When Warner Bros. announced last Thursday that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been pushed back from Nov. 21 to next July, hardcore fans immediately entered the five stages of nerd grief. So far we've worked our way through denial, anger, semi-literate Internet ranting, and conspiracy-theorizing. All that's left is acceptance, where we go ahead and watch the movie when it comes out next summer and forget any of this ever happened.

In the meantime, several myths about the date change have popped up, and we'd like to help separate fact from fiction.

MYTH #1: Half-Blood Prince was moved because WB was scared of Twilight.
According to some people who are fans of the Twilight novel and pre-fans of the Twilight movie, WB got nervous about Harry Potter coming out just three weeks before the teen-vampire chick flick, fearing it would siphon off too much of Harry's audience.

Most observers believe Twilight will indeed be a hit, but come on. The Harry Potter franchise the most lucrative in film history, with a total worldwide box-office gross so far of $4.5 billion. There's no reason for WB to fear any competition, no matter how formidable. Also, most of Harry Potter's income is from overseas, where Twilight, still largely a U.S. phenomenon, cannot hope to compete.

Plus, if Half-Blood Prince came out Nov. 21 and followed the usual pattern, it would have already made most of its projected income by the time Twilight showed up on Dec. 12 anyway. Three weeks is a huge gap in our modern, front-loaded, it's-all-about-opening-weekend movie culture. If there had only been one week between them, then maybe you'd have something.

Adam Sandler's most recent not-very-funny comedy, You Don't Mess with the Zohan, has earned about 100 million U.S. dollars since its release in June. It's not going to be pulling in any Egyptian gineih, Lebanese lira, or U.A.E. dirhams, though, because the censors in those countries have banned the film from local cinemas. I'm tempted to say that for the first time ever I'm jealous of Middle Eastern moviegoers, but that would be a shallow joke. Besides, no matter how lousy a movie is, it's nice to at least have the option of watching it.

Film censorship is common in Arab countries. What's noteworthy here is that the film in question is about Israeli/Palestinian relations, a subject that's probably of some considerable interest to many people in that region. Sandler's character, a former Israeli spy, moves to New York and gets a job at a hair salon run by a Lebanese-American woman -- but people in Lebanon won't be able to see the film. I guess the movie's final message of looking past our differences and learning to get along with each other was deemed too offensive.

Well, OK, as noted in Variety, anything with a lot of sexual content, political messages, or religion bashing is liable not to make it past the censors in the Arab world, and Zohan has plenty of all three. The film's Middle East distributor, Circuit-Empire, is still showing the film to the other Arab countries' censorship boards, but they don't expect it to fare any better than it did in Egypt, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. Sorry, Middle East! You'll have to view images of Sandler's comically oversized package by some other means!

For all you Harry Potter fans who are also devoted to a certain series of teen-vampire romance novels, here's something that should help you deal with Thursday's devastating news about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince being pushed back to next summer. Summit Entertainment announced today that with Harry having vacated the November 21 spot, they're going to fill it with Twilight, bumping it up a full three weeks from its original date of December 12.

While some fans wondered, irrationally, if the Harry Potter move was to get away from Twilight, Summit's CEO says Twilight never had any delusions of being more powerful than the boy wizard at the box office. "With a giant franchise like Harry Potter in the market, we had to stay clear of it," Rob Friedman told Variety -- hence the original date well away from Half-Blood Prince. "Their move created an opportunity to bring the movie to fans three weeks earlier."

Once November 21 opened up, the move was really a no-brainer. As a press release from Summit points out, movie theaters get very crowded around the holidays, and Twilight will be able to open on far more screens on November 21 than it could have on December 12. Now it'll be opening the Friday before Thanksgiving, too, which is nearly always a plus. Its only competition will be Disney's animated Bolt. The only loser here is Entertainment Weekly, whose Fall Movie Preview is now wrong again, before most readers have even seen it. (Or, from another point of view, now that issue is even more of a collector's item.)

What do you say? Are you excited about getting Twilight sooner? To those of you who have been sending Warner Bros. wrathful messages about the Harry Potter move, does this quell your anger somewhat? Will you at least be able to live and function and carry on?

UPDATE: Cinematical has been given this brand new still from the film, which shows Cruise without the eye patch.

MGM seems to be trying to reverse the effects of the doomsaying that circulated about Tom Cruise and Bryan Singer's Hitler-assassination-attempt thriller Valkyrie in the spring, culminating in the announcement that the movie was moving from December 2008 to President's Day 2009. That was received as a surrender, a sure sign that the studio had no confidence in the film and was doing damage control by moving it out of harm's way. Now, following some successful test screenings, MGM has reversed itself and is moving Valkyrie back into the heart of Oscar season: December 26, 2008. Apparently, though, the studio still doesn't think it has awards potential, and is making the move because it thinks Valkyrie will do well in the Christmastime marketplace.

I'm sure positive test screenings did have a lot to do with MGM's decision, but I think it's a smart move because it's great spin control. The press loves to read the tea leaves of studio behavior, and will see this as a major vote of confidence. I suspect the buzz on Valkyrie will seriously improve now that it is no longer the subject of what was perceived as a February dump.

For my part, I don't care about Tom Cruise or his silly eyepatch, but I have a lot of trust in Bryan Singer. The man can make a good mainstream thriller, and I don't see why Valkyrie should be any exception. I think a lot of the "bad buzz" (such as Roger Friedman randomly attacking the film) is just Cruise-bashing, which may be justified but probably shouldn't extend to his movies.

As far as hustling movie producer archetypes go, I tend to prefer Joel Silver over Harvey Weinstein. Sure, Weinstein played a role in some of the great American independent films from the last decade of the twentieth century, but Silver's production credits have more spice to them -- The Matrix, Predator, 48 Hrs. -- hinting at the zany force behind their existence. The movies he has produced don't always please everyone (consider those last two Matrix movies), and sometimes his productions run into unforeseeable setbacks (Joss Whedon's troublesome Wonder Woman script). But now, Silver's trying a radical maneuver that reaffirms his maverick abilities: He's shopping around Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla, which tells the story of a drama surrounding a stolen painting and stars Gerard Butler, to other studios despite the plan to release it through Warner Bros. in October.

According to Patrick Goldstein in The Los Angeles Times, Silver said he showed the movie to Lionsgate and Sony Pictures to get some advice on how to market the film. However, when Goldstein asked Warner Bros.' top executive Alan Horn about the situation, Horn called the movie "very English," not "broadly commercial," and said the studio "might not be willing to spend the marketing money he wants us to." So it follows that Silver probably wants to sell the movie to somebody else.

This kind of thing has happened before. Jonathan Levine's teen horror flick All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was set for a release through The Weinstein Company, but when it was determined that the distributor might not provide the best home for the film, it went to the more agreeable Senator Films (although Senator has yet to release it). What troubles me is Horn's assertion that RocknRolla is "very English." Yeah ... so?

To be eligible for the Academy Awards, a documentary feature must play theatrically, at least two showings a day, for at least a week in both Los Angeles County and the borough of Manhattan. (For documentary shorts, it only has to play in one location or the other.) And they have to do it by the end of August to be eligible for next year's Oscars, too -- which means time's a-wastin'!

That's where the International Documentary Association's DocuWeek comes in, screening more than a dozen worthy features and shorts in L.A. and New York so they'll be eligible for Oscar consideration (and so audiences can enjoy them, too, of course). Some of the films didn't get distribution deals when they played at film festivals, so they had no chance of earning Oscar eligibility without something like this.

New York's DocuWeek is happening now, running all day every day through Thursday at Village East Cinema and IFC Center. L.A.'s DocuWeek will be Aug. 22-28 at the ArcLight in Hollywood and Sherman Oaks. The films are more or less the same in both cities (four features and four shorts play in L.A. but not New York), and there are some real gems here.

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (pictured) has already emotionally devastated about half the Cinematical staff (including myself, Will Goss, Monika Bartyzel, and Erik Davis), and you should take advantage of any opportunity you have to see it. An Unlikely Weapon tells the story of the photographer who snapped that famous shot of a Saigon policeman shooting a Viet Cong guerrilla in the head, and the aftermath of the photo. Glass is about love-him-or-hate-him film composer Philip Glass. War Child profiles a Sudanese refugee who has become an international rap star.

The list goes on. Check out the links for the full programs -- and if you're in New York or L.A., go see some docs!

Let's see: a serious, multigenerational, semi-autobiographical family drama starring Willem Dafoe, Emily Watson and Julia Roberts -- it sure sounds like Oscar buzz for Fireflies in the Garden should have gotten turned up to 11 by now. There hasn't really been any; the bad reviews from the film's out-of-competition premiere at Berlin probably didn't help. Still, that cast is tough to beat (there's also Ryan Reynolds, Carrie Anne-Moss and Hayden Panettierre), and the movie should be able to land with at least a minor splash if its eventual US distributor puts in a bit of effort.

There's now a full international trailer up at one of the film's websites. If the movie does indeed suck, the trailer doesn't telegraph the suckage -- it makes the film look solid, respectable. The reviews, on the other hand, make it sound embarrassing, with the sort of logistical difficulties (Texas failing to stand in for Chicago; implausible casting of younger and older versions of the same characters) that shouldn't really plague a production this high-profile.

Director Dennis Lee is making his feature debut after directing a well-received short film called Jesus Henry Christ. It's a heck of a pedigree for a first film, though the scenario and the reviews (and the director's last name) make me think of Jieho Lee's The Air I Breathe -- a feature debut by a director with a strong short on his resume, and a spectacular cast, that turned out to be completely unwatchable.

Each day seems to bring us yet another piece of promotional marketing for Oliver Stone's Bush flick, W. Not long after Moviefone debuted the trailer, AICN now has a teaser poster and what you see above is one of two newly-released images from the film. They're definitely pimping it, trying to get folks interested in a movie about the life and times of George W. Bush even though many of us are tired of the man, the jokes, the legend -- all of it. We've spent 8 years with this dude ... can't we just shake his hand, thank him for a job done and move on?

Anyway, W (which feels like it was shot and edited in three weeks in order to make a pre-Election Day release date) arrives in theaters on October 17, and we were wondering how much you think it's gonna make? With one of the biggest presidential elections in years only a couple weeks away from that date, and with the entire world watching to see who we'll replace Dubya with, will all that chitter-chatter raise more or less interest in the Oliver Stone movie? Is this the kind of flick that will surprise everyone with a giant taking, or will it crash and burn? Sound off below ... and we'll revisit your answers in a couple months when W rolls out.

How will you spend the 7th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks? Here's an idea: head to NYC's Two Boots Pioneer Theater for the opening night screening of Able Danger, an acclaimed independent film based around the conspiracy theory that U.S. intelligence was involved in the planning and execution of the tragic events on the morning of that infamous date. Even if you think the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy is ludicrous and in poor taste, the premiere screening should be interesting, because writer-director Paul Krik will be on hand for a Q&A. And this is the sort of city where people will likely show up for a debate. Of course, while subsequent screenings throughout the film's one-week engagement won't be attended by Krik, there could still be some engaging conversation to be had with fellow audience members. So if you can't make the initial showing, don't worry about missing out on all the fun.

The film, which stars Elina Löwensohn (Nadja) and Adam Nee, is a fictional thriller (Variety labels it a mix between The Maltese Falcon and Kiss Me Deadly) about a couple of 9/11 "truthers" attempting to expose the conspiracy using a hard-drive filled with data thought to be destroyed by a real classified government program named Able Danger. It had its world premiere back in January at the International Film Festival Rotterdam and has since screened at the Cannes Film Market (aka the Marche du Film) and opened the Brooklyn International Film Festival, where it won a special award of excellence. For more on the film, check out the website, where you can use a plane-shaped cursor to click on explosive links located on a graphic of the World Trade Center (classy!). You can also watch the film's trailer below, after the jump.

When was the last time you saw a first-run movie on opening night and paid just $1.75? Hardcore horror flick The Midnight Meat Train has been relegated to second-run theaters in its limited, 100-screen release this weekend, as William Goss nicely detailed for us. (Thanks to commenter Christopher for pointing out that Dread Central compiled a very handy list of theaters.) Let me testify: watching the movie at a theater with cheap seats did not enhance the experience.

Here's why: The Midnight Meat Train is a very good flick -- I agree completely with our own horror hound Scott Weinberg that "it's one of the most effective horror films of the year" -- and horror fans who sought it out deserved to see it in the best possible environment. I was fortunate in that one of the six theaters playing it in the Dallas / Ft. Worth Metroplex is only about 10 miles away, though I had a devil of a time finding it. Unfortunately, the theater has seen better days, the seating layout is not optimal, and the audio equipment is lacking.

It felt surreal to watch the far inferior The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor at a Cinemark complex with great sound and a huge screen and then travel 10 miles to see The Midnight Meat Train at another Cinemark complex with sound that lacked any oomph and a much smaller screen. Nonetheless, the 9:25 p.m. show drew a mixed crowd of 60-70 people, despite zero advertising in the local newspapers, and folks seemed satisfied with what they saw.

Out of all the specialty releases that have appeared in theaters -- including American indies, docs, and world cinema -- why is one standing out this summer as a "word-of-mouth" hit? That's how Steven Zeitchik in The Hollywood Reporter descibes Guillaume Canet's terrific French thriller Tell No One, which has grossed nearly $1.7 million since opening in New York and Los Angeles at the beginning of July.

Zeitchik provides background on distributor Music Box Films and its founder William Schopf and then says that strong reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker "certainly helped, particularly with the film's older demo." (Hmm, did someone take a poll?) He also speculates that press days for director Canet, its mystery/thriller genre, and timing -- an indie slipping between the cracks of the big summer movies -- may have been factors.

Tell No One opened the same July 4th holiday weekend as Hancock, and the mixed reviews for the Will Smith picture may indeed have pushed some folks to try the French flick. But The Wackness also opened that weekend, and despite some very good reviews and a smashing opening weekend, its per-screen average has declined as it has expanded across the country. More than one million dollars at the box office is a decent return for a rather desultory stoner period comedy-drama, in my opinion, though it's far less than others thought it could achieve. Still, why did Tell No One -- with, evidently, a substantially smaller marketing budget -- catch on and not The Wackness?

In a development noted on several horror sites, not the least of which are Shock and BD.com, it appears that Lionsgate is indeed opening the oft-shuffled adaptation of Clive Barker's The Midnight Meat Train on roughly 100 screens this Friday. However, all currently-posted showtimes are at second-run theaters -- otherwise known as dollar theaters, although it never seems to be that cheap anymore, not even on Tuesdays.

In my neck of the woods, one theater has it booked for two evening shows a day, for an engagement that I'm willing to bet will last only one week. The last time I remember a first-run film being shown at this theater, it was the Weinsteins' Feast, although that usually neglectful studio did so as part of a clear strategy to boost general awareness of that movie before its DVD release a month later (and wouldn't you know it, that wasn't a bad flick at all).

Despite all the fuss between Barker and the studio and the frequent release date changes, Scott saw it at Comic-Con and really dug it, and he doesn't seem to be alone among the genre gurus, which leads one to wonder just why Lionsgate would go to such curious lengths to so poorly fulfill a contractual obligation when it seems that fans might, y'know, actually turn out and pay full price to get the grisly goods. (On the flip side, at least it'll hit more cities than Pathology or Rogue did when they were similarly dumped.)

What do you guys think? Are you still interested in catching the film, and if so, do you find yourself inconvenienced by this odd distribution tactic?

There's good news and bad news, Soderbergh fans: The bad news is that the director's two-part, Benicio Del Toro-starring Che Guevara biopic Che, as noted in a recent piece in The Hollywood Reporter, still doesn't have a U.S. distributor. Gregg Goldstein's piece (which also looks at the similar challenges faced by Cannes '08 films Synedoche, New York and Two Lovers) notes that there are four offers on the table from independent distributors, but no deal has yet been signed.

For many who saw Che at Cannes (including myself), this is vexing news. Goldstein also relates that one distributor's hopes to purchase Che as a single film with a three-hour running time has been roundly rebuffed. However, in case anyone would like to see what all the fuss is about -- albeit in blurry, bootleg fashion -- a grainy, blurry bootleg of the trailer (in all Spanish with no subtitles) for the first half of Che, The Argentine, has hit YouTube (see above) -- and while the bootlegged trailer may lack clarity and definition, it also gives a great sense of the look and the feel of the film.

Does The Argentine's trailer make you hunger for all of Soderbergh's Che? Or does it just make you appreciate how hard it's going to be to get a distributor to back a four-hour long historical drama in Spanish?

According to a report conducted by Nielsen PreView published today in The Hollywood Reporter, R-rated comedies don't do so hot at the box office. The timing of these findings seems odd, considering that Step Brothers made a solid $30 million last weekend, while analysts are predicting that another summer comedy slapped with the restricted label, Tropic Thunder, will collect at least that much. Right in the middle of those two releases comes Pineapple Express, which, like Step Brothers and Tropic Thunder, has a built-in core audience interested in raunchy masculine humor. The findings of this report suggest that larger audiences don't want to attend R-rated movies, but it's sort of a pointless observation because R-rated comedies are only made for people who want to see them. Everyone else can check out You Don't Mess with the Zohan.

Of course, there is the occasional R-rated comedy with cross-over appeal, such as Knocked Up, but studios are probably hesitant to make many of those when a safely PG-13 Juno will suffice. Anyway, it's usually not difficult for Hollywood movies to trim a few vulgarities or the fleeting shot of exposed skin in order to knock down the rating a notch and maximize turnout. Horror films are a different story: They usually make bank with the R-rating intact.

Speaking to the 18 and over audience here: Do ratings play any role in the movies you choose to see?

It's been called one of the greatest documentaries ever made. It's a 170-minute-long juggernaut of a film. The fact it was snubbed by the Oscars created such a public outcry that the Academy was compelled to change the very voting process for the documentary field. And, like finding a piece of filet mignon at the local fast-food joint, Hoop Dreams is now nestled in alongside old Buffy re-runs, Simpsons clips and other offerings at Hulu.com.

Directed by Steve James, Hoop Dreams follows two young men from Chicago and their struggles and triumphs on and off the basketball court as they aspire to go from grade school promise to high school stardom and hope make it to the NBA. Shot over a period of years, Hoop Dreams has been called one of the finest documentaries of all time, and the indie-consultancy group Cinetic has made it available on-line at Hulu.com. And, of course, part of me is looking for the cloud around this silver-lined opportunity: What's Cinetic hoping to get out of this? What's Hulu hoping to prove? And if you're hoping to prove the viability of Hulu as a distribution model for documentaries, why would you pick a 14-year-old film that already has a great Criterion DVD? And finally, as much as I admire Hoop Dreams and the idea of it being available on-line, I have to wonder if anyone is going to sit in front of their computer screen for the full 171-minute running time of the film. ...