Cinematical has just been informed that Nia Vardalos' My Life in Ruins has scheduled a May 8, 2009 release date, which, so far, puts it opposite Star Trek as the weekend's only other wide release. And yes, we're told it will be a wide release, and that a brand, spanky new trailer will arrive soon (pay no attention to the one leaked online earlier in the month). Produced by Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, Ruins stars Nia Vardalos as she returns to her Greek roots (and to the country itself) as a tour guide who discovers her romantic side while showing a ragtag group of tourists around. Directed by Donald Petrie (How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days), Richard Dreyfuss and Rachel Dratch also star.

Fox Searchlight must have a good feeling about this flick if they're throwing it out right at the beginning of the summer -- and opposite the giganto Star Trek -- though the film's low-key vibes and romantic scenery will counter the ridiculous Trekker fanboy-ish quite well. Will My Life in Ruins bring Vardalos some more big, fat Greek luck? We shall see ...

It's a lonely day in the neighborhood ....

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: I'm not sure whether Warner Bros. was prepared for the ridiculous fanboy (and girl) backlash that came with pushing the film's release date back several months to the middle of July, 2009, though it looks like they've re-grouped, dusted themselves off and are preparing to get that marketing machine up and running again. Following a statement from Warners chief Alan Horn (included after the jump) comes word from our friends at Bloghogwarts that Warner Bros. has sent in a new trailer (marked at a minute and a half) to the BBFC for approval. Could this be the studio's version of make-up sex? (PG rated make-up sex, of course.) Only time will tell ...

Inglorious Bastards: These days, when it comes to the cast of Quentin Tarantino's WWII flick Inglorious Bastards, nothing is set in stone (or badass, motherf**king stone, as QT would say). Thus, we want to be real careful about this latest news (via Variety) that Michael Fassbender is "in talks" to join the ensemble cast. Note that he's "in talks", as were a few other guys (Simon Pegg, David Krumholtz, though the latter is still mentioned by the trade) before they dropped out. Though they don't say who he'd be playing, the German-speaking actor would most likely take on the role of badass motherf**king Nazi in charge of total damage ... which sounds about right to me. Fassbender, of course, is best known for his role as Stelios in 300, and is still set to appear opposite Abbie Cornish in Wuthering Heights.

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.