An invitation to the AFIFest’s 11.1 opening-night gala premiere of Sacha Gervasi‘s certain-to-amuse Hitchcock arrived a half-hour ago. It offers an excuse to compare the poster art to the original 1960 Psycho one-sheet.

Could there be a tenuous connection between (a) Chuck Norris‘s four-month-old accusation that President Obama and Boy Scouts of America board member James Turley are conspiring to make the BSA more gay-friendly and (b) today’s release of the BSA’s “perversion files,” detailing sex abuse allegations against scout leaders over the last 20 years. It appears as if the BSA has been pedophile-friendly all along (second only to the Catholic church), and that Obama and Turley are latecomers, at best. That or Norris is an asshat.

I gather that 21 Jump Street is the prototype for Ivan Reitman‘s suddenly-greenlighted, actually-destined-to-be-made Ghostbusters 3…”a modern update with winks to the past,” a guy says. Possibly Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, the usual suspects. Paul Rudd subbing for Murray, SNL’s Jay Pharoah…who knows?

Remember when Bill Murray kibboshed an earlier proposed version that would have costarred Dan Aykroyd , explaining that “no one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts“? Except people would, I think, pay to see Murray do it again. He should at least agree to do a cameo.

The only problem with Ghostbusters 3 is that it appears to be one of those projects that’s solely about making money. You can’t make a good movie that way. It has to be “this is really good material,” “it’ll be a good film, and maybe a really good one” and “let’s do it and hope for the best.” It can’t be “this’ll make a shitload of money even if it’s shit,” “let’s make sure everybody gets his quote” and “who’s in line for first-dollar merchandising revenues”?

Do you want to really go for it and make the best Ghostbusters 3 possible? Get rid of Reitman. Which of course can’t and won’t happen. I only know that he peaked in the early to mid 80s, and that his last half-decent film was Dave (’93).

In response to a 12.16 announcement that the New York Film Critics Circle has decided to junk last year’s late November strategy and vote instead on Monday, December 3rd, I wrote that the all-but-worthless National Board of Review voting tallies will now be announced before the NYFCC, as they have in years past. The last two NBR announcements happened on 12.1.11 and 12.2.10.

And yet the National Board of Review winners will be announced on Wednesday, 12.5, according to a PMK*BNC release sent out this morning. So despite a recent decision by NYFCC chairman Josh Rothkopf to retreat from last year’s strategy, the NYFCC will still be first out of the gate.

Before last year the NBR was always the first awards group to be heard from — it was this way for decades. I asked PMK*BNC’s Lee Meltzer why the NBR will announce four or five days later than usual, and he said this is “to ensure that [they] have seen as many films as possible before voting.” Except the NBR gang will presumably have the same opportunities as the NYFCC membership to see the same films at the same times so Meltzer’s explanation is a head-scratcher.

Rothkopf said this morning that “we may still be first but that wasn’t our intention” in deciding to vote on Monday, 12.3. “Our main function is to be able to have enough time to see everything and fully deliberate,” he said. “We just looked at the dates, at all the important stuff coming out, the publicists told me that they could really use the last weekend of November…so it made sense to vote on Monday the 3rd. That was the optimal date.”

The Los Angeles Film Critics Association will vote on Sunday, 12.9.

In a Hollywood Reporter piece on Peter Jackson‘s The Hobbit (i.e., “The Hobbit: Inside Peter Jackson and Warner Bros.’ $1 Billion Gamble”), Kim Masters reports that Warner Bros. will release the 48 frame-per-second version of the film in 400 theatres on 12.14.

400 theatres? Yeah, okay. I guess that’s not so bad from a big- and middle-sized urban film fan perspective, and not too good for anyone who lives in Bumblefuck….but that’s always been the case, right?

Three Hobbit films will be released, and Masters quotes “a knowledgeable source” claiming that “the first two installments cost $315 million each, and that’s with Jackson deferring his fee. A studio source insists that number is wildly inflated and, with significant production rebates from New Zealand, the cost is closer to $200 million a movie.”

Masters also reports that original Hobbit director Guillermo del Toro may have left the project under some creative duress, possibly over concerns that his vision of the film was being (or was likely to be) compromised by Jackson’s.

“If there’s one message that Jackson and his team want to convey, it’s that del Toro left on his own — without a push from Jackson,” Masters writes. Jackson is quoted as saying that “eventually, he couldn’t wait around anymore [for del Toro to start shooting]…we got to the point that it was six months past when we should’ve originally started shooting.”

“Some close to del Toro suspect the story was a bit more complicated than that.

“‘Do I think Peter wanted to take over The Hobbit? No,’ says one insider. ‘But he was going to be involved one way or the other, and as an artist, Guillermo wanted to make his version of the movie. I think he wondered: ‘How much of an imprint can I put on this? Do I want to spend years of my life being caretaker of someone else’s franchise?'”

“In a statement to THR, del Toro says that ‘leaving The Hobbit after more than two years in New Zealand was the most difficult professional decision I’ve ever had to make. I put a great deal of love and effort into the co-writing and prepping of the Hobbit movies…with Peter, Fran and Philippa. However, I had a number of other professional and personal obligations that I had to fulfill. I left with the confidence that the Hobbit films were in good hands.'”

I understand sympathize with Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman using the success of Catfish, a major breakout at Sundance 2010, to direct Paranormal Activity 3 (which I actually paid to see) and then Paranormal Activity 4. But they’d better be careful. Beyond The Trailer interviewer Grace Randolph soft-pedals the wording of a possibly legitimate Wes Craven quote about how “the horror genre is easy to break into but hard to escape from.”

“In the intelligently ecstatic new adaptation of Anna Karenina, written by Tom Stoppard and directed by Joe Wright, all the world’s a stage — a 19th-century theater whose ornate confines are the setting for scenes taking place in Anna’s home town of St. Petersburg and in the social and political center of Moscow.

“Steeplechase horses gallop across the boards; a quiet dinner or a military banquet may be staged there. And when Anna (Keira Knightley) and Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) meet, the theatrical intensity of their first moments in each other’s arms makes those around them not fellow performers but mute spectators, awed and aghast.

“Wright’s strategy of setting most of the action on a stage [reps] a bold structure. In a way this is opera, but grand opera, with the emotions running at fever pitch and the actors as likely to dance (choreography by Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui) as walk. Vronsky and Anna’s meeting at a formal ball expresses their love through dance, exactly as the classic routines of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers did in their ’30s musicals. As Vronsky and Anna whirl, the other dancers freeze. Everyone can detect the expert passion in their movements; the couple might have been spotted in the act of love.” — from Richard Corliss‘s 9.9 Time review.

Alfred Hitchcock would have despised texting and tweeting during films had he lived to see it, but most of today’s tweeters and texters are either 85% to 90% clueless about who Hitchcock was or know him as that quirky British guy who made one rather talky, mildly creepy film 52 years ago, that film with a cool title that gave birth to the slasher genre. So why does that girl in the medium close-up have an “oh, no!” look on her face if she doesn’t know what texting is? Did she just step out of Rod Taylor‘s time machine?

The undecideds out there who felt that Romney won the debate don’t want to know anything except “give us jobs.” They don’t care about Romney’s agenda or the 47% tape or who he’s shilling for, and they don’t care about tax breaks for the 1% or Benghazi, vision, compassion, constructive policies…none of that. They’ll put Satan himself in the White House if it means a little more money circulating around.

“I have friends who have gone through Sex Addiction programs, so I have some secondhand knowledge of how bad things get for people who are truly suffering a sexual addiction. I know a number of real-life examples of that bottom…and more horrifyingly, the near bottom but not bottom.” — from David Poland‘s 10.16 review of Flight.

I’m sorry but this struck me as curious on a couple of levels. Poland has “friends” (i.e., more than one) who’ve gone through treatment for sex addiction? That’s two more than I have. Forget sex addiction therapy — I don’t know anyone struggling with any kind of compulsive sexual behavior of any kind, much less the kind that requires treatment. I was quite the hound in my day, and I’ve never known anyone in my life who’s had any problem with compulsive prowling. I don’t even know many people these days who are getting laid very much, including (or maybe particularly) married couples. And Poland knows not just one but two people in his circle who’ve gotten so much action that they’ve sought treatment?

My mind wanders, searches, darts around. What about the people in Poland’s circle who (a) have compulsive sex difficulties, (b) haven’t yet sought treatment but (c) are thinking it over as we speak? Are there a couple of people like that hanging out in the kitchen? Poland is a brilliant, hard-working, all-business type of guy who’s married with a kid, but he sure knows a lot of swollen libido types. Can I meet them so I can hear their stories and maybe learn something? What am I doing wrong?

Hollywood Sex Sufferer on the phone with Poland: “David, can we talk? I know you’ve got two friends who’ve gone for sex addiction treatment and…I don’t how to put this, man, but it’s getting really bad on this end…I had mad sex with the maid in my kitchen last night and she’s been working for us for 12 years…and I’m not sure what to do about it. I haven’t hit the bottom of the true bottom but my bottom is exposed and I can hear the bottom calling my name. Could you give me the name of a good clinic, or somebody who can recommend one?”

What would LexG make of this? George Prager? Lewis Beale? Anyone?

I’m presuming that Robert De Niro has agreed to accept a Kirk Douglas Award in Santa Barbara on Saturday, 12.8.12, because it’ll push the buzz along for DeNiro’s Silver Linings Playbook performance, which is almost certain to be nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category. It should be a good evening with various DeNiro homies (David O. Russell? Martin Scorsese?) giving tribute speeches.

It also indicates that Santa Barbara Film Festival chief Roger Durling, a diviner of currents in the wind and a fan of SLP, is banking that De Niro will be more favored in this category than Lincoln‘s Tommy Lee Jones or Arbitrage‘s Nate Parker or Argo‘s Alan Arkin or Magic Mike‘s Matthew McConaughey.

The event will also be an official celebration of the fact that De Niro, who’s appeared in a lot of painfully bad movies over the dozen years or so, has finally hit the jackpot with (a) a lively, funny, heart-touching performance in (b) a genuinely good film. (He’s given mushy performances before, but in crap like Everybody’s Fine, New Year’s Eve and The Big Wedding.) I think DeNiro started to “come back,” if you will, with a cagey performance as a creepy parole officer in Stone, which I greatly admired. Others thought his self-deluding dad in Being Flynn was a knockout, but I wasn’t a fan. Sorry.

Durling recently hosted a party at LA’s London Hotel to celebrate the 2013 Santa Barbara Film Festival, which will run from 1.24.13 through 2.3.13.

Tim Matheson, Roger Durling at recent SBIFF party at LA’s London Hotel.

“When you transfer a book to the screen, something’s going to give. It seems to me there are three essential things about Jack Reacher. First, he’s smart. Second, he’s still and quiet yet menacing. Third, he’s five-foot-seven.” — Author Lee Child talking about finding the perfect movie version of Reacher in a 9.25.12 Playboy interview. Are the last five words of the quote made up? You tell me.