM FESTIVAL, takes aim at Britain’s fiercely competitive tabloid press. But its real target is much broader.

CHRIS ATKINS believes that society’s obsession with fame – gaining it and being near it – has distorted everything from the way news is reported to our children’s aspirations.

The film opens with the statement that “Everybody is naturally and powerfully attracted to fame,” and tries to show how big companies in entertainment, media and PR use that desire to create a world full of insatiable consumers.

Through a series of stunts reminiscent of MICHAEL MOORE’S movie polemics, CHRIS ATKINS aims to show how dignity, truth and even the law go out the window in the pursuit of celebrity.

He is particularly scornful of reality television – the way such shows distort events and stretch the limits of what people will do to be on TV.

The film introduces viewers to a Nevada boy named Ryan, who wants urgently to be famous – at five years old, he is already a veteran of agents, auditions and public appearances.

In another sequence, CHRIS ATKINS sets up a booth in an English shopping mall purporting to be casting for children’s reality TV shows.

The filmmakers recorded as parents happily signed waivers for their children to appear on shows with titles like BABY BOOZERS and TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE – for which he filmed children cheerfully trying to decapitate rubber chickens.

Critics might say that the director manipulates people in precisely the same way as the shows he criticizes.

“We tricked people into being in our film,” he acknowledged.

His last movie TAKING LIBERTIES looked at what he saw as the erosion of civil rights under Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“Yes, we had moral qualms. But I firmly believe we’re doing it for the wider point. There was subterfuge involved to serve a wider public interest.”

He uses the same defence for his attempts to dupe newspapers in a bid to prove that Britain’s tabloids won’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Checkbook journalism and stories sourced to anonymous friends are long standing practices in Britain’s popular press.

Even murkier tabloid methods have come under scrutiny since 2007, when a News of the World journalist was jailed for illegally hacking into the phones of royal officials. The newspaper insisted it was a one off blunder, strongly denying claims that phone tapping of celebrities was widespread.

STARSUCKERS suggests that some tabloids, at least, won’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. Newspapers as far afield as India printed the too good to fact check claims that a blown fuse had singed AMY WINEHOUSE’S signature hairdo and that GUY RITCHIE had given himself a black eye while juggling cutlery.

Even more worryingly, perhaps, CHRIS ATKINS also secretly filmed tabloid reporters as he offered to sell them medical records of celebrities’ cosmetic surgeries.

Buying such records is illegal in Britain. But the reporters seemed keen. They didn’t know that the documents he offered – purporting to prove HUGH GRANT’S face lift and GUY RITCHIE’S chemical peel – were fake.

“We’re trying to turn the tables – to put the boot on the other foot,” remarked CHRIS ATKINS of his stings, which also included covertly filming celebrity publicist MAX CLIFFORD as he talked about the famous clients who pay him handsomely to keep damaging stories about them out of the headlines.

The filmmaker said his tactics had prompted letters from lawyers, including those working for MAX CLIFFORD, threatening legal action against the film.

Some viewers of STARSUCKERS may feel that CHRIS ATKINS doesn’t give people enough credit. Surely most people know that what they see on reality shows or read in the showbiz pages of tabloids might not be 100 per cent true?

MAX CLIFFORD, whose clients include SIMON COWELL, said a lot of celebrity stories are “25 per cent reality and 75 per cent exaggeration” – but that we shouldn’t worry too much about it.

“It’s entertainment. The public believes what they want to believe.”

The subjects of celebrity stories are less easygoing about it.

When film star GEORGE CLOONEY was asked about STARSUCKERS, he said a combination of shrinking newspaper staff and the internet meant misinformation could spread instantly around the world.

“Somebody will write a story and it will be in 1,800 different outlets from one person’s story. It’ll be false, and you’ll go, ‘It’s not true.’ And they go, ‘We’re not saying that. We’re saying that a London tabloid has said it.’ They’re just reprinting and reprinting things that aren’t necessarily true.”

CHRIS ATKINS said the problem is that the blurring of fact and fiction is not confined to celebrity stories. British newspaper editors are frequently former showbiz reporters.

It’s hard not to see symbolism in the career of Piers Morgan, who went from entertainment reporter to editor of The News of the World and the Daily Mirror. After he was fired by the Mirror – for running fake photos of British soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqis – he became a celebrity himself, as a judge on BRITAIN’S GOT TALENT, which launched SUSAN BOYLE to stardom.

“It’s the same journalists who write about AMY’S hair who write about weapons of mass destruction,” CHRIS ATKINS commented.

ANOTHER 60S FLASHBACK: PROMISES, PROMISES ON BROADWAY

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Forget MAD MEN.

The 60s will live again on Broadway next spring in a revival of PROMISES, PROMISES, the musical based on the ACADEMY AWARD winning movie THE APARTMENT.

The musical will star SEAN HAYES as an ambitious insurance company employee who lends his apartment to company executives for romantic flings and KRISTIN CHENOWETH as his love interest.

Producer John Gore said the production will open APRIL 25, 2010, at the BROADWAY THEATRE. Preview performances begin MARCH 28.

PROMISES, PROMISES features a book by NEIL SIMON and a score by BURT BACHARACH and HAL DAVID.

SEAN HAYES, who will be making his Broadway debut, is best known for playing JACK on the television series WILL & GRACE.

KRISTIN CHENOWETH last appeared on Broadway in the 2006 revival of THE APPLE TREE and was GLINDA in the original cast of WICKED.

The original PROMISES, PROMISES, which starred JERRY ORBACH and JILL O’HARA, opened on Broadway in 1968 and ran for more than 1,200 performances.

THE APARTMENT, which won the BEST PICTURE OSCAR in 1960, starred JACK LEMMON and SHIRLEY MacLAINE.

THE TITLE OF WOODY ALLEN’S NEXT FILM: YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER

FROM EW

WOODY ALLEN’S next film will be called YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER, reports VARIETY.

The London set film about a complicated family, stars NAOMI WATTS, ANTHONY HOPKINS, ANTONIO BANDERAS and FREIDA PINTO.

The film will be financed by Spanish companies Antena 3 Films and Mediapro, which also produced WOODY’S 2008 release VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA.

COCO BEFORE CHANEL **

GABRIELLE (COCO) CHANEL was an extraordinary woman.

The restless ambition and meticulous genius she possessed resulted in the glittering unforgettable House of Chanel. The gorgeous objects of desire she created nearly one hundred years ago are as fresh and relevant today as they were back then: simple black dresses, decorative but functional suits, quilted handbags, multiple strands of pearls, tasteful slingbacks and iconic fragrances.

She was also responsible for the casual glamour that females currently enjoy in their every day lives. She got women out of corsets and into pants – an idea that was revolutionary at that point.

Coco was a rule breaker and a trailblazer. She was a fascinating and complex personality. Her influence is strongly felt to this day.

So one would hope that COCO BEFORE CHANEL, a motion picture about her early years, would do the grande dame justice.

Not this time…

As a small child in the 1890s, GABRIELLE CHANEL’S father took her to a Catholic orphanage. She was there for seven years.

He promised that he would come back for her. He never returned.

Several years after her departure at 18, GABRIELLE (AUDREY TAUTOU) is making costumes and singing at a local bar. She longs to be a performer. The patrons nickname her COCO after one of the songs in her repertoire.

Coco is a cynic. She doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Her sense of humour is sharp and sardonic. She brushes off flirtations airily with a wave of her hand.

Men don’t impress her. She’s going to be somebody.

Into her life walks millionaire ETIENNE BALSAN (BENOIT POELVOORDE). He’s pleasant enough. But she can not take him seriously.

Etienne is a member of the upper classes. The French aristocracy recognized no moral code except their own. It was the dawn of the twentieth century. They were very rich and didn’t see the need for virtues such as fidelity or loyalty.

Women and men married, cohabitated with people and had as many lovers as they wanted to. They lived for the moment and never considered the consequences.

Coco thinks the matter over carefully. Being with a man like Etienne could create more problems than she needs. But she finally decides to become his mistress.

She moves into his lavish home. Etienne introduces her to the right people. They are unimpressed by Coco’s voice and her dancing skills. It’s clear that she is never going to be a star of the stage.

But there must be something that she can do successfully. She does know how to sew…

Coco decides that she will design hats. Etienne has a reputation to consider. He has always been popular with the ladies. But he seems strangely possessive of Coco.

He tries to control her. She will have none of it. Etienne asks her to marry him. She turns him down.

In spite of his frivolous exterior, Etienne is more sensitive than he seems to be. (It is a characteristic that he has in common with Coco.) He is also far more insightful than he initially appears.

Coco is fond of Etienne. But she knows that he is not the man for her.

And then came Boy…

ARTHUR “BOY” CAPEL (ALESSANDRO NIVOLA) is an acquaintance of Etienne’s that runs in the same circles. He’s a self made Englishman of considerable wealth and charm.

They first meet at Etienne’s mansion. Coco is dressed in men’s pajamas, her long dark hair flowing down her back.

As she passes by, he softly says two words to her: “You’re elegant.”

Coco is immediately smitten.

Boy is destined to be the love of Coco’s life. He takes her to Deauville for the weekend. Boy lends her the money to open her first store and assists her financially so that she can put together her debut collection of designs.

Coco’s clothes are wildly sought after. She is able to pay him back in no time. She and Boy have a long standing love affair. But they knew there could never be a marriage.

It was not the way it was meant to be.

In one scene, Coco looks him squarely in the eye and says, “I always knew that I would never be any man’s wife.”

You almost believe her.

COCO BEFORE CHANEL should be an interesting interpretation of the legendary designer’s early years. Instead it is utterly lifeless, flat and boring.

It is hard to believe that the talented ANNE FONTAINE directed this anemic biography. She did such a breathtaking job with THE GIRL FROM MONACO.

The cinematography is lacklustre. The art direction is pedestrian. Most of the acting is average at best. You would expect that the costumes would be sumptuous and beyond compare. But they’re nothing special.

The exquisite score by ALEXANDRE DESPLAT (THE UPSIDE OF ANGER, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, CHERI) is one of the few memorable attributes.

Of all the name actors that could have played Coco, AUDREY TAUTOU has the strongest resemblance to Ms. Chanel. Physically, she is perfect casting.

Her performance is fine. But it’s nothing spectacular. She lacks Gabrielle’s blazing fire and stately precision. Her acting is all surface. She’s just not compelling.

The real Coco was.

ALESSANDRO NIVOLA is fabulous. He has little chemistry with Ms. Tautou (they don’t make an entirely convincing fit) but he is marvelously sexy and charismatic.

He’s a native Bostonian who speaks fluent Italian. Alessandro’s French (along with a sensational British accent when he speaks the King’s English) is just as convincing. He’s easily the best thing in the movie.

The other thing is: even if you know nothing whatsoever about Ms. Chanel, if you’ve seen half a dozen motion pictures that represent this particular genre, you will have no problem understanding – right from the beginning – exactly what will happen with this relationship.

The foreshadowing is that clumsy.

It’s heartbreaking. But after all of that rapturous anticipation, COCO BEFORE CHANEL turned out to be a dreadful disappointment.

Oh, well. The horses were nice.

A SERIOUS MAN *

LARRY GOPNIK (MICHAEL STUHLBARG) is living in the Twilight Zone.

It’s 1967, the last year of the decade that could be classified as reasonably simple or serene. The world is about to become dark and complicated.

That process has all ready started for Larry, a physics professor at a bland midwestern university.

His wife is going to leave him. Some testosterone fuelled goon is extorting money from his son Danny at Hebrew school while perpetually threatening to kick the crap out of him. His daughter is stealing money from him so that she can finance her nose job.

His brother Arthur has severe physical and emotional problems that prevent him from working. He’s living with Larry’s family and driving them all crazy.

Danny signed up for a record club under Larry’s name. Larry can’t afford it on an ongoing basis. But he is unable to convince them to cancel the membership.

He’s in a car accident. A foreign exchange student that failed his midterm tries to bribe him. The kid’s father then threatens to sue him.

Someone is writing nasty letters to the university accusing Larry of moral turpitude. His tenure could be in serious jeopardy.

And, on top of it all, the crimson hot suburban tigress next door insists on sexually tormenting him by sunbathing buck naked.

Sound like a full plate?

It’s about to get even worse…

Larry has aspirations of being a serious man like his former friend Sy Ableman. He is a decent person who tries to do the right thing.

But, for whatever reason, he simply can’t find the ways or the means to be the substantial human being that he feels he should be.

The Coen brothers are the kings of quirk. Each film that they do possesses odd characters in their own offbeat little universe.

Individuality is a precious thing. It’s fantastic that they don’t make movies like anyone else and that they’re true to themselves.

But they don’t always work.

BARTON FINK is fabulous. MILLER’S CROSSING, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY and THE BIG LEBOWSKI all have their own unique charms. Even FARGO has its moments.

In A SERIOUS MAN, exceptional character actors like RICHARD KIND and GEORGE WYNER are wasted.

The only bright spots are AMY LANDECKER as the sultry neighbour (wondrous line readings and sharply knowing azure eyes that look right through you) and ADAM ARKIN as Larry’s lawyer.

Most of the acting is merely adequate. The characters (with the possible exception of Larry) are mainly written as clunky caricatures that are unbelievable in any case.

This is a nihilistic blackly comedic existential nightmare of minor proportions. If the so called resolution of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN left you cursing and outraged, just wait till you get a load of this particular ending.

The best thing about A SERIOUS MAN is that I’ll never have to sit through it again.

A NEW ADAPTATION OF BRIGHTON ROCK: WITH SAM RILEY, HELEN MIRREN, JOHN HURT & CAREY MULLIGAN

FROM EW

A new adaptation of GRAHAM GREENE’S BRIGHTON ROCK, starring SAM RILEY, HELEN MIRREN, JOHN HURT and CAREY MULIGAN started shooting last week in England.

Rowan Joffe directs the film, which is now updated from the 1930s to be set against the mods vs. rockers conflicts of 1964. SAM plays PINKIE, a gangster who falls in love with a young female restaurant server.

“We’re making BRIGHTON ROCK as contemporary as we possibly can because the story feels modern. It’s too alive, too vibrant and too relevant to be contained in the late thirties,” director Rowan Joffe said in a statement.

“Any form of adaptation is corruption. And Greene — who lovingly and pragmatically corrupted much of his own work to fit the big screen – would have been the first to understand that.”

BROADWAY MUSICAL ROCK OF AGES WILL BE A MOVIE

FROM VARIETY

HAIRSPRAY director ADAM SHANKMAN is signing on to direct and choreograph the screen version of the Broadway musical ROCK OF AGES for NEW LINE CINEMA.

The film will begin production by next summer and be released by WARNER BROTHERS in 2011. The musical’s creator Chris D’Arienzo scripted the movie adaptation.

“I had the best time of my life making HAIRSPRAY and badly wanted another musical. When I watched ROCK OF AGES, I was struck by the fact that not only had much of the audience seen it more than once, every guy in the audience knew the words to the songs,” ADAM SHANKMAN commented.

“What an extraordinary opportunity to open the genre to an audience that otherwise wouldn’t go see a musical.”

The play tells of two people who meet at the Sunset Strip club ROCK OF AGES, fall in love and try to stay together amid 80s rock anthems made popular by JOURNEY, JOAN JETT, PAT BENATAR and other groups. NEW LINE is clearing music rights to the tunes.

Since its move to Broadway, ROCK OF AGES fills most of its 1,000 seats at the BROOKS ATKINSON THEATER, assisted by five TONY nominations.

The show will begin a world wide rollout over the next several years.

ADAM SHANKMAN said he hopes to shoot the picture in its proper setting, which means lensing in Los Angeles.

“I’m thinking big and absolutely am going to attempt to cast with movie stars. Now that musicals are working again, actors are much more open to it.”