Welcome to the Indie Spotlight, our weekly roundup of the limited-release films opening outside the multiplexes all over this great land of ours. There are quite a few indie films debuting today, and while it's especially good news for movie buffs in New York City, the rest of us can make a note of the ones that look good and keep an eye out for when they come to our neck of the woods (wherever that neck may be).

Today we have, in alphabetical order: Ashes of Time Redux, Billy: The Early Years, Breakfast with Scot, Choose Connor, Fraude: Mexico 2006, Good Dick, Happy-Go-Lucky, Nights and Weekends, and Talento de Barrio. Here's the scoop on each of them, from widest opening to smallest.

Billy: The Early Years
What it is: A friendly, faithful biopic about the Rev. Billy Graham.
What they're saying: Nothing so far. If I had to guess, I'd reckon fans of the good reverend will find it pleasant, while those unfamiliar with or uninterested in him will find it boring. That's if I had to guess.
Where it's playing: About 300 locations throughout the southeastern quadrant of the United States, below the Mason-Dixon line and east of Amarillo.
More info: Here's the official site.

Talento de Barrio
What it is: Puerto Rican drama starring Daddy Yankee as a drug dealer who falls in love and becomes a reggaeton singer. I guess it's like a Puerto Rican Hustle & Flow.
What they're saying: The only two reviews available so far are very, very negative.
Where it's playing: About 20 screens in the greater New York City and Los Angeles areas.
More info: The official site lists the theaters it's playing in.

400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.

Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona (221 screens) has earned some good reviews, but not particularly great ones. I'm not sure many critics have really understood its significance. I think they just stayed on their usual pro- or anti-Woody Allen bandwagon and reviewed it according to how funny or not funny it was, or how Woody Allen-ish the dialogue sounded. Or worse, they brought Allen's private life into it and attacked it for its supposedly twisted sexuality. But Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a major step in the career of this tricky artist, more so than the critical darling Match Point three years ago.

One drawback to Allen's career is that he started out as a blatant comic filmmaker with films like Bananas, Sleeper and Love and Death. Then, movies like Annie Hall, Manhattan and Crimes and Misdemeanors cleverly melded comedy into dramatic situations, but the damage had been done: he was once and always "just" a comedian, forever lower on the scale than his contemporaries (Altman, Scorsese, Coppola, etc.). His other drawback is that he keeps making "Woody Allen" movies, in which the credits always look the same, the musical choices are always the same, the cinematography always looks great, and everyone talks the same. Often, but not always, the same actors appear. Who does this remind you of?

Did you hear there are like a million new films opening in wide release today? Well, there are. Some of them are pretty good, too. But just in case that's not enough to keep you occupied, here's the Indie Spotlight with several more titles that might interest you, most of them in limited release and a bit under the radar.

Now, "indie" can be a hard thing to pin down. Bill Maher's Religulous (opening today on 500 screens) might qualify, but you've probably already heard about it. Same goes for Blindness (1,700 screens). You don't need me for those. Instead, here are the five that we're shining the indie spotlight on: Allah Made Me Funny, An American Carol, Ballast, Kidnap, and Rachel Getting Married.

Rachel Getting Married
What it is: One of the big hits at the Toronto International Film Festival, it's a naturalistic drama about an addict (Anne Hathaway) who gets out of rehab just in time for her sister's wedding.
What they're saying: Cinematical's James Rocchi had almost nothing but good things to say about it in Toronto, particularly with regard to the screenplay and Hathaway's performance. (There's a bit of Oscar buzz around both.) At Rotten Tomatoes, the film stands at a solid 76%.
Where it's playing: New York City (Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, City Cinemas, Regal Union Square), Los Angeles (ArcLight Sherman Oaks, ArcLight Hollywood, Laemmle Playhouse in Pasadena, Edwards Westpark in Irvine, The Landmark), and International Falls, Minn. (Cinema 5).
More info: Sony Classics' official site.

Ballast
What it is: A bleak drama about life and death among the lower classes on the Mississippi Delta.
What they're saying: Cinematical's James Rocchi praised the film at Sundance (and interviewed the writer/director, Lance Hammer, here). At Rotten Tomatoes, 75% of the critics agree with The Rocch. It won prizes for its directing and cinematography at Sundance, too.
Where it's playing: New York City (Film Forum).
More info: The official site says it will expand to "select cities" in two weeks.

Do I smell like Toronto? That's because I just got back from the film festival they have up there, and the scent of independent film still lingers. (It smells like Patricia Clarkson.) So I am very much in the mood for this week's edition of the Indie Spotlight, which is all about what's opening beyond the multiplexes this weekend!

Six flicks hit the big screen today: Flow: For Love of Water, Forgiveness, Greetings from the Shore, Moving Midway, Proud American, and Towelhead. Here's the scoop on each of them.
Towelhead
What it is: A dark comedy from Six Feet Under creator (and American Beauty writer) Alan Ball, based on Alicia Erian's novel about an adolescent Arab-American girl living in Texas during the first Gulf War.
What they're saying: Cinematical liked it when it premiered at Toronto last year under the title Nothing Is Private. At Rotten Tomatoes, the critics are split 50/50 as I write this, some applauding its audacity and wit, others calling it reprehensible. (Personally, I'm in the first camp.)
Where it's playing: New York City (Angelika Film Center, AMC Loews Lincoln Square), Los Angeles (ArcLight Hollywood, The Landmark), and Garland, Texas (Walnut Theaters). I assume the random Texas location is because the film was shot there? Maybe?
More info: The official site has a list of when the film opens in other cities. It's rolling out pretty heavily in the next few weeks, so people outside of New York, L.A., and Garland will be able to see it soon.

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought that was a pretty exceptional summer, as far as good, entertaining movies went. I've seen summers in which almost every movie seemed mediocre and not one standout ever emerged (2000 and 2006, for example). But this year, there were at least five standouts and at least five more really good movies. Call me crazy, but I caught up with Speed Racer on DVD this week, and even that one didn't seem so bad. (Sure, it's no Iron Man. I think it probably plays better on the small screen, although I did have trouble with the length and with the annoying Spritle character.) And, of course, we saw a lot of stars at their best this summer: Robert Downey Jr., Heath Ledger, Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Ben Stiller, James Franco, Meryl Streep, Penelope Cruz, etc. Good times! It was all so exciting that I nearly forgot about some of my other favorite stars.

It's weird. You can get caught up in the ebb and flow of this business and it may not occur to you that, say, Neve Campbell hasn't been around lately. I miss her. I interviewed her in early 2004, just after Robert Altman's The Company came out. That was a masterful film, a great piece of work, on which Neve had writing and producing credits. It looked like she was really going places: from there, she was poised to play the great silent film star Louise Brooks in a biopic. I saw her again in James Toback's twisted When Will I Be Loved, which I liked more than just about anyone else.

When was the last time you saw a short film in the theater? I don't mean an 85-minute animated movie; I mean an actual short, like they give separate Oscars to. Otherwise known as a short subject, defined (by the Academy) as anything with a running time less than 40 minutes. Chances are, unless you attend film festivals, go to see the toured screenings of Oscar shorts, or bought a ticket to Paris, Je T'Aime, it's been awhile since you actually saw a short film on a big screen.

Or, maybe I should specify that it's likely been awhile since you purposefully went to see a specifically timed screening of a short film or compilation of shorts at the theater. Technically some ads for Coca-Cola and other companies, the ones made by novice filmmakers as part of a competition or something, count as shorts. And, I'm fully aware that some arthouse cinemas, such as NYC's IFC Center, run a short film in place of pre-show commercials. But as far as I can tell, such shorts are not specifically advertised as screening at a designated time. Sure, you can go on the IFC Center's website and find out that Erik Rosenlund's Looking Glass is the short currently being shown (as it was this past week when I saw Trouble the Water there), but for most people (myself included), it's a surprise. And I doubt anyone has trekked to IFC just to see that particular film, unless anyone is a huge aficionado of frightening black and white Swedish animation.

Look, I don't want to make it sound like an either/or thing. You can see wide-release films AND art-house indies. I'm just saying that on this particular weekend, the only wide release is something starring Nicolas Cage in a mullet, and it wasn't screened for critics. So if it were an either/or thing, this would be a good time to become an art-house fanatic, and the Indie Spotlight is here to let you know what your options are.
Seven films are opening in limited release today: August Evening, Everybody Wants to Be Italian, Mister Foe, Ping Pong Playa, Save Me, A Secret, and Surfer, Dude. Here's the scoop on each of them.

Everybody Wants to Be Italian
What it is: A romantic comedy about a man and woman who both pretend to be Italian because they think the other is. OK, maybe this doesn't actually sound any better than the Nicolas Cage/mullet thing.
What they're saying: At Rotten Tomatoes, all of the reviews so far are giving it a big ol' kick in the meatballs.
Where it's playing: A few dozen theaters all over New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and ... Salt Lake City? Well, OK.
More info: The official site has a handy list of theaters where it's playing.

Ping Pong Playa
What it is: A light, clean comedy about an Asian-American kid who has to step in when his family's ping pong championship is threatened.
What they're saying: Cinematical's Monika Bartyzel found it simply adorable last year at Toronto, saying it's predictable but charming. The reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are mixed so far -- it's either sweet and likable, or an annoying Napoleon Dynamite retread.
Where it's playing: New York City, plus the California cities of San Francisco, Alhambra, Berkeley, Glendale, Hollywood, Irvine, and San Jose.
More info: The official site has upcoming playdates, too.

As a kid I fell in love with movies mainly for the stories and characters, and every once in a while, maybe some special effects. As I got older, my love affair was renewed when I discovered the Cult of the Director. The Cult of the Director allows one to look at movies in a far more personal way. It's an ongoing game; one can discover long-forgotten works, or piece together old puzzles, but one can also look ahead and guess how a director's career arc will come together. Basically, there are roughly four kinds of directors. The most common is the kind with no personality, and perhaps very little skill, someone like Brian Robbins, the director of Meet Dave (58 screens). Many of these folks eventually disappear without ever making much of a mark. After that, we get the craftsman, someone with lots of skill and talent but still no personality. These guys are the most interesting to talk to; they're unpretentious and tell the best stories. Brad Anderson, the director of Transsiberian (81 screens), is a good example.

Then there's a weird category of directors who have somehow come to popular attention, despite a lack of skill and/or a lack of personality. These can range from moneymakers like Brett Ratner to Oscar winners like Ron Howard. But of course, since we're talking about live human beings here, there's a lot of wiggle room in these categories, and I could probably establish several sub-categories. Not to mention that any director's career can suddenly change course at any point. Yes, even Brett Ratner could suddenly make a good film. (I'm not saying he will, just that he could.) These people manage to stay on top through a lucky combination of subject matter and promotion. Even though films like Brick Lane (31 screens) and Mongol (16 screens) have no skill or personality, they seem like great films because of their stories and packaging.

Isabel Coixet's Elegy (92 screens) is a "disease-of-the-week" movie. I hate "disease-of-the-week" movies, but I really liked Elegy. I also liked Coixet's previous film, My Life Without Me, which was also a "disease-of-the-week" movie. Sarah Polley's beautiful Away from Her from last year was another excellent example. This begs three questions: What is a "disease-of-the-week" movie? Why do I hate them? And what makes Elegy so good? The phrase "disease-of-the-week" was coined to describe a certain type of TV movie some decades ago, which had addicted housewives sniveling and crumbling up tissues at their TV tubes for two hours every seven days. But filmmakers quickly snatched upon the formula as a quick and easy way to weasel their way into film critics' hearts, and probably win an Oscar or two.

Disease is an unfortunate part of life, but it's a part of life that no one likes to think about. What usually happens when we get sick? We avoid going to the doctor! We hope it'll go away. So why do people like these kinds of movies, movies that acknowledge our own mortality and frailty? I think the secret is that the most successful of these movies play up the disease angle, but the real subject is the heroism of the others, the people who are not sick. That way, the disease gets center stage, and some "courageous" actor gets to show off, while the audience gets to identify with the other characters, the ones who stand by their friends and family. The ones who don't give up.

As an opinionated cinephile, Roger Ebert has every right to dislike 3-D movies. And recently, on his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, he wrote about such disfavor. Basically, in response to accidentally missing the press screening for the new animated 3-D flick Fly Me to the Moon, he admits that, because of a certain prejudice against the format, he likely wouldn't have enjoyed the movie anyway.

My issue here is not to attack Ebert's opinion or his belief that after half a century of dissatisfaction with the format he's never going to change his mind about it. He's free to express both. And while I disagree and am disappointed, I would never claim that Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. He's certainly smarter about film than I'll ever be, and his opinions are far more respected than my own.

However, Ebert is also one of the most widely read film critics in the world, and therefore he is a pretty influential person when it comes to the subject of movies. And I would hate for moviegoers to dismiss the new wave of 3-D movies simply because of Ebert's stance on the format. So, I merely intend to respond to his opinion with an opinion of my own, as apparently one of the wider read gushers on the topic of digital 3-D.