I can feel and hear the Oscar air hissing out of the Jarhead balloon….sssssssssssssss. I’m not just talking about my own opinion of Sam Mendes’ Gulf War non-drama — it’s being written off across the board. It was noted last Friday (10.28) in a lead-in to a blog-riff by Steve Pond on the L.A. Times Oscar site “The Envelope”, that Jarhead may be the first Oscar casualty of the season. “Reviews are starting to come in and so far it’s not looking good,” wrote Pond. “While Jarhead was assumed to be a strong contender as well, initial reviews in both the Hollywood trade papers were lukewarm enough to cast serious doubts on the movie’s Oscar chances.” There are admirers, granted (Maxim‘s Pete Hammond and someone else…Joel Siegel?…are calling it the Cat’s Meow), but the tide is clearly running against Jarhead at this stage.

I ran my enthusiastic review of Woody Allen’s Match Point (DreamWorks, 12.25) from the Cannes Film Festival five and half months ago. I opined, in part, that it’s Allen’s “darkest and strongest film — certainly his most moralistically bitter and ironic — since 1989’s Crimes and Misdemeanors….somewhat stiff and artificial here and there, and at the same time scalpel-like in its social observations, this mixed-bag drama deals the same kind of cards and has its footing in more or less the same philosophical realm as Crimes and Misdemeanors, and it has a finale that absolutely kills.” It’s not opening until Christmas Day (seven weeks hence) but the appearance of Peter Biskind’s Allen profile in the current Vanity Fair (and a piece about Biskind’s article in the 10.31 USA Today) means it’s now in active psychological play with forward-thinking entertainment journos. The general impression, however, is that DreamWorks isn’t interested in screening it…yet. Maybe they don’t want too much buzz out there about Match Point being the latest Woody. The consensus among Hollywood marketers seems to be (judging by the trailers and one-sheets for Anything Else and Melinda and Melinda) that a key strategy in selling a Woody Allen film is to play down the fact that it’s a Woody Allen film.

Is this definite? Peter Jackson has told Empire magazine that King Kong’s snaggle tooth hasn’t been eliminated but reduced in size. (Recent reports/indications had suggested the dreaded s.t. had been eliminated altogether…not!) And that the basic look of Kong is that of a big grandpa ape with craggy features and silver hairs sprouting all over…the apparent equivalent of a 65 or 70 year-old. In other words, given Kong’s libidinal longings for Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow, Jackson basically sees him as a dirty old ape. Other Empire divulgings: (a) As of last Thursday, Jackson was putting finishing touches on the editing, sound mix and music; (b) The three-hour length is due to an emphasis on “character, especially the relationship between Ann and Kong on the island” (80 extra minutes of character?); (c) Jackson has always regarded Kong as “a wild animal [and] not a friendly gorilla,” wanting to avoid any kind of cutesy-poo Mighty Joe Young-type moves that might soften or humanize the beast; (d) Jackson changed Kong after the teaser trailer came out, “making him older and craggier, reducing his snaggle tooth in size and making his face narrower”; (e) One of the most difficult scenes was the Kong vs. three T-Rex’s scene “which ended up about 300 shots long, or about nine minutes…it has taken us the entire duration of the project to do…the fight sequence ended up very elaborate, involving Kong and the dinosaurs swinging like a pendulum over the chasm, entangled in these vines, and Ann is also entangled and Kong is trying to protect her…it all ends up in a swamp”; (f)
the final Empire State Building sequence was also difficult “psy- chologically because it is such an iconic sequence”; (g) replacing Howard Shore was “a horrible thing” but the composter simply “didn’t click”; and (g) Jackson’s team “built a complete 1930s version of New York City, using aerial photos and archive material, in order to have as much freedom to move around as possible.”

It sure is heartening news that Eileen Newman has been named as the new exec director of the National Board of Review, following reports by Fox 411’s Roger Friedman of internal dissent and discord. Is this supposed to signify that the NBR’s annual awards (which are always the first out of the gate) might one day be considered as something more than a mild news snort, an anecdotal diversion…a joke?

For no reason other than a strong belief that all remnants of Danny Kaye should stay buried six feet under, last summer’s news about Owen Wilson planning to star in a new version of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty seemed like a dreadful prospect. Which is why yesterday’s Reuters report that the Mitty project has gone into turnaround feels like a very good thing. Mark Waters (Just Like Heaven, Mean Girls) was to have directed; the screenwriter is/was Richard LaGravanese (The Horse Whisperer). The inability to find an actress to fill the Virginia Mayo role “seems to have been the main reason for the project’s collapse,” said one report…although Scarlett Johansson had been mentioned as a lead contender, blah, blah. Doesn’t matter — dead is (hopefully…please!) dead.