If this had been my first exposure to Gyllenhaal I might've toughed it out, but it was my fourth -- DONNIE DARKO, LOVELY AND AMAZING, THE GOOD GIRL and now this. (I deliberately avoided THE BUBBLE BOY and have never seen OCTOBER SKY.)

It's not the 21-year-old actor's fault, exactly, that he's repeatedly being cast as the same acutely sensitive nerdball suffering from emotional indigestion. Blame the casting directors or the directors for this. What I can't stomach any more is that his performances all seem to be about the fetishizing of his own anguished innards.

Ask a Jake Gyllenhaal character what time it is, or if he can spare a match, or if he knows how to find the nearest gas station, and his eyes will glaze over in a kind of wimpish horror -- uh-oh! the world wants a reaction and I'm not ready! -- and his face will succumb to a kind of faint twitching. That's Gyllenhaal trying to express a stream of tentative half-emotions -- little flickers and faint tremors of feeling -- before mustering the resolve to open his mouth and mutter something like "Uhm, uhhn" or "I, uhm, whoa ... " or sounds to that effect.

He wouldn't want to just look the other guy in the face and just say the lines, no ... that wouldn't be Jake.

Scores of other actors do the same thing -- i.e., try to make their performances as internal as possible and be mainly about what isn't conveyed on the page. (James Dean used to do this, but when push came to shove he could straighten up and just say, "There's a Texaco two blocks down on your right.") Why does Gyllenhaal rankle in particular? His face. Those puppy-in-the-dog-pound eyes, those slightly puffed-out lips on that slightly exaggerated mouth, that longish, bulbous nose. They make up such an emotionally portentous, angst-ridden instrument to begin with that any kind of inwardly driven performance is going to feel like overkill.

Plus I'm starting to really despise his 1964 Paul McCartney haircut. There's a scene between Gyllenhaal and costar Dustin Hoffman on a park bench about 25 minutes into the film, and I can't remember a single line of dialogue due to hair distractions. I was imagining what Jake might look like if he moussed it straight back. Is he avoiding this because of a low forehead or something? Does he have it written into his contract that a hair stylist can't touch him between takes?

On top of which, he always looks faintly grimy and pimply and disheveled, the way kids of 14 or 15 who haven't started to tone up for female encounters sometimes do.

My limited MOONLIGHT exposure weakens my position, of course, but on top of everything else Gyllenhaal seemed wrong for the part. Sarandon and Hoffman are smart, industrious, go-for-it types, so you'd have to figure their daughter was also pretty verbal and forthright and no shrinking violet. This leaves you wondering after a while what intrigues she could have possibly seen in Gyllenhaal's awkward silences. How can Sarandon and Hoffman tolerate him, for that matter?

Gyllenhaal's next film, apparently, is a 20th Century Fox thriller called DAY AFTER TOMORROW. The IMDB says it'll be directed by Roland Emmerich and costar Dennis Quaid and Emmy Rossum. The synopsis says it's about "a climatologist trying to figure a way to save the world from abrupt global warming while trying to save his young son in New York, which is being taken over by a new ice age."

I think the IMDB writer might have gotten it wrong. I think he meant to say the climatologist's sensitive young son ... right?

Lawrence Again

Six new 70mm prints of David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA are now playing around the country. You can see them at New York's Ziegfeld theatre and the Cinerama Dome at L.A.'s ArcLight theatre, and at Chicago's Music Box, Baltimore's Senator, Seattle's Cinerama Dome and San Francisco's Castro. Anyone who hasn't seen this 1962 masterpiece in 70mm should beat a path to one of these venues this weekend, tout suite.

But that said, I'm kind of wondering what the big deal is. These new LAWRENCE prints have a new digitized 5.1 soundtrack and some modest color timing issues have improved the look of it, but if you've seen this Best Picture Oscar winner as many times as I have, it's hard to feel cranked.

If you happen to live in Los Angeles, understand that the Cinerama Dome has an ultra-curved screen that doesn't provide the optimal way of seeing a widescreen (2.21 to 1) 70mm film like LAWRENCE. A deeply curved screen also tends to slightly diminish the refracted light levels.

The ArcLight has been selling itself as a provider of tip-top projection standards, and SMPTE standards call for an image illuminated by 15-foot lamberts, but an ArcLight projectionist named Matt told me on Thursday he's not "100% sure" if these standards are in effect at the Dome, and added that the meter used for measuring foot lamberts "is on back order." A projection specialist told me that most commercial theatres use light levels of no more than eight- to 10-foot lamberts to show films by.

The best way for Los Angelenos to see LAWRENCE, then, might be to wait until next week when the 70mm print moves over to the ArcLight's theatre #10, which doesn't have an ultra-curved screen but is one of the largest theatres in the complex.

Another option is to wait until January 13, when LAWRENCE will be shown at the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences theatre on Wilshire Blvd., as part of the ongoing Monday night Best Picture winner series. The Academy theatre always projects with full 15-foot lamberts, and is one of four or five best places in the world to see a film.

Superman Revolt

Reactions to AINT IT COOL NEWS contributor Drew McWeeny's blistering review of J.J. Abrams' SUPERMAN script, a version of which will apparently serve as the basis for the feature that Brett Ratner will shoot for Warner Bros. sometime next year, have been running 95% negative, according to AICN honcho Harry Knowles, and have totaled over 4,000.

What's wrong with Abrams script? Revisionism! Heresy! How can fanboys persuade Warner Bros. management to reconsider using it as the basis for the Ratner feature? Why, sign the AICN anti-Abrams petition.

I personally think the idea of a new SUPERMAN series is a snooze -- I'm much more into seeing TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY -- so if J.J. Abrams and Brett Ratner want to ignore the classic Superman legend and story points and totally toss the salad, let 'em. I'm probably not going to do handstands over the finished product either way, so why not?

The protest petition can be found at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/sprmn5/petition.html. Knowles claimed yesterday morning (i.e., Thursday) that the signatures had "jumped in numbers by 1,400 in four hours' time." The signers totalled just over 4000 when this column closed Thursday afternoon around 5 p.m.

"We, the undersigned, wish to implore [Warner Bros.] to commission another script," the document begins. "The one written by J. J. Abrams destroys much of which makes the characters and the stories of the Superman universe great. Please do not use this script and create one which is closer to the Superman we all know and love!"

The funniest grievance by far is about Abrams' decision to make Jimmy Olsen gay. "Jimmy Olsen is not gay," the petition reads. "Or at least not out of the closet. Being a dork does not make one gay." So what? If you ask me, Abrams and Ratner should really go for it and make Jimmy flagrantly gay and maybe even cast Harvey Fierstein. I'm not suggesting a scene in which he blows Perry White under his desk at the DAILY PLANET, but Ratner should go to town. I really like this angle -- it's funny.

Other petition beefs:

* In Abrams' script, Superman ignores people in trouble in order to flirt with Lois Lane. "Superman is the perfect embodiment of a Boy Scout," the the author argues. "He would never abandon anyone in need just to flirt with Lois Lane.

* Krypton doesn't explode. It's in the middle of a civil war, which is what prompts Superman's father to send him away, to save him from the strife. "This is key to the character Superman!," the petition claims. "He is a man without a home, so he makes Earth his home and promises to protect it and its inhabitants."

* Lex Luthor is a Kryptonian bent on destroying Earth "This is the most ridiculous thing [we've] ever heard," the authors exclaim. "Lex Luthor is a corporate businessman. He's not an evil person. He's simply greedy and has no morals when it comes to getting what he wants. The reason he wants to destroy Superman is because Superman interferes with his more shadowy deals. Lex Luthor would notwant to destroy the Earth. If he kills all the humans, who will by LexCorp products?"

* Superman's powers come from his suit, not from the sun. "It's not a ring or a suit or a cape or anything else that gives Superman his powers," the petition argues. "It's the fact that Krypton orbited a red star and Earth orbits a yellow star. The different rays have an effect on Kryptonian physiology and give them super powers.

"Again, I plead with you," the document concludes. "For the sake of every other Superman fan, and for your own sake, PLEASE abandon this ridiculous parody of a Superman film script and have a new one written. You want to make a Superman film because the character is one of the best-selling comic books of all time. There is an audience built for this film. "Do not hurt yourself and the future of DC-based superhero films by destroying some of the very elements that make us love Superman. The comic is successful because the fans love the stories and love the characters. When you change them, you change the very thing that makes them successful."

Fired by Kristy Swanson: One Man's Story

Kristy Swanson's movie career started to go south when her first big starring vehicle, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER (1992), tanked. It was slipping further down the hill when she made a Charlie Sheen action thriller called THE CHASE ('94) and pretty much breathed its last when she appeared as Billy Zane's love interest in THE PHANTOM ('96). Over the last six years she's done mostly garbage or had minor parts in big movies like BIG DADDY or DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?

Now, at the ripe old age of 31, Swanson has turned up in a nude spread for PLAYBOY, which can sometimes be a kind of career resuscitator. She looks great in the photos, although I somehow doubt that the town's A-level directors will be clamoring for her services anytime soon.

Besides, it's always a little harder to turn things around when the press dislikes you. And Swanson's press rep has been under a dark cloud since '94, when she had interviewer Jeffrey Lantos removed as the writer of a MOVIELINE personal profile that was supposed to make her look hot and plug her then-upcoming film, THE CHASE.

Her rep turned skanky when MOVIELINE ran the Swanson interview by replacement Josh Mooney along with a snarky sidebar by Lantos that explained the backstage circumstances behind his removal. Ever since I read that piece I've been kinda hoping that Swanson's karma would come back and bite her in the ass.

The piece was called "Fired by Kristy Swanson: One Man's Story" and it started like this: "Yikes! I've been fired by Kristy Swanson, impaled by Buffy herself, made into mincemeat by Mannequin 2 [and given] a cold backhand from the mall doll of Mission Viejo."

Lantos got the boot for having the temerity to phone her then-boyfriend (CAA agent Richard Lovett), which Swanson considered impertinent and out-of-bound s. Then again, Swanson had answered "Richard" three times when Lantos had asked her to play "fill in the blank" (who or what do you most like to curl up in bed with?, etc.), which would have excited any journalist's curiosity.

Lovett rang Lantos back and asked not to be included in the story, which Lantos agreed to. But he got taken off the story anyway because Swanson had heard about his inquiry from Lovett and hit the roof. She told her publicist she wouldn't talk to him further, and MOVIELINE editor Ed Margulies, although he was "so pissed off" at Swanson and had declared to Mooney "we've gotta ream this chick," had no choice but to re-assign.

Mooney's impression of Swanson was that "she was not bright," he recalled in a phone conversation on Wednesday, and that she "was someone who was in over her head in dealing with the press." When he asked her why she'd moved against Lantos, she told him Lantos had told her "he was going to be doing research [but he] never said anything about calling my boyfriend... I thought this interview was about me and my films."

"I could tell she was doomed eight years ago," says Mooney. "She hadn't produced anything on screen that transcended her obtuseness in person and her prima donna attitude towards me... I remember saying to her, give me a little honesty, this is a cover story... but she demurred... she never answered a question directly."

Lantos, who's currently teaching school at Marquez Elementary in Pacific Palisades, says he has no regrets about calling Lovett. "If you're dating one of the more powerful agents in town, that's certainly part of the story." Although Margulies "used to encourage this kind of pit-bull journalism," Lantos believes that the Swanson episode "hurt me... when magazine editors don't call you back, you kind wonder if it's you... Ed implied afterward that there were a few people who didn't want to work with me."

When I asked for a copy of the Swanson PLAYBOY issue on Wednesday from a guy who runs the newsstand at Fairfax and Melrose, he said, "She's doing PLAYBOY? Jesus, what happened to her? She used to be hot."

Swanson's publicist, Laurie Jonas, didn't return my call.

More Greeks

"I actually agree that MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING is flawed, trite, amateurish, etc. But maybe that's part of the charm -- it doesn't have that Hollywood gloss that shines off those flawed, trite, professional stinkers.

"Bottom line is, this is a light, enjoyable little movie that's about ordinary people. How many movies are like that nowadays? Look at your "Best of '02" list, and exclude the foreign, limited-release and not-yet-released ones. We get killers, monsters, home invaders, evil lawyers. Even THE ROOKIE, the only feel-good entry, is kinda serious and righteous. What happened to normal people and normal life? What's happened to the term 'romantic comedy' (and please don't say SERVING SARA)?

"The comments in your column seem to put strangely high expectations into this film, as if it's supposed to be a thought-provoking masterpiece or something. Such as...

"'When I think of cool Greek people I'd like to hang with, I think of ... educated, cultivated X-factor types who've written a book or made a movie or something.' Sorry, but ... snob. 'Think of Euripedes, Sophocles, Plato, Themistocles, etc., and ask ourselves, what have we come to?' Big snob. Most people don't hang out with Sophocles and the like. They hang out with their families and neighbors. Okay, give me Sophocles for one day, but who'd want a full-time relationship with the guy?

"And I'm saying this as a guy in his 20s with a Ph.D." -- Zheng Wang, Bellevue, WA.

"I see you didn't think much of MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING ... and you, sir, are an idiot. This is a true independent film (it was made for $5 million) and the acting isn't bad - it's realistic. I live in Tarpon Springs, Florida -- perhaps the closest place to Greece in the United States. It's a real Greek fishing village, including the high school which I graduated from actually teaches Greek. What you see as bad acting and a warmed-over plot is actual reality, from our perspective. The movie is heartfelt, well written, and free of dick and fart jokes. And by the way, CHANGING LANES sucked ass, you moron." -- Wompastompa77

"I think the success of GREEK WEDDING can be traced to its tone -- the most important quality of a story. MBFGW is the first American film I've seen in years that has a truly warm, loving, humble tone. The filmmakers truly and deeply care, respect and love their characters and, even more importantly, the audience members.

"Contrast this with almost every studio or independent film, in which the characters and the audience are treated with either contempt (AMERICAN BEAUTY, GLADIATOR, IN THE BEDROOM or any Michael Bay film ) or bemused condescension (anything made by David Fincher, Spike Jonze, Quentin Tarantino, the Farrellys, the Wachowskis, the Coens). Sadly, filmmakers today almost universally seem to feel that they're smarter than their audience, and audiences instantly sense that in their films. It's as if the filmmakers are saying, when they show you their films, 'This'll impress you,' rather than 'I hope you like this.'

"The difference is crucial. MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING may have a clunky sitcom structure, broad caricatures, and a trite message, but the fact is that its tone is warm, humble and generous towards its characters and towards us, the audience, and that is a true rarity in films today, either independent or studio-made. Hollywood is awash in such arrogance and cultural superiority (usually a product of the massive amounts of money some films manage to make), that it's lost the humble tone that made Charlie Chaplin a servant of his audience, rather than vice versa." -- Paul McCudden

Rules

"I saw THE RULES OF ATTRACTION a couple weeks ago, and I'm with you on it. Someone in the audience announced after the film was finished that it felt like "a slice of hell." I felt the same way. I was exhilarated by two of its nihilistic lead characters juxtaposed with the misplaced sweetness of its gay and virginal characters. I was floored by the suicide scene. And the final moments, with their repeat-shot pattern of all four major characters 'raging' with screams left me shaken. It's quite a trip.

"If there's anything that feels remotely foreign to me or underdeveloped, it's that Van Der Beek's mini-transformation -- the notion that he's capable of falling in love or actually does, with Sossamon -- feels underdeveloped or tacked on. It happens on the page, but not in the film, at least for me. But I loved the split sceen moment leading up to where Sossamon and Van Der Beek meet." -- Lee Shoquist

Role Playing

NEW YORK magazine columnist Anne Thompson was first to identify Wednesday's cast. They appeared together in WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING, with the oppressively perky Sandra Bullock in the lead.

Today's cast: Courtney Vance, James Earl Jones, Joss Ackland, Fred Dalton Thompson, Peter Firth, Richard Jordan, Sam Neill, Scott Glenn and two unnamed male leads.

What's That Line?

Hank Graham was first to identify Wednesday's dialogue. It's from Paddy Chayefsky's THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY, based on a novel by William Huie and directed by Arthur Hiller.

Having noticed all is not well with his son, a father sits down beside him.

Father: What is it, [name]?
Son: I'm just ...
Father: ... worried?
Son: Well ...
Father: About what?
Son: I guess ... about my future.
Father: What about it?
Son: I don't know. I want it to be ...
Father: To be what?
Son: (confidently) Different.