Review: "Lovelace"

Directors: Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman
Runtime: 92 minutes

Within the first 15 minutes of Lovelace, the second fiction film from documentary directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, the only word that comes to mind is "workman-like." Despite avoiding the sleaze of its time period and subject matter, this biopic/behind-the-scenes look at the life of Deep Throat star Linda Lovelace goes through the motions from start to finish. Capable performances, especially Amanda Seyfried's lead role, are enjoyable and hint at a richer, more insightful story. As it stands, however, Lovelace is content to be ordinary down to the bone, mostly for worse. 

As Lovelace herself remarks late in the film, she only spent 17 days in the porn industry. Yet the shadow of her breakout film and performance - the first porno to break into the mainstream - looms large over her life. That's a fascinating dynamic to explore, and touches on the ways in which celebrity figures can be defined by the briefest moments in their lives (especially when those moments are mistakes). Yet Andy Bellin's screenplay, determined to cover everything as though checking events off on a list, is more concerned with simply getting from point A to point B, without taking time to explore the emotional and thematic undercurrents of his characters. 

Once the film peaks, with Deep Throat becoming a phenomenon, Lovelace starts to lose the already muted momentum that its first 45 minutes kicked off with. Epstein and Friedman do a perfectly adequate job of telling the story, but their techniques are no more insightful that the typical surface-only approach found on a Lifetime movie. As the story takes a darker turn, detailing Linda's fallout with first husband Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard), Lovelace starts to drag, rather than compel. What little spark the film musters up is strictly relegated to the scenes involving the production of Deep Throat, largely stemming from the comedy the film wrings out of the pervy director (Hank Azaria) and producers (Bobby Cannavale and Chris Noth).  

Seyfried, meanwhile, is left to navigate a character whose rich dramatic potential is squandered by the material. Seyfried's breakout performance came as the stunningly air-headed Karen in 2004's Mean Girls, a film that used her comedic gifts to excellent effect. Since then, the actress has been trying to move over into meatier roles. Lovelace should have been the one. When Linda sees the promotional shots taken of her for Deep Throat, Seyfried captures the quiet awe of a repressed young woman finally seeing herself as beautiful. Unfortunately, the script provides her with too few of these moments, even skimping on her frosty relationship with her dad (Robert Patrick) and ultra-religious mother (Sharon Stone). 

Yet as Lovelace focuses on the rise of a porn icon (one who would go on to become an anti-pornography crusader), it manages to neglect the beginning and end of her story. It avoids outright sleaze, but it also has little interest in true drama other than Chuck being abusive and controlling towards his wife. Though never exploitative, the scenes of abuse (which include Chuck essentially paying a group of men to gang rape his wife), are given far too much weight. They make Linda's dramatic arc into one of a victim, and the shrift her fight against domestic abuse gets only makes the issue more troubling. 

Even the star-studded ensemble can't do much to make something more out of Bellin's crushingly simplistic writing. Sarsgaard (who recently completed a stellar turn on AMC's The Killing) makes for a good charmer-turned-abuser, but no one else is really give the time or depth to make an impact outside of a one-liner. What should have been one of the most impactful moments - Linda's reunion with her parents - is little more than shrug-worthy. It's certainly not the cast's fault. One can see the effort being put in by Stone and Seyfried to make the moment work, and Stone almost saves it with a funny remark. But it's too little and far too late. In its standard 90 minute framework, Lovelace succumbs to the hallmark problem of many modern biopics: it tries to cover everything, does it too fleetly, and winds up feeling like a Cliffnotes version of a much richer narrative. 

Grade: C/C+

Review: "Spring Breakers"

Director: Harmony Korine
Runtime: 94 minutes

James Franco seemed to be hitting another unfortunate low in his career earlier this month.  His work in Sam Raimi's CGI-drenched Oz The Great and Powerful recalled his lifeless work as Oscar co-host in 2011. Yet only a week later, Franco has achieved redemption via a gonzo turn in Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers. Part exploitation flick and part art film, the film traces the misadventures of four young college students gone rogue in southern Florida. Yet despite the presence of a scantily clad quartet of heroines, it's Franco who impresses the most, and whose work is enough to save Korine's latest from drowning in repetition. 

When Spring Breakers begins, we're flooded with all of the images we've come to expect from the modern spring break experience: drinking, partying, bared breasts, etc... Only moments later we're thrown from the beach to the classroom. After various repeated lines and scenes of wondering about how they'll pay for tickets to St. Petersburg, Brit (Ashley Benson), Cotty (Rachel Korine), and Candy (Vanessa Hudgens) rob a local restaurant and grab their Jesus-loving friend Faith (Selena Gomez). Everything is booze and neon-soaked fun until the group is caught in possession of cocaine. It's then that they meet rapper Alien (Franco), who bails them out and takes them under his seedy wing. 

What follows is a veritable orgy of sights and sounds, as Korine and cinematographer Benoit Debie (who DP'd the similarly glow-y Enter the Void) plunge us into a world that gradually becomes grittier and grimier. Some of the girls are cut out to hang with Alien. Some aren't. As the group whittles down, Spring Breakers starts to inch toward a narrative with some semblance of direction. The further we're led down the rabbit hole, the more mesmerizing the film becomes, even as some of its imagery repulses. 

Franco's involvement in the plot is part of what allows the film to cohere more as it goes along. The actor feels fully committed here, equal parts captivating and unnerving. This isn't a figure who seems like he could explode at any minute at another person. Instead, he's the sort of man who seems to attract said explosions.  Franco is the embodiment of the sort of "gangsta" life that the girls (well, at least two of them) are drawn towards. To a point. As much as Korine may indulge in nudity, montages, and violence, the film still ends as something of a cautionary tale. The spring break starts as the ultimate escape from reality, but it ends up exposing the girls to more unpleasantness than they ever dreamed of encountering. 

Yet with Franco getting the most 'character' to work with, there isn't much left for the rest of the cast. That may be partially intentional, but at times one wishes the central quartet were more than just party girl ciphers learning about their own limits. They spend so much time living the gangsta bimbo life that there isn't much about them that's compelling. Gomez's Faith comes closest, as she's the first to feel uncomfortable about the group's shenanigans, but it's all rather surface-oriented. 

Thankfully the film has Korine, Debie, and a driving score by Cliff Martinez and dubstep poster child Skrillex to lend the film an arty, modern mystique amid the depravity. As others have said, there are moments here that, due to the score, photography, and editing, feel like a Girls Gone Wild video as imagined by Terrence Malick (or a super horny, college-aged cinephile equivalent). The soundtrack is also quite stacked, and a sequence featuring a lesser-known Britney Spears ballad, though oddly hilarious, is easily the film's biggest triumph. From the technical side, Spring Breakers has a smooth aesthetic that helps offset the limited dialogue and somewhat slow plot (it takes far too long for the girls to finally get to their spring break locale).

The film's final stretches are also among its finest, yet they still ring hollow. There are moments when Korine seems a little too devoted to indulging in the seedy side of spring break, to the point where he saps the film of its bite. And, with the film's teeth whittled down, Korine's point really can't be more than a thin one, that is just barely propped up by the atmosphere generated by Debie's stunning lensing and the score. Korine tries to accomplish the always-tricky task of having his thematic cake and eating it too. In some ways, he gets away with it, but not without making a bit of a mess along the way, one that is sometimes a little too big to ignore. 

Grade: B/B-

Review: "Oz: The Great and Powerful"

Director: Sam Raimi
Runtime: 130 minutes

It's been nearly three quarters of a century since Dorothy landed in Oz. For decades, the classic MGM fantasy-musical has been a cornerstone of growing up. It boasts some of the most memorable characters in all of cinema and pop-culture history. And though it's been years since the 1939 film's visual effects have been thought of as state of the art, they possess a timeless charm, as evidenced by the film's enduring status. Bigger and newer aren't always better, and that's certainly the case with Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful. Though beautifully rendered, the latest cinematic venture into Oz is lacking in heart, brains, or courage, and has only fleeting moments of genuine entertainment. 

Opening in 1905 in both black and white and the old 4:3 aspect ratio, Raimi's film introduces us to Oscar (James Franco), a wily magician at a traveling circus in (where else?) Kansas. In addition to conning folks out of their money, Oscar also has a penchant for charming women out of their clothes, and it doesn't take long for that to catch up with him. While running from a jealous husband, Oscar boards a hot air balloon, which soon gets sucks up into a tornado. And, as it was in the 1939, so it is in 2013: violent storms are the means of entering the wonderful world of Oz and its widescreen aspect ratio. Yet Oscar doesn't have much time to soak up the CGI masses around him. He quickly runs into Theodora the good witch (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oscar is here to fulfill a prophecy and save Oz. 

Yet for all of the money thrown at the screen, Raimi's Oz is disappointingly lacking. The environments themselves are beautiful, but any time the film shows live action actors walking among them, they begin to feel more flat and artificial than the matte paintings of yesteryear. Thankfully, there are marvels amid the digital excess. The flying monkeys look fantastic, and are effectively menacing (at least as menacing as they can be in a PG film). But the real star is China Doll (voiced by Joey King), a beautiful digital creation who comes closest to giving the film a beating heart. 

Sadly, China Doll's live action counterparts don't fare so well. Particularly egregious is James Franco's Oscar. Part of the fun of this role, on paper, is that Oscar is a con artist who spends considerable time bluffing his way through a foreign land. It requires a certain charm and swagger that Franco never once brings to the screen. Instead, he's left straining to reach those show-off moments, and the result is a black hole of charisma. Then there's Mila Kunis, who's faced with the opposite problem: she seems engaged with the material, but has only thin writing and poor motivation to work with. Rachel Weisz has what fun she can with a boring role that's largely shoved to the background and never fleshed out. The only flesh and blood figure on screen who remotely works in Michelle Williams' Glinda. It may not be much, but the actress brings a charm and warmth to the character that helps offset Franco's problematic performance.

But, at the end of the day, the story is Oscar's, and because Franco's performance is such a misfire, the rest of the enterprise sinks with him. Raimi manages a few good jumps here and there, and the visuals are quite nice (I desperately wanted more looks at the vaguely art deco-style Emerald City), but it's all too much. Oz isn't engaging, moving, or funny enough (though Zach Braff does his best) to ever become consistently entertaining. Instead, much like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it often sinks under the weight of its super-saturated CGI vistas that are large in scale, but lack any sense of awe or wonder. A shame really, when the matte paintings would have probably been so much cheaper.

Grade: C-

[Short] Review(s): "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," "The Help," "The Devil's Double," & "30 Minutes or Less"

Rise of the Planet of the Apes dir. Rupert Wyatt: You'd think that a franchise like Planet of the Apes was long past its expiration date. Despite the original's status as something of a science fiction classic, the subsequent films seemed all-too-eager to jump down the rabbit hole into absurdity. If ever there was a series that needed to be retired from the silver screen (aside from Transformers), it was this one, right? Well, not exactly. The latest entry, a prequel/origin story, takes audiences back to where it all began, with surprisingly successful results.

Opening with a PETA approved scene that demonstrates the EVIL nature of man, we follow a captured primate who is taken to GenSys, an American drug company currently on the threshold of a cure for Alzheimer's. Here we get a rather cliched set up, involving two different men in the company. Will (James Franco) wants the cure to go through for science/humanity, while Steven (David Oyelowo), wants it to succeed for the money (guess which one gets his comeuppance by the time the film's 105 minute run time is up).

But even though there are plenty of obvious elements in the latest Apes flick, Rise does manage to create a mildly compelling story, never letting itself be overburdened by its we-know-where-this-is-going plot. The human characters may be plain, but thankfully, the film has a secret weapon: the ape Caesar, motion-captured/played by Andy Serkis of Lord of the Rings fame. The more that Rupert Wyatt's film focuses on Caesar, the stronger the story becomes. The ape's interactions may be near-wordless, but they resonate on deeper level, thanks to Serkis' excellent work and the outstanding visual effects work. In an age where so many movies are sunk by their over-reliance on VFX, Rise may be that rare film that benefits (and is saved by) the strength of its computer-captured/generated imagery.

Grade: B-


The Help dir. Tate Taylor: While this adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's best-seller may lack in terms of subtlety, it is, at its core, an effective piece of social-change cinema. Led by Emma Stone, the ensemble is filled with any number of strong performances from Viola Davis (the film's MVP), Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Sissy Spacek.

So even though it runs quite long, and resorts to quite a bit of 'telling,' the film does hit home in the right places, even though it takes longer than expected for the main plot to kick into gear. The Help may indeed be schmaltz at its core, but it never feels like it. There's no overbearing, sappy score or soundtrack, nor are there an overabundance of melodramatic scenes (it's actually laugh-out-loud funny in many places). And with such a talented ensemble to lead you through the story, smaller elements of the plot (like Stone's budding relationship with an oil rig worker played by Chris Lowell) don't seem like too much of a nuisance, even when they appear and then vanish from the rest of the film.

But perhaps its greatest strength may be that, while it's full of hopeful and uplifting moments of personal triumph, The Help never tries to overextend itself. The film's final scene, which took me by surprised when the credits started to roll, certainly holds the promise of tomorrow, but only after one character is confronted with a bitter dose of revenge courtesy of the story's antagonist. By keeping this balance in place, and by not pretending that its characters accomplished more than they did for the Civil Rights movement (it is a work of fiction, after all), The Help is able to simultaneously inform and entertain without shooting itself in the foot.

Grade: B


The Devil's Double dir. Lee Tamahori: It's not every day that an actor is given a chance to play dual roles on screen, so the opportunity has to be taken seriously (see: Nicholas Cage in Adaptation, Sam Rockwell in Moon, etc...). Now it's Dominic Cooper's (Mamma Mia!, An Education) turn to play the double game, in the form of Uday Hussein, and Latif Yahia, the man forced to become his double. But even though his efforts in the two roles (he's on screen as one or the other for almost the entire run time) are admirable, he's undermined by a script that isn't quite on the same level.

Latif's (admittedly incredible) story may be true, but director Lee Tamahori and screenwriter Michael Thomas seem more concerned with turning it into a modern day, Arabic Scarface (albeit with significantly less crazed shouting). In doing so, they've made the film consistently entertaining. The unfortunate by-product is that it renders the story a surface-only historical thriller. Cooper is certainly giving it his all as the increasingly frightening Uday, the trapped Latif, and as Latif pretending to be Uday. In many scenes the characters share the screen, and Cooper plays off of himself quite well. But despite his efforts, he can't quite overcome the shallow writing. Cooper is rarely given much to work with other than "be wary and uncertain," and "be a murdering/raping pyscho"; the roles are played well, yes, but there's absolutely no depth for Cooper to work with as an actor.

This is not to say that the film doesn't tell a compelling story. That much it accomplishes. The problem is, especially considering the story's real-life origins, that The Devil's Double never makes any attempt to go deeper with the material at hand. Thomas' script plays it safe, and keeps the story simple, never raising any larger questions outside of "what comes next for Latif?" So even though Cooper may be working his hardest, The Devil's Double winds up being something of a missed opportunity, as enjoyable as it is.

Grade: B-


30 Minutes or Less dir. Ruben Fleischer: The idea of Jesse Eisenberg reteaming with Ruben Fleischer was definitely appealing on paper. The pair first worked together on Zombieland, one of the great hidden gems of 2009. Sadly, lightning hasn't struck twice for these two. 30 Minutes or Less isn't a terrible movie, but it is vastly inferior to the duo's last collaboration, and barely even memorable.

Based loosely on real events, the film centers around Nick (Eisenberg) a slacker pizza delivery boy who gets roped into a scheme by two idiot criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson). With a bomb strapped to his chest, Nick is given nine hours to rob a bank, lest he be blown to smithereens by his captors. What follows is an appropriately crazy story, filled with car chases, stand-offs, and yes, a bank robbery. Some of the banter (between McBride and Swardson or Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari) is entertaining, and occaisionally worth a good laugh. The problem, though, is that the characters are underwritten from the start, and given the plot, never have time to develop. That Nick is something of a jackass during the first act doesn't help matters.

Fleischer certainly hasn't lost his flair for fun, at the very least. The car chase is well staged and shot, and a scene involving McBride's father creeping through his own home to find and intruder is surprisingly effective in creating some low-key tension. Michael Pena also gets a few laughs as a crazy hit man with a bizarre accent. Other characters, however, aren't so effective. A prostitute who leads McBride to Pena is a complete throwaway, while Dilshad Vansaria (as Ansari's sister) is there strictly to function as a plot device. They feel like flab, which is distracting considering the film's short run time (83 mins). So even though Fleischer's latest is pleasant enough to sit through, it's also proof that less doesn't always mean more.

Grade: C+/C

We have our Oscar hosts

The Associated Press, along with a number of other news outlets, are reporting that at long last, the 83rd Annual Academy Awards have hosts. Following in the vein of 82's Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting duo, James Franco and Anne Hathaway will be our MCs. Honestly, the choice perplexes me a little. Baldwin and Martin (the latter especially) are proven comedic talents, with Martin being a former host. And Hugh Jackman, host of the 81st ceremony, made sense because of his status as a triple threat: acting, singing, and dancing (and those previous gigs hosting the Tony's couldn't have hurt). Out of the two, Hathaway certainly makes more sense; she showed off some serious singing/performing skills in Jackman's opening number. But Franco? Um...where exactly did that come from? I'm not saying that he's a bad choice, far from it. It's just a question of why? Why would you pick a host who is currently a front-runner for one of your acting prizes? Granted, Hugh Jackman managed to pick up a Tony when he was host, but he's an exception. Somehow, Hathaway and Franco seems like a much bigger gamble than Martin and Baldwin. On the flip side, it could pay off, and the two could have great chemistry. And, now that I think about it, this certainly helps the Academy seem more friendly towards younger movie-goers, which AMPAS has been trying to accomplish for years now.

Trailer Triple Threat: "Green Lantern," "Your Highness," and "Red Riding Hood"

As is common practice, Tuesday brought us the latest batch of major trailers, and this week offered up three very interesting projects, two of which I was aware of, and the third of which has come completely out of nowhere.

First is the trailer for Martin Campbell's The Green Lantern (2011). After the slightly junky looking Entertainment Tonight clip, this is definitely more satisfying. Granted, the visual effects still have a ways to go, but that's expected (plenty of effects were incomplete when the first Watchmen trailer debuted). I can see Reynolds as the character well enough. Unfortunately, Blake Lively is distracting, and I just can't buy her as a hot-shot pilot. Granted, I don't have an immediate suggestion regarding who should have been cast as the romantic foil, but I can't help but be worried that Lively will be to this film what Denise Richards was to The World is Not Enough. I can't help but get a slight Fantastic 4 vibe from certain scenes as well, and that's not a good thing. Still, it does look better than the other green film, The Green Hornet, and I have a solid amount of faith in Campbell, who directed Daniel Craig's excellent first outing as 007, Casino Royale.

Next comes David Gordon Green's Your Highness, starring James Franco, Natalie Portman, Danny McBride, and Zooey Deschanel. You don't see many live-action-period-action-comedies, and even though I wasn't a big fan of Pineapple Express, I can't deny that this rather long trailer did make me laugh. I'm not on the Danny McBride bandwagon, but even he managed to make me laugh, and it looks like he and Franco have good comedic chemistry.

Finally we come to Catherine Hardwicke's Red Riding Hood. As much as I like the idea, the cast, and some of the visuals, this looks extremely iffy to me. There's one too many shades of Twilight in the story, especially with that whole "I'm no good for you" "I don't care!" bit with Seyfried and whoever the blandly attractive guy was. Still, Seyfried does really rock the red hood and cape, though I have to wonder if the sheer length of that thing is going to give her any trouble when she has to run from the wolf...

"127 Hours" - REVIEW

If you saw the most recent episode of NBC's Community, you probably remember the character Abed repeatedly using the term "bottle episode." The term, which refers to narrative structures taking place entirely in a single location, is a staple of TV, but on film it can be seen as unflattering. Film is expected to be bigger and encompass more, hence why we rarely see bottle films. In 2010, however, we got two: the Ryan Reynolds fictional thriller Buried, and now Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, which tells the true story of Aron Ralston, who found himself trapped between two walls of rock after a large rock fell on his arm.

The story, adapted from Ralston's book about his experience by Boyle and Slumdog Millionaire scribe Simon Beaufoy, was always going to be a challenge to tell, and yet Boyle's hyperactive visual style makes a surprisingly good device to depict Ralston's story. The film, which runs 90 minutes, sets up Aron as a careless, albeit knowledgeable, adventurer, and Boyle's use of triple split-screen lends an energy to the photography, even in scenes as mundane as Ralston packing his bag as he leaves to hike. Quite efficiently, the film takes us through Aron biking and hiking, as well as an encounter with two young women (Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara), before bringing us to that pivotal moment when Ralston slips and becomes trapped.

Of course, this could have been the point where the movie ground to a halt and become tedious. Thankfully, Boyle's style comes through in surprising ways, making Ralston's dreams, memories, fantasies, and hallucinations come vividly to life. These moments help expand the film, and keep the good hour or so spent with Ralston trapped from lagging, and they provide little glimpses into Ralston's past. There's also the brilliant use of music and sound. AR Rahman's thumping, non-orchestral score works well with the images of the barren desert and massive canyons and rock formations. More impressive is the sound design. In the pivotal scene, in which Ralston performs amputation on his arm, the use of a fuzzy rock chord in moments of sharp pain, combined with images of Ralston screaming, magnifies the intensity to brilliant and harrowing effect.

Of course, helping this all along is the film's star, Mr. Franco. As the film's only real character, it all comes down to Franco's ability to make Ralston worth caring about, and he does it. Though the first third or so of the trapped portion involves little dialogue, Franco manages to communicate the character's frustration and fear with skill. And when his character becomes more convinced of his own doom, the performance turns magnificent, particularly in a scene in which Aron pretends that he is on a talk show, and does the voice of every "character." It's a remarkable (almost) one-man show that owes a lot to Franco's portrayal. And it no doubt helps that Ralston isn't the sort of person who needs to be mimicked; Franco is able to play the character through emotion alone, and without any sort of mimicry or vocal/facial idiosyncrasies. Ralston could have been a fictional creation, and it wouldn't have made the film or performance any less striking.

That's not to say that the film is perfect, however. While Boyle's style is undeniably attention-grabbing and lively, at times it takes us too far outside the realm of the canyon, reducing the feeling of claustrophobia. And Boyle and Beaufoy's screenplay, even with its flashbacks and hallucinations, doesn't quite fill in pre-accident Ralston's character enough. Ralston's character arc feels diminished, because we don't have enough to come to a conclusion about his life before the accident, and how the accident is "changing him." Even the moment when Ralston first falls feels somewhat devoid of horror because there's little we know or feel about Ralston.

But even with the issues with style and screenplay, there's no denying that Boyle's latest is a strong effort, and a testament to the fact that bottle stories are worthy of being told on the big screen. And that's especially true when they contain the strength of acting as shown by Franco, and the general level of craftsmanship by Boyle and his crew.

Grade: B/B+

New trailer for "127 Hours"

Now that is what should have been released to begin with. The greater focus on Franco's alone moments, which will take up a considerable portion of the story, are very reassuring, and it's easy to see why some have pegged Franco as the leading Best Actor contender (even over Firth). I'm still iffy on whether Danny Boyle's style will enhance the trapped moments or make them unbearable, but of course I'll simply have to wait until November to see for myself.

Awards Season notables: Kings, co-leads, and James Franco [updated]

A significant amount of info has recently been released regarding the oh-god-it's-almost-time awards season mania about to descend upon us. First up, and somewhat late on my part, is news of The King's Speech's triumph in Toronto. Tom Hooper's film about the stuttering King George VI took the People's Choice Award at the now-concluded film festival. In recent years, winners of this award have gone on to rather strong success, including a little film called Slumdog Millionaire. And speaking of that film, Danny Boyle's current leading man James Franco led the way in the festival's critics poll over stiff competition from the likes of 'King's's Colin Firth. As of now, the Best Actor race really is down to these exceptionally well-received performances. Not to worry for The King's Speech; it also took home the award for Best Supporting Actor for leading Oscar contender (for now) Geoffrey Rush.

Also notable in the results from TIFF's poll is the placement of Kelly Reichardt's Meek's Cutoff, starring Michelle Williams (who has her own Oscar hopeful in the form of Blue Valentine) as the best liked narrative feature, beating out tough competition like Black Swan. Another Year, and Palme D'Or winner Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. Williams landed in 5th in the Lead Performance poll for Meek's Cutoff, right above Rabbit Hole's Nicole Kidman, who tied for sixth. Surprisingly high-ranked is Matt Reeves Let Me In, the American remake/re-adaptation of 2008's critically acclaimed Let the Right One In.

Meanwhile, in campaign news, Best Actress just became a little more crowded. People have been speculating for a while as to which one of the The Kids Are All Right ladies would be relegated to supporting. As it turns out, neither will be. The decision from Focus Features is that both Julianne Moore and Annette Bening will be campaigned as lead. Should they both score nominations in late January, they'll be only the sixth pair to do so, and the first since the 1991 Oscar race:

Thelma and Louise (1991): Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon

Terms of Endearment (1983): Shirley Maclaine (winner) and Debra Winger
The Turning Point (1977): Anne Bancroft and Shirley Maclaine
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959): Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor
All About Eve (1950): Anne Baxter and Bette Davis

Trailer for Danny Boyle's "127 Hours"

Why hello there, all but assured Best Cinematography nomination.