Last week, I previewed four November films for you, three of which held incredible potential for all Mogul gamers (American Gangster, Bee Movie and No Country For Old Men), along with a fourth nondescript release that you are probably better off ignoring. This week, sadly, three of the four films I'll be critiquing are on the other end of the spectrum, being about as undesirable an acquisition as exists in the winter leagues. But look at the bright side: There is still ONE film in the bunch with the potential to live up to its price tag. So here we go!

If you set bureaucracy and intense political conversation to heroic music, does that make it more enticing? ("Come on! It's so dramatic!!") That's the question I have for Lions For Lambs (Nov. 9), the latest in a slew of modern-day war stories, this one centering as much (if not more) on the elected officials and muckety-mucks that are responsible for sending thousands of soldiers off to war as on the soldiers themselves. The title, in case you were wondering, comes from a quote by a German WWII general, who was describing his admiration for British foot soldiers: "Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs." In this film, those same words are spoken by Dr. Malley (Robert Redford, who also directed), a university professor and former activist who has become increasingly frustrated by the cynicism and complacency of the younger generation of students in his classes.

Also thrown into the mix are the architects of what basically is a replay of the failures of Vietnam, including U.S. Sen. Irving (Tom Cruise), who has called in a star D.C. reporter (Meryl Streep) in order, through hints and innuendo, to produce a promo puff piece that will enhance his future bid for the U.S. presidency. To quote WBAI Arts Magazine's Prairie Miller, Lions For Lambs is "a drama shaped in the manner of classical Greek philosophy. The weighty issues are at times delivered in too rapid a style to fully digest, but their significance is in no way diminished."

Be that as it may, I keep returning to the two or three things that this film has going against it: 1) as I previously mentioned, this is another of a getting-longer string of modern-day war films (including The Kingdom and In the Valley of Elah, neither of which's total box-office output matched its critical acclaim or hype); 2) it doesn't even look as exciting, well-acted or poignant as any of the others, and 3) Tom Cruise, who seems to alienate even more of his fan base every day. Call me crazy, but I just can't picture huge crowds flocking to see this one.

Fantasy Moguls predicts four PTA points, eight Top 5 points, User Ratings of 8.0 and $95 million in box office. Um, no. This film is going to be pounded into oblivion by the likes of American Gangster, Bee Movie, Fred Claus, Beowulf, and perhaps one or two others. Choosing to spend $31 on this title would be the height of silliness, in my opinion. I'm still not sold on whether or not I want to even see it — unless I see a great whopping heap of positive buzz appear, and I mean soon.

Up next, we have a movie that I think has the best chance to outdo its current Fantasy Moguls predictions ... not because I think it's the best film of the bunch, but because I have made it a point never to underestimate family-oriented schlock. Fred Claus (Nov. 9) is expected to garner two PTA points, six Top 5 points, 6.2 User Ratings and $60 million in revenues. But make no mistake: this one has a chance to be huge.

From what I've gathered so far, Fred seems to have the playfulness and family-friendliness of Elf and some of the slacker attitude that made Bad Santa such a success. It also stars the very popular Vince Vaughn as the titular character, who just happens to be the older brother of ol' Kris Kringle himself (the always-cool Paul Giamatti). Quite obviously the black sheep of the family, Fred returns to his homestead for a less-than-stellar reunion with his little brother (as well as his parents). The supporting cast includes Miranda Richardson, Kevin Spacey, Kathy Bates, Elizabeth Banks, and Rachel Weisz, as well as (brace yourselves, people) Ludacris and Frank Stallone. (Rachel Weisz and Frank Stallone in the same movie? Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse saddling up? Just kidding, people, please don't e-mail me.)

It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is probably going to be the big Christmas-themed film of the season, tied up with a nice red and green bow. The fact that it is directed by David Dobkin, who helmed the unqualified smash Wedding Crashers two years ago, should be more than enough reason for you to give this title serious consideration. Even though its release date puts it in some serious money-making company, I think that $100 million in receipts is not out of the question, which, for only $18 (in Ultimate) or $20 (in Box Office) makes it a steal. I can only hope that by doing this film, Vince Vaughn's career most emphatically does not try to stuff itself down the chute marked "Tim Allen," because that would be such a waste. To obscurity ... and BEYOND!!! (At some point, I hope they explain how Fred, the OLDER brother, looks decades YOUNGER than Santa does. Perhaps they'll do that in the sequel, The Fred Clause.) [Smack upside the head] Ow! Moving on ...

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (Nov. 16), in all honesty, looks like a hot mess, from what little I've seen of it (which includes the trailer, the poster and several still photos). It looks like first-time director Zach Helm is borrowing heavily from the goofy color schemes and mind-space of Tim Burton (especially the Burton of Beetlejuice and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), as well as offerings like Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Toys and Jumanji. It stars Dustin Hoffman as the titular Magorium, the 243-year-old eccentric toy store owner who decides to bequeath ownership of his beloved boutique (billed as "the most fantastic and wonderful toy store in the world ") to Molly, who is played by an uncharacteristically meek Natalie Portman.

Now, let me go on record by saying that I have no small amount of fondness for both of these actors (as well as for Jason Bateman, who costars), and I am sure that their performances in this film will play no small measure in whatever level of success it achieves. And don't get me wrong: This film looks just different enough to be very very big, if positive reviews and buzz can precede it. But as it stands right now, I believe that Fox-Walden has built the foundation for this movie on shifting sand. Are we really ready to see another wacky, multi-colored cranny of filmdom that resembles nothing so much as what would happen if the adult Tim Burton were lured back into the fold at Disney? (And I shudder at THAT particular thought.)

Let's take the predicted stats for this film one by one, shall we? Three PTA points seem very unlikely, even though the release schedule is somewhat limited. This film looks to me like a mid-to-wide release, depending on hype, say 2,000-3,000 screens. (I suppose up to 3,500 are possible, but if that happens, kiss any hopes for PTA goodbye.) Seven Top 5 points are exceedingly optimistic: This film will never outgun Beowulf, and will be hard-pressed to compete with Fred Claus (in its second week) or Bee Movie (in its third). Plus, with Enchanted coming one week later, I look for this film to place no higher than third on its opening weekend, and no more than four or five points total.

User Ratings are tough to predict, but 6.5 seems about right, though it could go much lower if it takes a pasting by critics. (And if you frequent the message boards, you'll find that almost no one around HERE seems to be looking forward to it.) Needless to say, $60 million in box office is, shall we say, a trifle optimistic? I'd say $40 mil, tops, which in no way makes it worth the $20-plus it will cost you in your October leagues. Seriously, this film looks like a giant pill. Candy-coated, of course, but still tough to swallow, and ultimately not worth it.

I'm always given pause when it comes time to critique the expected "largest " film of the season, which is why I've saved Beowulf (Nov. 16) for last. The Powers That Be at Fantasy Moguls expect that this movie will outdo all others and reign supreme come winter's end, to wit: six PTA points, a whopping 15 Top 5 points, and $150 million in total box office. Wow, where to begin.

Let me preface this critique with the bleedin' obvious: If you are going to shell out the largest percentage of your allotted funds for one movie, you had better be doggoned sure that it is going to outperform every single other movie on the list, or it just isn't worth it. I can't make it any more cut and dried than that. And if you can honestly tell me (or, more to the point, yourself), that Beowulf is going to outgross Bee Movie, American Gangster, The Golden Compass, I Am Legend AND National Treasure: Book of Secrets, well, you're either a much braver person than I, or I would suggest that you cut back on the dosage of whatever it is you're on.

Honestly, I don't see Beowulf outgrossing ANY of the films I just listed. Let me explain why:

1. It has the double whammy of being both animated AND PG-13. Yes, I realize that doesn't really prove anything, but consider: a lot of parents will see this rating and immediately buy tickets for something else (and rightly so). From what I've seen, this movie has enough violence, gore and quasi-nudity to almost qualify for an R rating (much like Sin City, which was considered a success and an instant cult classic despite only making $74 million domestically). A lot of adults have a problem with violence (even the cartoon version), and I can't imagine this film will appeal to women of any age. So there's that.

2. The motion capture technique employed by director Robert Zemeckis is technologically amazing, yes; it's as an approximation of the human form as there has ever been. But it's still a cartoon. The more real a cartoon looks, the more contrived it feels. And if you'll recall, Zemeckis's first film using this technique, The Polar Express, didn't exactly set the box office on fire. A total domestic gross of $162 million is nothing to sneeze at, but that was a G-rated family Christmas movie.

3. It's a centuries-old story that many of us remember from our scholastic years; many of us even enjoyed it. (I did.) But there have been quite a few incarnations of this story on the big screen as well, most recently 2005's Icelandic Beowulf & Grendel, which barely registered at all. Plus, there have been so many Viking/warrior/fantasy epics in the last few years (I won't bore you by listing them all), I have a sneaking suspicion that the genre is getting close to being played out.

Now, if you asked Terrell Owens who the best wide receiver in the NFL was, who did you think he'd say? (No points for getting this one correct, it's just too easy.) There's no doubt the man has talent, but anyone who thinks he's all that to the extent that he does just puts me right off. And that's my point: Beowulf is the filmic equivalent of Terrell Owens. He'll demand a heavy price to play for you, and he'll do just well enough so that you can't accuse him of phoning it in, but he's hardly the best in the bunch.

Of course, I would be remiss if I weren't to mention that this film does have a fairly impressive cast, which includes Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Robin Wright Penn, Crispin Glover, Brendan Gleeson and, of course, Angelina Jolie as the devil-in-disguise mother of Grendel. Given that this film has been given a rating of PG-13, I would imagine that any enthusiastic filmgoer who buys a ticket hoping to catch a glimpse of Angie's expertly rendered privates is going to be disappointed.

I am going to revise what I said in my pre-cap a couple of weeks ago; given that the release schedule for the two weeks after Nov. 16 includes almost nothing of substance (Hitman might make a splash, but it won't be a big one), Beowulf does have a shot at a lot of Top 5 points, perhaps even as many as the high teens. PTA is possible, but I can't imagine it being in the top five of that category for more than one week. But once December hits, Beowulf will tail off quickly, and I would imagine that $110-$125 million will be its final tally.

Well, that's all the room I have for today. Please return next week, when I'll be blowing up my usual format entirely and bringing you something really special, especially for those who are already salivating over the newly-created November-January leagues. Bottom line: If you are in such a league already, or plan to be in one, you don't want to miss it.

TTFN!

Shrykespeare ... IS ... A FANTASY MOGULS COLUMNIST. Nope, sounds just as silly here as in the trailer for Beowulf. If you can think of even one good reason why the hero of the Geats is destined to conquer the box office, get in touch at shrykespeare@gmail.com.