Cinematical

Warning: Some spoilers ahead. Though if you've either read the book or seen the movie, you're cool.

Order matters. It's not true what they say: that as between a book and a movie, you inevitably prefer whichever one you read or watch first. But the order you take them in nonetheless profoundly affects the experience. You can try to be objective – claim that each work has to stand or fall on its own merits, other incarnations be damned – but it won't work. You've been tainted.

I liked The Ruins – the movie. It was tight, brutal, ruthlessly effective; along with The Strangers, one of the year's few R-rated breaths of fresh air. Though it hewed pretty closely to genre conventions, it also recombined them to come up with its own interesting take on survival horror. I appreciated the movie's simplicity (the vines are a pure, almost elemental villain); its gruesomeness that never turned into sadism or needless cruelty; its grim, harsh relentlessness. It was a gripping roller coaster of a movie; a fun ride I enjoyed, praised, and pretty much put out of my mind.

Now that I've read the book, I ask myself: Would I still have liked the movie had I gone to the book first? The answer, I think, is no. It's not that I now think I was wrong about the film; to the contrary. But Scott Smith's novel is so extraordinary a genre achievement that the movie – adapted by Smith himself – can, in retrospect, feel only like a hapless abridgement, a wispy simulacrum of the novel's all-encompassing sense of doom and spiraling psychological terror. Taking the two in reverse order would have made the film feel cheap, impotent, lame; The Ruins for Dummies.

Despite a lack of any real range, Mark Ruffalo is one of my favorite actors -- it's just so easy to identify with the affable schlub character he's made his forte. He's always seemed like a smart guy -- he's made smart choices -- so I'm looking forward to his just-announced directorial debut, the bizarrely titled Sympathy for Delicious. Ruffalo will co-star with James Franco and screenwriter Chris Thornton.

It's hard to know what to make of the premise. "Delicious" is actually the name of a DJ, played by Thornton, who becomes paralyzed and apparently homeless in Los Angeles. He toys with faith healing and discovers the ability to heal people (though not himself), which makes him famous. Ruffalo plays a Jesuit priest who tries to help him; Franco a rock star who tries to exploit him."

I believe we're talking about this Chris Thornton, whose most significant credit is a part in Pretty Persuasion, and who is handicapped in real life following a rock-climbing fall. The all-seeing, all-knowing IMDb claims he's best friends with Ruffalo. The movie sounds like something that might get trapped in the festival circuit, though we'll see -- Franco's presence might help.

Sympathy for Delicious shoots this fall.

The weekend estimates have The Dark Knight edging out The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor for the #1 spot, with $43.8 million to The Mummy's $42.5. The ranking may well change by the time the actual figures come out Monday afternoon, but the important fact will remain: The Dark Knight has hauled in $395 million after merely 3 weekends of release. Its first two weekend drops -- 53% and 42% -- may not seem sensational, but for a film that opened to $158 million, those numbers aren't half bad. The movie is second on the list of the top third weekends in history, behind Spider-Man, but it's already made just about as much as that film did in its entire run.

Tomb of the Dragon Emperor opened on more screens than any of its franchise predecessors, but had the weakest opening weekend (unless you count the Scorpion King spin-off), running about one million behind the 1999 original. (The Mummy Returns opened to $68 million back in 2001.) Next weekend doesn't offer much direct competition -- except The Dark Knight, natch -- so maybe it can make up some ground, though I don't reckon word-of-mouth will be its friend.

Things did not go well for Swing Vote, which had to make do with $6.3 million and sixth place. I'd say this means viewers are wary of politics right now (which wouldn't bode well for W), but I don't think too many people knew that Swing Vote opened. You have to market summer counter-programming.

My heart breaks as I peruse the back end of the top 10, where The X-Files: I Want to Believe -- for my money, the most undervalued movie of the summer -- falls to ninth with a painful 66% drop. What can I say? I get why it didn't work out. But I'm not happy about it.

The full estimates after the jump.

What with the firestorm over John McCain's ad calling Barack Obama a hollow celebrity akin to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, you'd think someone would have pointed out that McCain actually has Obama beat in the "number of Hollywood movies appeared in" category. Here's a video -- unearthed by Movie Moron via SlashFilm -- of John McCain's amusing cameo in Wedding Crashers, shaking hands with Christopher Walken's remarkably well-connected Secretary Cleary at his daughter's wedding. And yes, that's James Carville next to him, but Carville shows up in everything.

Just a bit of harmless fun for McCain or despicable participation in a BOOB RAUNCH FEST? You be the judge.

Also: Number of cameos on 24: John McCain: 1; Barack Obama: 0. You can check that video out over here. What's that old saw about glass houses?

A couple of weeks ago, everyone got sort-of excited about the fact that Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno got slapped with the kiss-of-death NC-17 rating by the MPAA. I sure did: even the tiniest glimmer of hope that a mainstream film may make it into release with an NC-17 would be great news. Maybe -- as Roger Ebert among others has been pushing for years -- we can finally decriminalize the Movie for Adults.

But we all knew it was wishful thinking; that Smith is almost certainly obligated by contract to do whatever it takes to secure the R for Zack and Miri. In a conversation with Capone of Ain't It Cool News, Smith confirms that, and goes into considerable detail about his back-and-forth with the MPAA over the film.

Smith claims that the MPAA originally gave him two "areas" of the film to focus on; after he cut out more than 12 minutes, did some trims of other offending section, and resubmitted (twice), the ratings board apparently got hung up on one 14-frame-long shot ("It's not even a second!" Smith objects) and Smith gave up on editing and is now simply appealing the rating. If his appeal is rebuffed, he says, he won't have a choice but to make the cuts. And he's not angry about it: "I haven't blogged about it, I'm not out there screaming 'Oh my God, they're violating my .f***ing civil liberties or my rights as an artist.' It's just part of the process." (This is in stark contrast to star Seth Rogen's take on the subject.) The MPAA is set to hear the appeal on August 4th.

Smith also tells AICN he is still planning to make the fundamentalism-themed horror movie Red State; the Weinstein Co. refused to finance it, but he is close to securing some independent backing.

My general rule is: I don't walk out of movies. The last time I did so was in 2006 during the fairly wretched bar mitzvah comedy Keeping Up with the Steins -- but only because I was with a friend who wasn't into it; we were bored and I was embarrassed because I had suggested the film. I'm occasionally tempted to leave in the middle of a movie that's giving me no earthly reason to hope it will get any better, but something always keeps me in my chair. Often I'm at a press screening, where it's poor form to walk out. Even if I'm seeing a movie on my own dime, I'm usually driven by a sense of duty and completism. I like talking about movies, as you've probably guessed, and it doesn't seem legitimate to do so not having given the whole thing a chance. "Oh man, I despised Movie X." "Really? What did you think of the ending?" "I left halfway through." "Oh."

I've been doing some traveling, and am spending this weekend in San Francisco. Friday was a gorgeous day, but for various reasons I'm a bit behind in my movie-watching duties, so after exploring the city for a while in the morning, I decided to head to the theater for a double feature. The first thing I went to see was Swing Vote, which I found irritating and politically gutless but certainly watchable. My next choice: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

What do you do when your new movie turns into one of the biggest bombs of the summer? You go back to what you know. Take this rumor for what it's worth -- probably not much given its "anonymous insider" source -- but the word is that Mike Myers has shaken off (or maybe learned from) the disaster that was The Love Guru, and has set to writing a fourth Austin Powers flick. According to the same rumor, he'll be collaborating on the screenplay with Michael McCullers, the SNL vet who wrote and made his directing debut with this year's considerably more successful Baby Mama. The plot will have a "father and son theme loosely based on his own life" (??!!) which suggests a prominent place in the cast for Seth Green.

I didn't think The Love Guru was very funny -- and neither did anyone else, I don't think -- but I did appreciate how giddy Myers got about fart jokes and lame double entendres. Genuine enthusiasm can go a long way in comedy, and Myers has never lacked for that, which is largely the reason why I'm not ready to give up on him just yet. Well, and also the fact that I thought all three of the Powers movies were pretty good.

And I'll say this: I laughed at the Guru Pitka's use of "Mariska Hargitay" as a patented mantra. Sue me.

Tim Burton has cast the title role in the new adaptation of Alice in Wonderland he's working on for Disney. It is not, as was rumored a couple weeks ago, Ryan Nikole Parker, but it's not anyone more well-known, either. The role has gone to Australian actress Mia Wasikowska -- and holy crap, I have nothing but respect for anyone who can break into Hollywood and retain a name like Mia Wasikowska. Up until now, her only high-profile credits have been as a regular on HBO's In Treatment and in the much-hyped but little-seen killer crocodile flick Rogue. But the 18-year-old has parts in the upcoming Defiance (Edward Zwick's latest pitch to AMPAS) and the Earhart biopic Amelia, so she should be recognizable by the time Alice in Wonderland surfaces.

The film will be a combination of live-action and motion-capture animation, and will be released in digital 3-D -- but what big new movie won't be, these days? It was written by Linda Woolverton, who worked on The Lion King, and it starts shooting in November for a 2010 release.

I'm as big a Tim Burton devotee as you'll find (don't believe me? Find me one other person who will admit to liking the Planet of the Apes remake), so I'll gladly swoon over a Burton version of the Lewis Carroll classic. In fact, this is such an on-the-nose project for Burton that I'm kind of surprised it took him this long to get to it. But I'll take it.

Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf took a lot of hits for its perceived silliness, a verdict I could never quite sign on to. First of all, silly compared to what? Have these people seen the 1999 space opera Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert? Compared to that, Zemeckis's Beowulf is a sober meditation on the human condition. Have they seen the Gerard Butler clunker Beowulf and Grendel? Come on, guys: considering what the movies have done to this story in the past, last year's high-tech effort seems like serious business to me.

What about the source material – the ancient Old English epic poem upon which these movies purport to be based? If you've ever read it (or tried to read it), the perversions of the adaptations shouldn't surprise you. It's both begging for action movie treatment and impossible to faithfully adapt into anything resembling a compelling action movie. The story is credited with generating many of the archetypes we see in our fiction, and indeed, it's so archetypical that by modern standards, it's a skeleton; there's nothing there.

Seriously – you know how people complain about movies whose plots can be fully described in one sentence? A faithful Beowulf would take this phenomenon to new heights. A synopsis would read something like this: Beowulf beats up Grendel, Grendel's mom, and a dragon, and dies. The end. Some complained that the Zemeckis version distorted Beowulf, but I'd have liked to see their reaction to an undistorted adaptation. Trust me, it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all these screenwriters have scrambled to add elements to the story.

I think Scott Weinberg's getting set for Comic-Con as I write this, so I'll briefly fill in on the gorehound beat. Mirrors director Alexandre Aja has released what he calls "a new tasty visual from one of my favorite scenes" in the film. Per Aja's penchant for extravagant gross-outs, the picture is -- how do you say? -- aggressive. I'm putting it under the jump. It's gruesome -- watch out.

It's also -- and some of you may petition to have me committed for this -- strangely beautiful, albeit in a way only a horror freak could love. Unlike, say, the work of Eli Roth, who's like a giddy kid in a candy store when it comes to gore, Aja's imagery has been kind of artful in its grandiosity. Of the Splat Pack membership, I think he's the most concerned with the egghead aspects of horror movie aesthetics: shot composition, the color palette, symmetry, etc. That's a large part of the reason I'm looking forward to Mirrors, which otherwise looks pretty standard-issue. A truly great-looking horror film might be able to get away with not having much of a concept.

Anyway, Aja will be at Comic-Con promoting Mirrors, and I'm sure Scott, Eric or Elisabeth will have something for you from there. Meanwhile, click through for the photo -- if you dare. Not Safe for Work.