NEW YORK — The film financing sector has a dark cloud hovering overhead, experts in the sector said Tuesday at the Media and Money Conference in New York, but not one without some silver lining.

Well before the global financial crisis came to a head in recent weeks, market conditions had been brutal for financing movies. Panelists ticked off a litany of problems that are seeing outside investment dry up, including piracy, increasing debt and a supply-demand imbalance between films and distribution.

“What we’re going through in this space is effectively a perfect storm,” Benjamin Waisbren, president and CEO of Continental Entertainment Capital told moderator Georg Szalai, New York bureau chief and business editor at The Hollywood Reporter.

“You’re unlikely to see the go-go years of film financing of the last four or five years which effectively ended last summer,” said Tuna Amobi, senior equity analyst of the media and entertainment group at Standard & Poor’s Equity Research. “It seems to be now we’re at the cusp of a new paradigm.”

Citing recent conversations he’s had with money men at studio-owning conglomerates, Amobi described a “hunkered down” mentality on seeking investment due to Wall Street’s woes. That said, he also noted studios have parent companies with pockets deep enough to fund films without external backing.

“It’s really a very gloomy environment so to speak, but they do have the cash despite the credit crunch,” said Amobi, who warned any self-financing could put a crimp on dividend payouts.

The real test could come as soon as late 2009, according to Amobi, when many of the current slates peter out and studios will have to make decisions. “As you see these film slate deals unwind, there’s going to have to be more creative ways to financing these deals,” he said.

The panelists agreed that the multi-picture slate deals of recent years are likely a thing of the past, but single-picture deals will still find traction.

Hanson believes that single-picture deals will likely only increase with overseas backers, noting that his firm obtained financing for new film “W.” from British, Chinese and Swiss investors. However, he noted that didn’t mean that American investors weren’t interested, too. “The first group in our syndicate of potential investors who happened to raise their hands happened to be offshore,” Hanson said.

However, Amobi noted that the advantage much of the global enjoys over the American dollar in currency is starting to evaporate, too. “My sense is that sourcing money from those regions is going to get increasingly difficult,” he said.

But the panel was not entirely bleak. Waisbren noted the very volatility of the sector presents opportunity for investment, particularly among the technologies poised to grow into film distribution platforms in the long term.

“It’s not all doom and gloom,” Waisbren said. “You have to be patient, you can’t be a one-year investor.”

Amobi noted Tuesday’s announcement of a $250 billion financial rescue package for banks will help the industry as well. “These are the same banks that Hollywood is primarily looking to,” he said.

Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) is just back on active duty with the Secret Service on the U.S. President’s close protection detail. Understandably jumpy from being shot six months earlier, the last place Barnes wants to be is in the middle of a terrorist plot on the President’s life. Through the eyes of several people involved in the incident Vantage Point tries to uncover the truth of the terrorist plot.

Although the whole idea of this movie is to focus on each main character and show the terrorists’ attack from different viewpoints, it doesn’t hide the fact that the story just isn’t that exciting. If this had been shot in a conventional sequential manner it would have been a standard run-of-the-mill thriller. Having the story stop and spin back to the beginning to be told again through someone else’s eyes is a nice idea, but it doesn’t help to build any suspense or thrills. And, to be honest by the third or fourth time of spinning back to the beginning I was getting fed up of watching the same incident again. There were perhaps a couple of genuine moments of revelation from the switch in viewpoint, but not enough to warrant the premise.

Still, there’s nothing really offensive about this movie. The acting is okay without being outstanding. Quaid and Whitaker are really just going through the motions. Half the problem is that nobody really gets the focus long enough to become indelible on the film. You get the usual explosions, car chases and people being shot without having to invest anything into the movie. It’s a shame because there is a lot of clever thinking behind the terrorist plot and it doesn’t warrant the kind of anti-climatic ending that’s served up.

I wonder how much thought that went into the shooting of the different viewpoints took away from making the story one that’s worth watching. It really needed to back up the plot with a lot more substance  and it’s not as it wasn’t there to be had. The shock aspects of the terrorism could have been played out more and there’s a whole betrayal sub-plot that’s hardly given a second thought.  It’s a shame because there’s a great cast wasted on this film.

Vantage Point is certainly watchable but if you’re like me most of it will just wash over you. There was a point where I thought it might become an entertaining stand off as the terrorists and Secret Service try to out think each other but the promise was never realized. By the time the film stops spinning around from every viewpoint it has become an instantly forgettable movie. A solid film but don’t expect too much.

I had been excited to see The Other Boleyn Girl ever since I heard that the movie was being made. I loved the Philippa Gregory novel the movie was based on and I am also very interested in the Boleyns’ history so I knew I had to see this movie! Sadly, it did not live up to my high expectations.

Most people are already aware of the name Anne Boleyn and her place in history. In case you aren’t here’s the story – she was the second wife of King Henry the VIII of England and his first wife to be beheaded. This movie not only focuses on Anne (Natalie Portman, Garden State), but also focuses on her lesser well-known sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation). King Henry (Eric Bana, Hulk) is in desperate need of a male heir and will do anything to achieve it. The Boleyn family realizes this and begins plotting to put Anne in his bed. Unfortunately, Anne’s stubbornness ruins her chance and instead the King grows interested in Mary. So the sisters’ rivalry begins. Mary is already married, but her husband is quickly put to the side so the King will be the only man in Mary’s bed. The future looks wonderful for the Boleyn family, especially upon finding out that Mary is pregnant! Too bad she has to stay in her bed for six months or until the birth of her child, as was the custom back then. Meanwhile the family continues to plot, and Anne is back in the game. She was only supposed to keep his mind on Mary, but Anne was jealous and ambitious – history well knows how far that got her. Eventually she persuades the King to leave Mary (and their son!), divorce his wife, and even make his own religion that will support the divorce. With a plot like this how could you go wrong?

Well…if you’re looking for historical accuracy don’t look here. If you wanted a movie that stayed true to the book it’s based on don’t watch this one. Looking for a steamy romance? Try again. This movie failed in all of these aspects. The writer of this movie (Peter Morgan, The Queen) took historical fiction as fact and changed it even more! I just wanted to scream out what was wrong. The most obvious being how King Henry looked – nothing like Bana that’s for sure! Couldn’t they have tried just a little harder? Although the costumes were nice to look at, they couldn’t even get Anne’s signature “B” necklace right! Another thing that really bothered me was that in the book, as well as in everything I’ve seen and read, the Boleyn family was known for being overly ambitious people with no sympathy for anyone – not even each other. Yet in this movie they make Anne and Mary’s mother, Elizabeth (Kristin Scott Thomas, The Horse Whisperer) feel bad about how the men in the family are treating her daughters, as pawns and not family. It just wasn’t necessary. It felt forced, and it’s not like she could change anything she was only a woman herself in a world where men ruled. Then of course we have the blasé romance. There was no chemistry between the actors during the romantic scenes and it made them almost painful to watch, especially Johansson and Bana’s scenes.

Even with all these annoyances there were still two things I did enjoy in this movie. The first being Natalie Portman’s performance. I had my doubts that she could convincingly play Anne but I thought she was spot on. She surprised me with the different emotions she showed. By the end of the movie I actually felt bad for Anne and was hoping she’d be saved though I knew it wasn’t going to happen. The second thing I enjoyed was Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe) as George Boleyn, Anne and Mary’s brother. He was the highlight in every scene he was in. He also showed many emotions convincingly going from being a loveable goof to completely vulnerable. He’s a very central character in the book and I was disappointed that he had so few scenes in the movie.

I would give The Other Boleyn Girl a D+ and say recommend reading the book instead. The only way I’d actually recommend this movie is if you had never read the book and had no previous knowledge of the Boleyns’ history. I saw this movie with my mom and she fits into both of those categories. She liked the movie. But I stand by my opinion – there are much better movies out there to spend your money on.